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

Originally posted by RoScoLaz
this video speaks for itself;

Nice contrails. Very cool backbeat. What song is that from? "When the ChemTrail Theory Breaks"?

reply to post by yorkshirelad

And I am old enough to remember that they did not disapper quickly. Low flying planes yes. But the high flying planes had contrails that spread out and out and out and out making a thin white cloud that lasted for hours.

I am from the 80's and I definately remember the contrails not lingering. In fact I noticed that they linger nowadays in the past 5 years.

And it seems that even the hardcore skeptics agree that something has changed, so I don't know how your statement is accurate.

This has nothing to do with anything. Once again, we have an aspirant debunker, who would not know genuine logic if it hit him in the face.

Quoting a single article by a single academic, has absolutely no relevance whatsoever, to individuals who have directly seen chemtrails themselves.

This highlights, again, the primary difference between debunkers and the genuinely intelligent. Those who maintain a truly scientific attitude towards such things, are not going to immediately discount the possible experience of anyone, and especially not their own.

A debunker, on the other hand, is someone who has been brainwashed into believing that thought in general terms, is to be left up to a closed circle of external "authorities," and that any human being who is not one of said "authorities," has no legitimate right to have an opinion about anything, or to claim that they have had an experience which might contradict the opinions of said, "authorities," to the point of completely denying the evidence of their own senses, if necessary.

I see how this works now.

Debunker: "look at these thousands of scientific sources that explain why contrails are like clouds!"

Chemmie: " Your stupid, your a disinfo agent! I know what I see! i don't need your science, I have my chicken bones I can throw against the wall to find my truth!"

Clearly the chemmies have it right. Silly science.

Originally posted by chadderson
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.

And you could be right or you could be wrong.

2nd

I read that by adding sulfur back to jet fuel it could possibly effectively reduce greenhouse gasses. Seems to me that it would also work on regular diesel. Are we going the wrong way just to make the emissions smell better?

Originally posted by SpittinTruth

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by chadderson
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.

Yes. The dissipation (or not) depends on the weather. That's why it only does it on some days of the year. That's also why it only does it at certain altitudes, and even just certain regions of the sky, as humidity varies.

But the important point here is that the chemtrail promoters are ignoring this, and essentially lying about it.

I'm just gonna

My eyes don't lie. But, your books are FULL OF THEM!

Now, i'm gonna ask....how come people stopped talking about this; for the past 2 months? All of a sudden, you're gonna chime in??? Pah-lease!

If you say your eyes dont lie, does this mean you are seeing chemtrails with your own eyes?

If so Are you also claiming to be non-human or some type of robot with chemical analysis abilities?

Or have you actually physically analyzed these trails in the sky and found something nefarious?

Originally posted by WiseThinker
I still fear this topic has been deliberately diluted and twisted to what it is today.

Think about it this way, if there was a few planes, flying around spraying chemicals, how better to hide it, than start spreading ridiculousness rumors and control the direction of the "truth" movement before its created.

Disinfo is not a new tool, and there is no better way to hide something in plain sight , which it is, if there is any merit to it, because the movement that is supposed to uncover it, us bugged down with BS info and a idiotic approach to the issue.


It is infantile to believe that the atmosphere has not been weaponized.
Multiple military openly state that they use Chemtrails on military craft to hide them from radar.
The British experimented with cloud seeding as early as 1920
In the US and other countries, you can now hire companies for could seeding.
For military applications, than changing properties, for stealth, detection, deflection and other applications chemicals are used as stated earlier, so wonder what black budget projects are involved with chemicals in the atmosphere.
If they are indeed using HAARP technology on the public, than it would only be natural to seed the sky, to make it more responsive to the frequencies (remember IF they are )


So denying chem trails is as stupid as denying long lasting contrails, Chem trails are a FACT and have been for a while, the conversation as said, has somehow been twisted, to stupid BS babble about nothing relevant.

Sorry for rant, but this thread is really making me angry, we are supposed to deny ignorance and search for truth, but all i see is one faction bashing a less knowing faction of the same movement, for gods sake, teach them, enlighten them, don't look down on them or think you are better because you know. This is why there will be no revolution, people would rather rage and point out each other flaws, than helping the fellow man and enriching him where he is lacking, who knows, he may know something you don't.

Namaste

You do know here on earth Facts are verifiable.

2nd

reply to post by InhaleExhale


The science of weather control as pertaining to cloud formation and dispersal is well known. Chemtrails to control the atmosphere to reflect heat is what is controversial. Weather modification of clouds is widely accepted by governments. Monitoring the side effects of their actions and overall complications to their use of this on a large scale is the problem. If you make it rain in one place it doesn't rain in another place where it would have rained. This causes major problems sometimes and other times clears up problems to effectively help both areas.

reply to post by petrus4

This has nothing to do with anything. Once again, we have an aspirant debunker, who would not know genuine logic if it hit him in the face.

I shall return the ad hom. This post demonstrates how believer have their eyes firmly shut.

Quoting a single article by a single academic, has absolutely no relevance whatsoever, to individuals who have directly seen chemtrails themselves.

There are thousands of papers by people qualified and experienced in the relevant fields explaining the nature of contrails. The chemtrail believers stop their investigation once they have jumped to a conclusion and refuse to do any further research, save among sources that confirm their bias.

This highlights, again, the primary difference between debunkers and the genuinely intelligent. Those who maintain a truly scientific attitude towards such things, are not going to immediately discount the possible experience of anyone, and especially not their own

Believers confuse an explanation of their experience that does bot conform to their own conclusion as a personal attack on their experience and, hence, themselves. No-one has ever said that you have not seen white lines in the sky, or that these sometimes form cirrus layers.

A debunker, on the other hand, is someone who has been brainwashed into believing that thought in general terms, is to be left up to a closed circle of external "authorities," and that any human being who is not one of said "authorities," has no legitimate right to have an opinion about anything, or to claim that they have had an experience which might contradict the opinions of said, "authorities," to the point of completely denying the evidence of their own senses, if necessary.

The opposite is the case. Those of us who are skeptical of the "Chemtrail Conspiracy" have done our own observations and experiments, either professionally or as amateurs. I am so enthusiastic about science, that I served as my college radio station's meteorologist, making my forecasts based on meteorological data I gathered both from press services and my own equipment. Chemmies, on the other hand, make no systematic observations or measurements. They rely entirely on their own imagination, filling it in with anecdotes culled from other believers. They eventually discard their own senses for pure fantasy and group identification.

Originally posted by SpittinTruth

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by SpittinTruth
Enough with your "Popular Science" article crap! You act like that's the BIBLE. The same people that work for Rolling Stone, work for Popular Science. Why you people take these magazines like they're gospel, is beyond me????

Well, do you think the article is true or false? If it's false then why do you think that?

Why do i think it's "false". Uh, maybe because it's also a well known fact...that the top scientists in the world...work for TPTB. Therefore, do you think TPTB are gonna let those scientists tell us the "truth"????

If you're using a source, TPTB use to manipulate people, as your example....well....shame on you!

Again, believe what you want to believe! It's what TPTB want you to believe anyway.

Please, pretty please tell us who these scientists are and who are TPTB?

Still, after 8 pages of this thread, not one chemtrail believer has been able to refute the Pop Mech. article.
There have been some guesses, and a lot of unsubstantiated accusation based on emotions.

How about someone really give it a try.

reply to post by Uncinus
Good thread OP.

One thing (besides observation and science) that tells me there is no "chemtrail" conspiracy, is easily earlier films that show prop driven planes producing the exact same type of trails. One that stands out (as it shows instances of the following: broken trails, trails at varying heights [planes at a higher altitude producing a trail while planes at a lower altitude do not] and persistency of the trails), is "The Memphis Belle: A Story of a Flying Fortress". A film, mind you, that was produced from stock footage of the flying fortresses as they flew their missions in 1944 during WWII.



Original film, for anyone interested, can be found here:

"The Memphis Belle: A Story of a Flying Fortress"

-saige-

reply to post by Uncinus

chem trails are necessary today because our sun is getting hotter and brighter. So, by reflecting some of the sun's light back out into space, the temperature of the mid-Atlantic States and The Northeast part of USA will stay normal- avoiding the catastrophic extreme drought and heat of the Midwest and Texas. We simply do not have the resources to cause continental-size chemtrail coverings to save farmlands and forests. Only enough to protect important cities like New York City and Washington, DC. Some of the chemtrails contain chemicals and elements like Barium and Byrillium to shield cities from increasing barrages of Gamma Rays, X-rays and EMP.

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
reply to post by yorkshirelad

 

And I am old enough to remember that they did not disapper quickly. Low flying planes yes. But the high flying planes had contrails that spread out and out and out and out making a thin white cloud that lasted for hours.

I am from the 80's and I definately remember the contrails not lingering. In fact I noticed that they linger nowadays in the past 5 years.

And it seems that even the hardcore skeptics agree that something has changed, so I don't know how your statement is accurate.

edit on 19-7-2012 by TraitorKiller because: (no reason given)

Didn't you watch the video posted on page ONE where it shows video footage of persistent contrails as far back as 1945?? Or did you just conveniently miss that part out?

OK. I admit it, I give, I give. You are correct, you can prove ONE part of a chemtrail believers arguments is false in that contrails actually do hang around and don't necessarily dissipate. Great, thanx.
Now if you could come up with something better, like say evidence that the government is spraying something but it is a harmless air freshener, then that would be sweet. OR, exact procedures from airline industries explaining the reason for one plane to repeatedly spray tic-tac-toe boards in the skies above - which I have seen several times here in INDIANA - for no apparent reason at all. Do you got something like that????
No?

Then otherwise, YOU HAVENT REALLY DISPROVED THE CHEMTRAIL THEORY THEN EITHER, now have you? Merely one bullet point of their argument for it.

Good job. I give you capital KUDO"S for that!!
Now come back and see us when you get something along the lines of what I mentioned above. mmmmkay?

reply to post by weknowall


Could we not also ask the same of you? Can you provide PROOF (that's not a YouTube vid of someone pointing and going "LOOK! Chemtrails!" but maybe peer reviewed analysis of these 'chemtrails' a video or photos of chems being loaded onto a plane, photos or video CLEARLY showing spraying equipment... Something like that would do for starters) that they are spraying ANYTHING AT ALL?

I'd like to see that... Then maybe we can talk about whether the spraying (that you've PROVED remember) is air freshener or not.....

Originally posted by yorkshirelad

Originally posted by WiseThinker

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

edit on 18/7/12 by WiseThinker because: (no reason given)

And what maniac working in the military or these private companies is going to spary chemicals which will also affect themselves and their families.

Sorry but unless you can show me where all the chemtrail perpetrators are living (an air filtered bunker) where they are growing the crops to fed themselves (air filtered greenhouses) then this is ILLOGICAL NONSENSE.

You have no clue how the military operates do you?
The military is not a democracy, its a fascist dictatorship with strict hierarchical structure. Therefore, if you get an order, and you disobey it, there will be disciplinary action taken.

You live in a fairy tale where military personnel can opt out of missions -.-.

Also most important and/or secret projects are split into as many groups as possible, so that no one working on it, will know what the full product/project is or how it will be used.

Therefore, if this is indeed going on, then it is most likely, military pilots, being told to fly this plane, over this route, and no more information.

Please think before you post....

Namaste

reply to post by Milkflavour


I never said i proved anything! lol Stop assuming or jumping to conclusions.
I stated it is a chemtrail believers THEORY. I believe something is going on because of what I see. No I don't have any proof. No, I have actually never argued that contrails dissappear and chemtrails don't. But I gave the OP his credit for showing a scientific journal stating that contrails don't dissipate as SOME chemtrail theorists believe. Another thing, thats why it's called a conspiracy theory,, because there is no proof yet. If there was proof, then we wouldn't be debating it now would we? We would be watching the trials on TV of the criminals that are perpetrating this tragedy on the american people.

Originally posted by weknowall
OK. I admit it, I give, I give. You are correct, you can prove ONE part of a chemtrail believers arguments is false in that contrails actually do hang around and don't necessarily dissipate. Great, thanx.
Now if you could come up with something better, like say evidence that the government is spraying something but it is a harmless air freshener, then that would be sweet. OR, exact procedures from airline industries explaining the reason for one plane to repeatedly spray tic-tac-toe boards in the skies above - which I have seen several times here in INDIANA - for no apparent reason at all. Do you got something like that????
No?

Then otherwise, YOU HAVENT REALLY DISPROVED THE CHEMTRAIL THEORY THEN EITHER, now have you? Merely one bullet point of their argument for it.

Good job. I give you capital KUDO"S for that!!
Now come back and see us when you get something along the lines of what I mentioned above. mmmmkay?

edit on 19-7-2012 by weknowall because: none

You want to know why airlines use a hub and spoke system?

The purpose of the hub-and-spoke system is to save airlines money and give passengers better routes to destinations. Airplanes are an airline's most valuable commodity, and every flight has certain set costs. Each seat on the plane represents a portion of the total flight cost. For each seat that is filled by a passenger, an airline lowers its break-even price, which is the seat price at which an airline stops losing money and begins to show a profit on the flight.

Source

And then you can view the airline route maps as they are publicly available:

Airline Route Maps

This should answer your checkerboard question.

Do you know the sheer number of flights (on average) there are in the US per day?

On any given day, more than 87,000 flights are in the skies in the United States. Only one-third are commercial carriers, like American, United or Southwest. On an average day, air traffic controllers handle 28,537 commercial flights (major and regional airlines), 27,178 general aviation flights (private planes), 24,548 air taxi flights (planes for hire), 5,260 military flights and 2,148 air cargo flights (Federal Express, UPS, etc.). At any given moment, roughly 5,000 planes are in the skies above the United States. In one year, controllers handle an average of 64 million takeoffs and landings.

For every one flight you see listed on an airport monitor, two you don't see show up on air traffic controllers' screens. It would take approximately 7,300 airport terminal monitors to show all the flights controllers handle in a single day and approximately 460 monitors to show the number of flights being handled at any one time.

Source

-saige-