For Those Who Believe In Chemtrails You Need To Look At This.

reply to post by SolarIce

I never said I believe in chemtrails..I just think its funny you have armchair debunkers who are on a CONSPIRACY site.....

And yet you are on the same site trying to help push the hoax of chemtrails by denying the truth, amazing isn't it?

reply to post by alldaylong


Strange Days Strange Skies

Loads and Loads of Proof!!!!!!


imageevent.com...

reply to post by ladyarwen

Loads and Loads of Proof!!!!!!

Loads and loads of proof of what, misidentified contrails?

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by ladyarwen

 

Loads and Loads of Proof!!!!!!

Loads and loads of proof of what, misidentified contrails?

You must have missed all the lab reports and such about the chemicals. Go back and actually read this time.

THE IDAHO OBSERVER According to a report published 8/28/06 in The Idaho Observer recent lab reports found the following in samples of chemtrail fall-out: bacteria including anthrax and pneumonia, 9 chemicals including acetylcholine chloride, 26 heavy metals including arsenic, lead, barium, mercury and uranium, 4 molds and fungi, 7 viruses, 2 cancers, 2 vaccines and 2 sedatives.

reply to post by SGTSECRET

You must have missed all the lab reports and such about the chemicals. Go back and actually read this time.

All I need to see is this...

." Lightwatcher.com "Biologic components have been reported in airborne samples that include: modified molds, desiccated red blood cells and exotic strains of bacteria" Additionally, award winning investigative reporter, Will Thomas, has reported findings of over 300 types of virally mutated fungi in the chemtrail fall out.

You may want to do a bit of reading yourself...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And how about a working link to this lab results from the Idaho Free Press.

Click the link and the page cannot be found,I wonder why that is?

Originally posted by SolarIce
reply to post by network dude

 

I assume you read the pdf file linked in the first thread? as well as the article?

I think ill give it a read through and post info when im done, instead of saying "ITS ALL LIES!!"

Sorry, I was trying out a new debunking method that user had taught me. Instead of using facts or links, all you have to do is claim a website is wrong. That's it. It seems to work too.

I am alarmed at how many people do not believe that Chemtrails exist. They are in fact a part of the greater HAARP development procedures as they learn where to spray, you can find that out here at the NASA site www.haarp.alaska.edu... They find the High pressure zone (clear skies) and fly 2 planes across one another then one across the 2 horizontally. This then drifts and when it turns into a cloud formation or begins to break up they have found the center of the High Pressure System. You may find it here ( I am sorry now that I did not save the original site, which was a government site, but this will do for now. www.chemtrails911.com... As well I wish to point out that here in Montreal we watch planes fly by and the contrails left behind dissipate with 20 minutes, Chemtrails on the other hand do not and branch out turning into huge thin or thick clouds and usually marked with an orange hue. here are a couple of pictures from Google and Montreal.




here are just 3 images among thousands

reply to post by BewilderedandAmused


I am alarmed at how many people DO believe in chemtrails, so I guess we are never going to agree, however, here goes.

Firstly, the three images.

The first shows contrails from what looks very much like a racetrack holding pattern, yo see these when aircraft are holding at altitude awaiting clearance to approach an airport and land and I have also witness them from RAF Boeing Sentry AEW aircraft patrolling over Lincolnshire and the North Sea. As that is two perfectly normal reasons to see such a pattern, that I have personally witnessed, why should I think that photo is anything to do with chemtrails?

The second image rather obviously dispalys an icing spray nozzle mounted in the rear boom of a KC-135 tanker, so while it is indeed a spray nozzle, it has a definite purpose of spraying water over aircraft on test to see how they react in wet and icy conditions, here below is an image of it in use on an F-22 test, note also how the resulting spray is very thin and looks nothing like the thick bulbous contrails that get called chemtrails



Third image is a cloud.

Finally, here is a graphic on a HAARP page showing the atmosphere. The light blue area at the bottom is the Troposhpere, the very top of this blue area is where airliners fly and where trails form, about 6 miles up.

The green area on the graphic is the ionosphere where HAARP operates and it BEGINS at 50 miles high, how on earth do you suppose these 'chemtrails' are any use to that, 44 miles too low and with the ozone layer between them?

www.haarp.alaska.edu...

So every single piece of evidence provided in your post can be shown to be wrong (except the cloud, but you can SEE its a cloud )

Its vacuous, ill-thought out stuff like this that makes me believe that chemtrails themselves are nothing but fiction, for no actual real evidence exists.

edit to add, on my photobucket album that photo is quite small at 600 x 600, I don't know why it appears so massive here, sorry.

reply to post by waynos


Well thank you for your exquisite explanation. I will look into debunking chemtrails myself and hopefully I can. I really do not like the idea of them and hope they are not real.

One of the many problems I have with them and the most difficulty in debunking for me are the protest that occur in cities around the world including the one in July here in Montreal.

But I thank you and will try to become a person who sees this as a conspiracy rather than a factual topic.

Be well and many thanks.

reply to post by BewilderedandAmused


If you have the patience and inclination to go through threads on here you will see so many instances where someone presents something as proof or evidence of che trails and it has been my own experience over the past 7 years that every single one had been demonstrated provably to either be something other than what was claimed, such as the items in your previous post or even downright lies and fearmongering such as several you tube videos that regularly appear.

I first came here in a similar mind frame to yourself having heard of chemtrail theory, but so far no evidence has stood up to examination, as for the protests, unfortunately it is a known that you can fool some of the people,e all of the time, as the saying goes. That's not to say I don't believe chemtrailing could ever happen or that aircraft contrails themselves are nothing to worry about, only that the scaremongering we have seen about haarp and che trails, as defined and promoted by such as Carnicorn, Thomas and Jones etc is just that, scaremongering.

The picture quote..."That was taken in England in 1940. Plenty of chemtrails there, but the truth is they are not chemtrails." , IS ACTUALLY SHOWING CHEMTRAILS! the aircraft used at the time were all proppeller driven, no jet engines. they would not produce the COMBINED effects of heat and velocity needed to produce contrails. the piston type engines used produce a good amount of smoke that exits behind the high airflow/speed of the prop, an area of low pressure that helps to disperse this mixture
into a chemtrail. THANKS FOR PROVING 'US' RIGHT!

reply to post by lastword


Incorrect. Piston engined aircraft are capable of producing contrails. Ask yourself why people were observing persistent and non-persistent contrails during WW2? Ask yourself why Test Pilots during WW2 also observed and commented on aircraft producing contrails?

Geoffrey de Havilland, Jr, test pilot, wrote in Flight Magazine in June 1942

VAPOUR TRAILS Views of Well-known Test Pilot I WISH to correct the various erroneous statements that have appeared in the correspondence columns of Flight concerning the origin of aircraft vapour trails. The trails referred to are, without doubt, due to the condensation of the water vapour content of the engine exhaust gases; this condensation will always occur under favourable conditions of humidity and temperature at high altitudes. I have myself frequently observed these trails from the cockpit of a high-flying aircraft in the very act of formation at the exit of the exhaust pipes. The formation of a short trail, or, as Mr. Dixon has expressed if, a trail "like the wake of a boat," is merely the prelude to the formation of the familiar "permanent" condensation trail which will occur when the aircraft in question runs into more favourable atmospheric conditions. Another type of trail which may be induced by the passage of an aircraft through air of high relative humidity may well be termed an " adiabatic trail," since it has its derivation in the adiabatic cooling of the air concerned to below its dew point.

Study the timeline at following links and read the letters and observations from WW2.

Full timeline at following links.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Contrails being produced by P-51 Mustangs. No different to what aircrew experienced during WW2 missions.



www.worldwar2pilots.net...

Plenty of aviation forums out there where WW2 aircrew still hang out. Please inform them that their aircraft didn't have the capability to produce contrails or that they didn't witness other aircraft producing them? In some cases the persistent contrails produced hampered bombing missions.

A run was begun on the primary target (Hopsten Airfield), but dense, persistent contrails obscured the target and bombs were not released. Low and high squadrons followed the leader and did not release their bombs at this time. The Group then proceeded to the secondary target, but contrails again obscured the target. The low squadron, however, was able to make a visual run on this target. The aiming point was changed to the intersection of the runways. Just before the run on the secondary target, the high squadron lead was hit by antiaircraft fire and it was necessary to turn the lead over to the deputy. The lead and high squadrons then executed a wide 360 degree turn, selected a new IP, and proceeded to make a second run on the primary target. High squadron deputy, Lt. Craig P. Greason, was hit near No. 4 engine by antiaircraft fire, caught fire and dropped out of formation. The high squadron leader then reassumed the lead, though the airplane was crippled and it was necessary to release bombs on those of the Group's lead squadron. The lead and low squadrons experienced some difficulty with AFCE. The lead and high squadrons let down to 2,000 feet below briefed altitude to avoid contrails on the second run.

www.457thbombgroup.org...

goodsky.homestead.com...

www.303rdbg.com...

www.398th.org...

www.486th.org...

reply to post by tommyjo


oh gee, i guess i'm wrong. well maybe i'll just go out and do some jogging. i sure hope there is a thick covering of lingering contrails to protect me from that horrible sun.

hmmm... tammyjo, i have spent some time this morning looking thru info you've posted me. i am not entirely convinced by what i see. first of all, the vid with the P-51 mustangs look like they are on fire as there is much smoke [0.00] seen coming from the engine. this is not at all like the chem/contrails and doesn't really help your case. also of every observation listed, every plane was a military plane that was seen causing this, at the time, unknown phenomena. not passenger aircraft. i suspect that this is still true today as i have only seen silver or white painted aircraft releasing large lingering trails. the reports of passenger airplanes involved is something i'd like too see 'proof of'. it's likley to be disinformation, perhaps you know something about that and would like to share? i'm posting this now and will continue to look thru the info you've recommended.

reply to post by lastword


All that is required for a contrail is an increase in the humidity of the exhaust, relative to the surrounding air. There's no need for it to be hot (in fact cooler exhaust is more likely to make a contrail), or fast (that just increase the gap between engine and contrail).

Here's a C-130 (prop plane) leaving contrails:

www.flickr.com...


The reason you mostly see military prop planes leaving contrails is that there's no reason for civilian prop planes to fly that high. Jets fly that high because that's the most efficient altitude for jets.

C -130 chemtrails ??? please, those are just lil' puffs of smoke!

Originally posted by lastword
C -130 chemtrails ??? please, those are just lil' puffs of smoke!

No, they are contrails. You can tell because there is a gap between the engines and the trails. If it were smoke then there would be no gap.

Here's a video of a c-130 leaving contrails at 25,000 feet.

those are puffs of smoke! you can see the puffs! you can see puffs in both the C-130 pic and vid and in the first photo we are asked to look at in this thread. puff puff puff ... that's all there is!

if one was so inclined, and you knew the airpeed of your C-130's, you could determine the distance between puffs after finding the 'scale' of the photo [you would just need to know the length or width of plane]. add a little bit of math, and you could estimate the engine RPM. noting that the puffs are the same distance apart i would assume the engines have a 'breather valve' that releases puffs in sync with the turning of the crank. puff puff puff !debunked!

reply to post by Wifibrains


I wrote Congress in 2005 and got pretty much the same response. My 71 year old father thought I was off my rocker about Chemtrails until I got him to just sit stationary for a few minutes and watch the two unmarked white jets going back and forth from horizon to horizon. They eventually formed a checkerboard pattern in the sky that spread out and turned the sky into a milky soup. I think Dad lost his blinders that day. I remember he said something like "Well, I'll be. Those can't be vapor trails, they should have disappeared."

That old picture does as much for me as most tabloid pics.