A serious question about chemtrails

reply to post by Phage


hey come on Phage your a wise one, read his post and my reply again and hopfully (for your rep) you will get what my point was to his post, if not thanks for your input and love your brain..... Painfulhead

reply to post by Painfulhead

"why are conditions right everyday for contrail to linger?"

While conditions tend to be more favorable in winter and early spring than summer and early fall. I have to question your "everyday" statement. But, if you're really interested you can check the upper air conditions here:
weather.uwyo.edu...

While not a perfect means of prediction, you can get a pretty good idea of how contrails should behave. For example, this afternoon conditions at typical flight altitudes (above Anchorage) would indicate that there would definitely be contrails forming though conditions for persistence would be marginal.

reply to post by Painfulhead

You weren't trying to redefine "chemtrail"?
The whole idea behind "chemtrails" is that something extra is being done. That they are not contrails.

reply to post by Painfulhead


Thank you for the most thoughtful response I've received for a long while.
Looking back at my statement, I should have edited it to be "saturated" instead of "clear". I had changed a sentence before posting, and missed changing that part.

I blame the migraine. Which is why I sky watch so often.....keeping my back and neck flat and my head still, looking up from a hammock in the shade. It's much more comfortable.

reply to post by Phage


It's interesting how there are attempts to "adjust" the definition of "chemtrails" once one discovers that there really is no evidence that they are anything other than persistent contrails.

why add this, I have not done this, i played a game of semantics with a poster and now I am redefining the word "chemtrail" this is not fair and kind of mean after all just because some one is smarter dont mean you have to hate on me for my clue-less-ness. I no longer look up to you sir, no not one bit.

hey thanks for your imput and judgment of my un-smart-.ness. Painfulhead

reply to post by Painfulhead

My apologies for misunderstanding.
But yours is not the first time this "semantic play" has been seen here.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Painfulhead

 

My apologies for misunderstanding.
But yours is not the first time this "semantic play" has been seen here.

No, that's just how you roll.

Originally posted by Painfulhead
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

"the jet left a long chemical trail of exhaust". one could shorten the word chemical to 'chem' kind of like condensation trail or contrail.

I've read the discussion after this and note that this has been clarified, but it is a common chemmie tactic to try to get "chemtails" to be defined as including "trails" for which there is no doubt as to their existence.

Of course it falls down under the lightest examination - if all chemical trails are included then you breathing is creating a "chemtrail" - since you breathe is, of course, chemicals.

And also why only concentrate on "chemtrails" that are visible - since jets and cars and you and I also create invisible trails - the jets are creating the same chemicals when they leave no white lines across the sky. In fact they generally burn fuel at a much faster rate during takeoff and climb than during cruise - so why not protest about that since it is at an altitude that we breath, is a higher concentration, and is always in close proximity to people - often even within the confines of large urban areas!!

But apparently these new improved "universal" "chemtrails" are actually only a danger when at 30,000 feet and visible??

Usually people attempting this redefinition do not keep up the effort long!

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


thanks for helping me make my point, i do agree with this and felt like the topic would go adrift if someone didnt drop some clarity. funny thing about your post it insinuate that I maybe trying to 'redefine'something. let me be very clear.
I am trying to Define something, so I can put it to rest and not have it stumble me up from time to time. I would love to confidently state my opinin on this topic. 'CONFIDENTLY' this i yet can not do. soon maybe. good for you Aloysius..... keep it up. thanks Painfulhead

reply to post by Painfulhead


Sory - I had read that you were not trying to redefine the word and wasn't trying to suggest that you were - I was expanding Phage's point that some believers do try to redefine it from time to time and what happens when they do.

Actually there are less flights now then 15 years ago. So that argument is invalid. Can you provide some sort of proof for your statement?

Those are forecast numbers and not actual numbers. Call an airline and ask them. Gas prices would be a major factor on why there are not as many flights as 15 years ago, plus families can't afford to fly as often due to the economy and private pilots no longer can afford to fly as often because of both reason above. It makes for less actual traffic in the airs.

I think this person has a point. I used to take 20+ flights a year up until and during the 1990´s. This year I´ll be surprised if I make 5!

Don´t believe the hype.

reply to post by AuntieChrist

How about figures?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Painfulhead

 

You weren't trying to redefine "chemtrail"?
The whole idea behind "chemtrails" is that something extra is being done. That they are not contrails.

edit on 3/2/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Buongiorno Phage,

Something extra such as this perhaps?


www.weathermodification.com...

Or this?










Unfortunately, I am away working in Switzerland this week, so cannot promise any swift responses.

reply to post by Phage


Phage, I just gave you figures. MY figures.

Obviously nowhere near proof of any overall declining flight numbers but 100% proof of MY declining flight numbers.

Look, I honestly have to go as my girlfriend is threatening to leave.

Laters amigo.

reply to post by AuntieChrist

You have just demonstrated my point. The attempt to redefine "chemtrails" as cloud seeding, crop dusting, firefighting and anything else dispersed from aircraft.

We are talking about "chemtrails". Long trails left behind high altitude aircraft. Trails which often form grid patterns. Trails which often persist and spread. Trails which are actually persistent contrails which require nothing added to form.

Cloud seeding is not performed at high altitudes. Cloud seeding does not produce long lasting trails which are visible from the ground. Cloud seeding is not "chemtrails".

reply to post by AuntieChrist

Your figures don't really count for much in context. Do they?
There is much more air traffic now than there was 15 years ago.

Originally posted by network dude

Find the one about the alien holograms making trails.

Here is one of them providing the world with the 'evidence'. Is is any wonder that photographers and aviation enthusiasts find these amusing? He can't work out why the aircraft is visible through the cable so it must be further 'proof' of these strange 'Chemsprayers'

What to make of this? the cable should appear in front of plane but plane passes through it..Strange, the cable is SOLID & should hide the plane ????

See his other videos for further 'evidence' of this 'proof'

cable does not become invisible..NO camera can make invisibility happen..Do not forget the cable was meant to be IN FRONT of plane..but my expensive HD camera is showing the truth..sorry debunkers so is edge tool..bright & Clear for all to see.A camera can not change dimensions IE move behind objects in front and visa versa..that is crazy.

reply to post by tommyjo


Here you go a little bit more about the video you posted....



Interesting how people don't understand about focus and perspective....

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h

Interesting how people don't understand about focus and perspective....

Or how reflections and limitations of camera equipment can have an effect. It really is mind-numbing what people think they are filming in relation to 'Chemtrail Planes'. Two more from this chap. I've asked him to come across to ATS to discuss and debate. All he can do is block on his YT channel.

reply to post by tsurfer2000h



These 'researchers' have a small group. The guru appears to be this chap in Canada (MAN2011ism). Even a basic course in photography would help him out!

Watch the first 4 minutes of the video. He thinks that the aircraft is fake because one of the engines appears larger. He also refuses to believe that his camera can record detail at that height even with the zoom. You really have to feel sorry for those people that believe what he posts!