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

Contrails are regularly formed, and cause global climate change/destruction of earth.

Chemtrails is another term for contrails, coined by the establishment, to displace any concerns about global climate change and the destruction of earth.

originally posted by: GodEmperor
Contrails are regularly formed, and cause global climate change/destruction of earth.

Evidence?

Chemtrails is another term for contrails, coined by the establishment, to displace any concerns about global climate change and the destruction of earth.

Can you explain what you mean by this please?

a reply to: Petros312

If I may, you went wrong at the first turn.

Claim A: It has been known for 43 years that jet exhaust at altitudes of 30, 000 and 40, 000 feet can form expanding cirrus clouds.
Evidence: Popular Science article, May 1969
Conclusions: The contrails we see today that persist and spread are nothing new

Except that wasn't the conclusion at all, as clearly stated in the OP.

The conclusion wasn't about the trails we see today, it was simply that the claim, which is central to chemtrail belief and repeated on all chemtrail websites, that persistant spreading contrails were never seen before the 1990's and this leads them to conclude that persistant trails are chemtrails, is wrong.

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: Petros312

If I may, you went wrong at the first turn.

Claim A: It has been known for 43 years that jet exhaust at altitudes of 30, 000 and 40, 000 feet can form expanding cirrus clouds.
Evidence: Popular Science article, May 1969
Conclusions: The contrails we see today that persist and spread are nothing new

The conclusion wasn't about the trails we see today, it was simply that the claim, which is central to chemtrail belief and repeated on all chemtrail websites, that persistant spreading contrails were never seen before the 1990's and this leads them to conclude that persistant trails are chemtrails, is wrong.

Of course now some are changing the facts to fit the story and are claiming that "it" has been going on for much longer.

a reply to: Petros312

You used all those words to agree with the OP? Fantastic.
I agree too. Other than frequency, contrails haven't changed in a long time.

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: Petros312
If I may, you went wrong at the first turn.

Claim A: It has been known for 43 years that jet exhaust at altitudes of 30, 000 and 40, 000 feet can form expanding cirrus clouds.
Evidence: Popular Science article, May 1969
Conclusions: The contrails we see today that persist and spread are nothing new

Except that wasn't the conclusion at all, as clearly stated in the OP.

The conclusion wasn't about the trails we see today...

Holy smoke screens!

First post of the topic:

originally posted by: Uncinus
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...

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?

My analysis of a non sequitur argument:

Claim A: It has been known for 43 years that jet exhaust at altitudes of 30, 000 and 40, 000 feet can form expanding cirrus clouds.
Evidence: Popular Science article, May 1969
Conclusions: The contrails we see today that persist and spread are nothing new

It couldn't be more obvious, and I explained the analysis HERE. If there is additional information presented in the first post, it doesn't negate the non sequitur.

I completely overlooked that the Popular Science article from 1969 presented in the first post of this thread says the following:

It is almost certain that on many occasions--30 to 40 days a year, say--the cause of cirrus cloud cover is contrails.

This 30 -40 day range is being presented with no source, and it's worded as speculation. My own observations tell me 43 years after 1969 there are many more days in a one year period that persistent contrails turn into cirrus clouds. There are more airplanes in the sky since 1969 with little knowledge of not only geoengineering activity but also the environmental consequences for it. For example, numbers from Phoenix Sky Harbor:

1969 Total Traffic Movements: 347,864

2004 Total Traffic Movements: 546,763

*This pertains to the portion of chemtrail conspiracy theory that's about suspected environmental degradation. If you have no clue what I'm talking about, see this video starting 27:52.



The information from the 1969 Popular Science magazine presented as "authoritative" actually contains information that both does and does not pertain to what we see in the sky today 43 years after 1969. There is no "hoax" about the sheer number of persistent contrails having multiplied.

a reply to: Petros312

wow, you must be new here.

The main crux of the chemtrail theory states that contrails don't last longer than a few minutes, and chemtrails are what spreads out into cirrus. Also that chemtrails are a relatively new thing. (1990 or so) Since the skies never looked like this was I was __ years old.

This is why we have people showing pictures of clouds and contrails claiming them to be something else.

If you doubt that, please explain why.

Now, onto the OP. It was shown that indeed contrails did exist, and persist in 1969 and even before.

The thread was not meant to debunk all of the chemtrail theory, but only that one part of it. (which if you aren't one of the lame goal post movers, you realize is the majority of the chemtrail theory)

Now, do you feel as if the thread debunked the theory that chemtrails didn't exist/spread into cirrus before 1990?

originally posted by: Petros312

The information from the 1969 Popular Science magazine presented as "authoritative" actually contains information that both does and does not pertain to what we see in the sky today 43 years after 1969. There is no "hoax" about the sheer number of persistent contrails having multiplied.

You are correct. Can you figure out why? (hint, it has to do with the number of planes that fly each day)

originally posted by: network dude
You are correct. Can you figure out why? (hint, it has to do with the number of planes that fly each day)

Why do you not see I clearly stated that, along with some data for reference? Why do you and others keep misrepresenting what I actually post? Are you intentionally trying to confuse readers?

Further evidence regarding environmental health hazards associated with increased jet exhaust in the sky:
Plane Exhaust Kills More People Than Plane Crashes

originally posted by: Petros312
Why do you not see I clearly stated that, along with some data for reference? Why do you and others keep misrepresenting what I actually post? Are you intentionally trying to confuse readers?

Please read the above statement by you. Digest it. Ponder it. Now, did you just accuse me of misrepresenting you by saying the same thing you said? really?

Further evidence regarding environmental health hazards associated with increased jet exhaust in the sky:
Plane Exhaust Kills More People Than Plane Crashes

So your argument has nothing to do with chemtrails and focuses on pollution? Well, why didn't you say so. And why the hell are you posting that movie about chemtrails here? It doesn't even mention airplane pollution. Do you even know what you mean?

originally posted by: Petros312

Further evidence regarding environmental health hazards associated with increased jet exhaust in the sky:
Plane Exhaust Kills More People Than Plane Crashes

making a point to mention the pollution made by engines that combust hydrocarbons in a thread about the puffy white trails left by planes sort of confuses the issue of pollution.

The puffy white trails left by planes really doesn't have that much to do with the actual hydrocarbon-created pollution in the air. Airplanes (and cars) are producing pollution whether or not the exhaust is visible. The common "chemtrail" theory is that those puffy white trails are not just a bi-product of jets at high altitude, but rather an intentionally and nefariously sprayed cloud of chemicals and poisons whose express purpose is to affect the population.

I admit that planes produce exhaust pollution. However, the puffy white trails are NOT a unique sign of that pollution, because the pollution is virtually invisible. The puffy white part of those trails is simply the water in the atmosphere and in the jet exhaust reacting to cold and moist conditions at altitude.

We can talk about air pollution from planes (and from cars and from factories), but adding the puffy white trails left by planes to the discussion just confuses things.

originally posted by: network dude
Now, did you just accuse me of misrepresenting you by saying the same thing you said? really?

I can see it now. You are indeed deliberately trying to confuse readers.

For example, I posted this:

originally posted by: Petros312
This 30 -40 day range is being presented with no source, and it's worded as speculation. My own observations tell me 43 years after 1969 there are many more days in a one year period that persistent contrails turn into cirrus clouds. There are more airplanes in the sky since 1969 with little knowledge of not only geoengineering activity but also the environmental consequences for it. For example, numbers from Phoenix Sky Harbor:

1969 Total Traffic Movements: 347,864

2004 Total Traffic Movements: 546,763

*This pertains to the portion of chemtrail conspiracy theory that's about suspected environmental degradation. If you have no clue what I'm talking about, see this video starting 27:52.

You then quoted ONLY the last thing I posted:

originally posted by: Petros312
The information from the 1969 Popular Science magazine presented as "authoritative" actually contains information that both does and does not pertain to what we see in the sky today 43 years after 1969. There is no "hoax" about the sheer number of persistent contrails having multiplied.

and replied pretending that I said nothing about an awareness of increased air traffic including data as quoted above:

originally posted by: network dude
You are correct. Can you figure out why? (hint, it has to do with the number of planes that fly each day)

That is clearly misrepresenting what I posted.

originally posted by: network dude
So your argument has nothing to do with chemtrails and focuses on pollution? Well, why didn't you say so.

YOU and your fellow "debunkers" who are quick to point the debunking finger at anyone who in the slightest sounds like a chemtrail conspiracy theorist are the ones who labelled me as such. I said that I did believe that experiments of some kind took place in Arizona in 2011, based on what appears in the Shade video. I said repeatedly that I do not believe there is a global conspiracy to depopulate the world. I said that I believe proponents of geoengineering will carry out experiments without the public's consent. I could care less what anybody wants to label me as for these beliefs.

originally posted by: network dude
And why the hell are you posting that movie about chemtrails here? It doesn't even mention airplane pollution. Do you even know what you mean?

Again, misrepresenting what I posted.

I clearly said:

originally posted by: Petros312
This 30 -40 day range is being presented with no source, and it's worded as speculation. My own observations tell me 43 years after 1969 there are many more days in a one year period that persistent contrails turn into cirrus clouds. There are more airplanes in the sky since 1969 with little knowledge of not only geoengineering activity but also the environmental consequences for it. For example, numbers from Phoenix Sky Harbor:

1969 Total Traffic Movements: 347,864

2004 Total Traffic Movements: 546,763

*This pertains to the portion of chemtrail conspiracy theory that's about suspected environmental degradation. If you have no clue what I'm talking about, see this video starting 27:52.

a reply to: Petros312

Lets regroup.
The thread title is: "A Challenge to Chemtrail Believers - Explain this 1969 Issue of Popular Science:"

A breakdown if why this thread exists (if you have trouble comprehending the OP) is here:

The main crux of the chemtrail theory states that contrails don't last longer than a few minutes, and chemtrails are what spreads out into cirrus. Also that chemtrails are a relatively new thing. (1990 or so) Since the skies never looked like this was I was __ years old.

This is why we have people showing pictures of clouds and contrails claiming them to be something else.

If you doubt that, please explain why.

Now, onto the OP. It was shown that indeed contrails did exist, and persist in 1969 and even before.

The thread was not meant to debunk all of the chemtrail theory, but only that one part of it. (which if you aren't one of the lame goal post movers, you realize is the majority of the chemtrail theory)

Now, do you feel as if the thread debunked the theory that chemtrails didn't exist/spread into cirrus before 1990?

At the risk of asking you to post on topic discussions, please explain why you either agree or disagree with the OP.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Petros312
Lets regroup.
At the risk of asking you to post on topic discussions, please explain why you either agree or disagree with the OP.

Yes, let's regroup:

1. You continue to ignore how your posts distract readers while misrepresenting what I actually posted.

2. You join in with others to condemn and "debunk" me as some kind of chemtrail conspiracy theorist.

3. You shift the focus of the argument to things like: So you agree with the OP? --when I clearly stated there's a non sequitur argument in the OP.

4. You authoritatively state what the crux of chemtrail conspiracy theory supposedly is (with no source) when I have firm evidence that even people who believe geoengineering experiments are taking place are being branded "chemtrail conspiracy theorists."

5. Plus, just today, I find that the owner of ATS himself is a firm opponent of all chemtrail conspiracy theory.

Now I truly understand why the "debunkers" of anything related to chemtrail conspiracy theory in any shape or form will always have the upper hand. Meanwhile, this rule supposedly governing decorum for the subforum is apparently rubbish:

As with many of the topics we discuss on ATS, Geo-Engineering and Chemtrails are controversial and prone to challenge. While skepticism and constructive criticism are always welcome, they are all too often supplanted by insults and cynicism, which disrupt discussion and discourage healthy debate.

A core principle of ATS is providing our members a place where they can discuss "alternative" topics without fear of intimidation, ridicule or retaliation. Our forums intentionally encourage the exploration of subjects that are often ignored or shouted down in other venues, because that's the only way ignorance of them can ever be denied.

Thus it is of utmost importance that all ATSers understand and respect the rights of other members to express their opinions in an atmosphere of mutual respect and tolerance for different points of view.

source: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Too bad.

a reply to: Petros312

I think you type a lot of words that you don't actually understand, then complain when people can't tell what you mean. The only one confusing people is you. Stick to words you know, then people can follow your meaning and you won't get in a pickle like you have in this thread.


Example; Can you say why you think the site owner is an exponent of chemtrail theory? Everything I ve read seems to suggest he doesn't believe in them.

Is this another example of you using the wrong word, but thinking its other people misrepresenting you?

a reply to: Petros312

While I am honored that you want to discuss me, I am not the topic.

Now in regards to the chemtrail debate here, I really do get why you don't like it. No chemtrail pushers do. On this site, those who are opposed to silliness and ignoring proven science are allowed to share their opinions as well as those who wish to believe in unicorns and chemtrails. If you wish to discuss this where only your point of view is heard I suggest either a mirror, or perhaps one of the many chemtrail sites.

Instead of focusing on the poster, why don't you try focusing on the information provided? Like.......the post you just responded to.

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: Petros312
I think you type a lot of words that you don't actually understand, then complain when people can't tell what you mean.

And I'm going to discuss a controversial topic with people who are openly abusing me, insidious but no doubt still abuse, characterizing me as unintelligently using "a lot of words" and words I don't understand?

I've wasted enough of my time.

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: Petros312
I think you type a lot of words that you don't actually understand, then complain when people can't tell what you mean.

And I'm going to discuss a controversial topic with people who are openly abusing me, characterizing me as unintelligently using "a lot of words" and words I don't understand?

I've wasted enough of my time.

1) people don't come here to discuss controversial topics, they come here to reinforce their own world views.

2) 1969 was the height of modern conditioning. If the other posters can't recognize that, then screw em.

3) It's between pages 38-40 of a thread when pretty much everyone has wasted enough of their time in it.

For the record, I agree with you on most if not all accounts

a reply to: Petros312

characterizing me as unintelligently using "a lot of words"

If you're referring to my comment then I'm sorry you misunderstood my clear intent, but you are mischaracterizing my characterization of your verbosity. I never implied "unintelligently".

As for the part about using words you don't understand, I suppose it's rational to conclude you intentionally used the wrong term, if that helps.