So Maybe There ARE Chemtrails...

There seems to be tons of threads on ATS, regarding "chemtrails". My question is....why is that? Why is this topic such a hot debate???

reply to post by HattoriHanzou

You have to actually read the whole report, not just the disclaimer.

Patents are listed, studies cited, it's full of poison to the anti-chemtrails propagandists.

I have read it. Have you? Where are the "chemtrails?" For that matter, where are the patents?
Don't see 'em in the report.

reply to post by profundus

Why was 2012 such a hot debate?

This may be a bit off topic, but while searching for the project I mentioned earlier, seeing Monsanto on the board of this project just sends chills up my spine!
www.globalchange.gov...

Overview of the program:
www.globalchange.gov...

Thirteen departments and agencies participate in the USGCRP, which was known as the U.S. Climate Change Science Program from 2002 through 2008. The program is steered by the Subcommittee on Global Change Research under the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, overseen by the Executive Office of the President, and facilitated by the National Coordination Office.

It couldn't have been 12 departments and agencies, could it? Had to be lucky 13!

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou
reply to post by Phage

 

You have to actually read the whole report, not just the disclaimer.

Patents are listed, studies cited, it's full of poison to the anti-chemtrails propagandists.

Such emotive words.

It is a study of what MIGHT be done - how does it prove that anything IS being done?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Daedalus

 

or, you know, because it would cost more money than i'm willing to bet any of us has

Or, instead of making those stupid movies, Murphy could have made better use of the money spent.

what with all those pesky FAA regulations to work with

Which regulations would that be?

edit on 2/27/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by Daedalus

 

the movie cost 50K$ to make. Many of us here have done the leg work and found a company that would supply the plane and testing facilities for much less than $50K. Sure, it's more than I can pony up as well, but you would think if people really believed in this and wanted the truth, they would come up with a way to raise the money.

Unless they really didn't' care all that much.

Jesus guys, when did i say ANYTHING about anyone who had made a movie?

I'm talking about all of you on here saying idiotic s**t to the effect of "until you take samples of the trails at altitude, you're an idiot, and full of s**t"

i'm willing to bet that NOBODY on here has the money, or scientific knowledge/access to equipment to independently sample, and test the trails...

that is the ONLY way to get a real determination, is independent testing...i would not trust a company to do it, because of the risk of bias, or interference.

i'm honestly trying to have a calm, civil, rational, intelligent conversation with you guys, can we do that?


ETA: Point of specificity: FAA regulations regarding altitudes reserved for commercial traffic, and minimum/maximum safe follow distance

reply to post by Daedalus

i'm willing to bet that NOBODY on here has the money, or scientific knowledge/access to equipment to independently sample, and test the trails...

You entirely missed the point. Instead of making two movies, Michael Murphy et al could have actually done something valid. For the cost of making those movies he could have actually tested contrails. But he didn't. He make two stupid movies about "chemtrails".

ETA: Point of specificity: FAA regulations regarding altitudes reserved for commercial traffic, and minimum/maximum safe follow distance

What altitudes are "reserved for commercial traffic?" Do you think it is not possible to sample contrails?

The plane with internal tanks highlighted in the video is for spraying chemicals, it is ostensibly for use in firefighting, this is the patent and relatively new as from 2008.

www.spacepatents.com...

It is, in the main a dump, although there are facilities for wing applications.

It is no use debating about aircraft contrails, they are a horlicks on their own with the incumbent pollution that is a jet exhaust, and there is also more chemistry going on than just a simple exhaust knocking out of soot and water. As one poster bemoaned the lovely day spoiled by the contrails, he/she is correct, that's exactly what they do more often than not, that is a big problem. As far as actual chemtrails being deliberately applied re some of the patents seen here and elsewhere, I have no doubt that they would be used if deemed necessary, and we know that it has been done in the past, and the only way to catch that, is to catch them on the run, that would be much more difficult, than just skywatching.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by profundus

 

Why was 2012 such a hot debate?

Because people were highly uninformed and too lazy to search for answers, on their own. Kinda like with the "contrail" debate. As far as i can tell, all the facts seem to line up with the "chemtrail theorists". Not sure why you're still trying to hold up the contrail theory. Maybe you didn't get the memo???

reply to post by Painfulhead


Thanks for the post, definitely was thrown off by the amount of vitriol spewed forth in this thread. Honestly I figured this site would mainly contain people that 'believed' (for lack of a better term) in Chemtrails due to how obvious (I think) they are.

4. What are you doing all day that allows you to jump in to these threads so fast no matter what time they come up?

It seems just to be a few people making the majority of posts questioning the possibility of Chemtrails, and one of them seems to be so into it that 80%+ of his/her total posts are on this subject.

reply to post by profundus

Because people were highly uninformed and too lazy to search for answers, on their own. Kinda like with the "contrail" debate.

I agree. It seems people that believe contrails are "chemtrails" can't be bothered to learn a bit about what causes contrails to form, persist, and spread. They can't really explain how "chemtrails" are any different from other contrails other than saying "just look up!"

As far as i can tell, all the facts seem to line up with the "chemtrail theorists".

Haven't seen many facts presented on that side. Mostly a lot of arm waving and saying "just look up!"

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by profundus

 

Because people were highly uninformed and too lazy to search for answers, on their own. Kinda like with the "contrail" debate.

I agree. It seems people that believe contrails are "chemtrails" can't be bothered to learn a bit about what causes contrails to form, persist, and spread. They can't really explain how "chemtrails" are any different from other contrails.

As far as i can tell, all the facts seem to line up with the "chemtrail theorists".

Haven't seen many facts presented on that side. Mostly a lot of arm waving and saying "just look up!"

edit on 2/27/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Spread into GIANT storm clouds that dump heavy rains and sleet? Come on now? Who's payin' you??? Since when, does a little tiny plane, leave mile long vapor trails, without intervention? You gotta do better than that. Especially with all those "stars" you're packin'.

Originally posted by NeoVain

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by network dude

 

Fair enough. Apology accepted. That is extremely rare here. So you earn new respect in my book.

Can you at least believe me when I tell you all I was after was some commentary on what the guy is talking about, considering he does have some creds? lol, heck, I am on your side really. Or...was...or...partly am...or heck... I'm confused.

Lets say these chemtrails are actually real, and that the government doesn´t want the public to know very much about them, or even that they exist. This is how it appears, from all the circumstantial evidence at least.

Under this scenario, they would of course have extensive damage control in effect, in the form of, as an example, forum "watchers", professionals trained in debunking such topics no matter the evidence that leaked. People that would add very little to the thread, but rather try to detract from it by derailing/overloading it with BS. Also known as shills.

From what i can see in this thread so far, there seem to be plenty of evidence for this scenario to be true.

You also have to ask yourself why would the guy in the video waste 10 years of his life researching this if he wasn´t totally convinced? He probably know some things about solar panel light absorption levels/expected power outputt that confirmed at least to him that something was up, that is what convinced him. Not everyone have this knowledge... sadly.

edit on 27-2-2013 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-2-2013 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)

no, no, no....a shill is someone who tows the company/government line, no matter what, for money(because they believe it)....good examples of shills would be people like bill o'reilly, glenn beck

people who are trained in "debunking", and are on a payroll, simply to derail threads, and muddy conversations are disinfo agents....they are real, and they are federal employees.....their job s to watch forums, derail conversations, muddy things, generate conflict, and pretty much suppress information, by playing people off against one another, so that no constructive conversation can take place(because they believe in their employer).

am i saying for sure that any participants in this thread are federally-employed disinfo agents? no. of course not...it would be foolish to make an accusation like that without proof....

i'm simply pointing out that they exist, and demonstrating the difference between disinfo agents, and shills..

reply to post by tauristercus

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Scientists estimate that 150-200 species of plant, insect, bird and mammal become extinct every 24 hours.

---

I would really like to see some data backing up such a claim.

That would be impossible (which is convenient). Ask yourself how somebody could determine that any species has gone extinct (let alone over 200) every day.

Are the animals numbered on their backs? Do they search the whole globe every day and were unable to find any? Is that their criteria?

Its a ridiculous assertion, impossible to prove, but sure gets your attention, huh?

Right away these pseudo scientific claims are suspect (insert loud buzzer noise).

Yes there is air pollution by jet fuel burning... yes it is killing us. The distraction is we are supposed to believe that there is some secret mysterious additive in the toxic clouds, not the jet exhaust itself.

Lets see, who would promote such a disinfo campaign? Surely not the airlines?

reply to post by profundus

Spread into GIANT storm clouds that dump heavy rains and sleet?

You must have missed this:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.free-online-private-pilot-ground-school.com...

Since when, does a little tiny plane, leave mile long vapor trails, without intervention?

Since about 1919.

The second German sighting occurred on May 9, 1919, when a pilot flying over Berlin at about 26,000 feet noticed the generation of a cloud stream that extended for about forty miles behind his plane. This stream eventually spread out to form a cloud layer that was about 3,000 feet thick. The pilot saw a similar phenomenon two days later.

www.questia.com...

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by tauristercus

 

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Scientists estimate that 150-200 species of plant, insect, bird and mammal become extinct every 24 hours.

---

I would really like to see some data backing up such a claim.

That would be impossible (which is convenient). Ask yourself how somebody could determine that any species has gone extinct (let alone over 200) every day.

Are the animals numbered on their backs? Do they search the whole globe every day and were unable to find any? Is that their criteria?

Its a ridiculous assertion, impossible to prove, but sure gets your attention, huh?

Right away these pseudo scientific claims are suspect (insert loud buzzer noise).

I will agree with you there. 200 does seem like an awful lot. At that rate, everything should be extinct by now, you'd think.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by profundus

 

Spread into GIANT storm clouds that dump heavy rains and sleet?

You must have missed this:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.free-online-private-pilot-ground-school.com...

Since when, does a little tiny plane, leave mile long vapor trails, without intervention?

Since about 1919.

The second German sighting occurred on May 9, 1919, when a pilot flying over Berlin at about 26,000 feet noticed the generation of a cloud stream that extended for about forty miles behind his plane. This stream eventually spread out to form a cloud layer that was about 3,000 feet thick. The pilot saw a similar phenomenon two days later.

www.questia.com...

edit on 2/27/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

How convenient to have all the answers, right in front of you, so fast. So then, "cloud seeding" is NOT a part of "geoengineering"? Is that correct???

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by RoyBatty

 

Yes, it is during all different seasons. It's huge in Florida. I especially notice them in the early morning as they're dissipating and during sunset. It's strange the way they're always on the side of the sky as the sunset as if covering it. Makes it a bit easier to drive with it dulled out like that...

Anyways, with Colorado, they're mainly concerned with keeping it colder so that the snow stays on the mountains and they're concerned that run off and flooding is going to be a problem. This is in a nutshell though, so I may be stating this wrong. Colorado wasn't my focus while reading, so I may be paraphrasing wrong.
I do know that Florida is a huge experimental area for climate testing though. I mentioned the project in another thread a while back and cannot remember the name of it now. I'll have to find it...

No, we're not concerned with runoff being a problem. NOT having runoff is a problem. We have fire dangers every year and desperately need the moisture in Denver. We get plenty of snow in the high country even on a slow year.

I also lived in Miami for 25 years and observed the same thing, all or nothing. So again, why does this happen ubiquitously with ALL planes or NONE on any given day? All airline companies are in on this?

reply to post by profundus


I'm a firm believer in both contrails and chemical trails.
I'm also a firm believer in how things can and are hidden in plane, er, plain sight.
Just as anyone can understand how contrails are formed, there are people out there who use this exact science to hide the nefarious within natural phenomenon.
Here on ATS, I like to resort to this way of thinking: Not all contrails are chemical trails, but be wary of those who expect you to believe that all chemical trails are contrails.