chemtrails cast shadow on google earth?

Being a mediator and all I have a proposition in order to have constructive discussions.

I think we should call them "plane emissions" instead of "contrails" or "chemtrails".

Plane emissions, there just can't be no lie about it.

reply to post by RoScoLaz


The trails seem photo sensitive like the Tesla ships that make them.
Second line.

reply to post by clairvoyantrose


Sorry, I won't feed a troll...

reply to post by Clairaudience

There is no such thing as "chemtrails". They are called contrails. And yes, obviously you will be able to observe the shadows of clouds and contrails on GE.

You could have gotten away with such an ignorant statement years ago but not now. If you are getting paid to deceive the public... know this, those who deceive will be deceived.

reply to post by clairvoyantrose


You give me a link that you label as "NASA," yet it is not even published by NASA. Anybody can write something and declare it to be true...and if it gets on the Internet, then by golly, IT MUST BE TRUE!!!

I find it HILARIOUS the picture has the oil-rich multi-billionaire AL GORE (the founder of both the INTERNET and the AGW hoax) in finger-pointing pose as if he is angry at those jets leaving their NORMAL ENGINE EXHAUST in the sky...he is the most frequent FLYER in human history, making many personal trips to visit his late buddy Armand Hammer of Occidental Petroleum, a company the Gore Family now primarily hold...

You have posted many threads concerning the exhaust of vehicles? Where? I see four...one has the word "chemtrail," in it...

reply to post by RoScoLaz


Funny, I look at the pic and all I see are clouds...where is the trail to which you refer?

Originally posted by totallackey "Funny, I look at the pic and all I see are clouds...where is the trail to which you refer?"

Originally posted by RoScoLaz

Originally posted by totallackey "Funny, I look at the pic and all I see are clouds...where is the trail to which you refer?"

You sure they are not mapping fills or even some kind of ground trail, one is not even a shadow of the other, they don't match up. Can you zoom in a bit further? or put in the coordinates.

Okay, is doesn't matter I had a look, and there is nothing conclusive, although there are geysers directly in that area.

reply to post by RoScoLaz


Thanks...

Now, what exactly is it about the white line of clouds forming the dark shadow above them (as perceived in looking at the pic) that is bothering you?

What chemicals can you determine are present in this white line of clouds simply by looking at this photo?

Originally posted by RoScoLaz
a riddle? no, just a question. the first example you linked also showed the plane that produced the trail. this one doesn't.

Are you trying to imply that these contrails, or "chemtrails" in your world, just appeared out of thin air? Just because the plane isn't visible in the shot, doesn't mean that contrails weren't formed before the image was taken.

And what is the problem with using the word "contrail"? Until there is any real scientific data or proof to make the word "chemtrail" exist, everyone should stop using it. It makes people look very lacking in the science education department.

Originally posted by RoScoLaz
i know what clouds are. the apparent trails i refer to in the pic aren't clouds. not like any i've seen.

You must not get out much.

Originally posted by theMediator
I think we should call them "plane emissions" instead of "contrails" or "chemtrails".

The word "contrails" is the word by definition of what the trails are. That's why the word exists. The word "chemtrail" isn't even a word:




Contrail means "condensation trail", the same thing that comes out of your mouth in the winter:




And the same thing that comes out of your car in the winter:




It's all moisture. If we could breathe in the air at the altitudes that planes fly at, we could make contrails across the sky with our breath. If we could drive our cars in the sky at the altitude planes fly at, we could make contrails across the sky as we drive.

Originally posted by OldSchoolMom
If you are getting paid to deceive the public... know this, those who deceive will be deceived.

The only ones deceiving are the "chemtrail" hoaxers who have no scientific data or basis for their theories. None, what-so-ever.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by OldSchoolMom
If you are getting paid to deceive the public... know this, those who deceive will be deceived.

The only ones deceiving are the "chemtrail" hoaxers who have no scientific data or basis for their theories. None, what-so-ever.

If you mean you cannot tell the difference between what is a contrail, or what might be a chemtrail, then you are correct. If you mean chemtrails don't exist, then you must be Michael the Archangel, or his nibs himself.
If you mean there is no precedence for what could be described as a chemtrail, you are incorrect. If you mean there was no science in patents that describe what could be called a chemtrail, you are incorrect.

reply to post by smurfy

I'm pretty sure he meant that there is no evidence that "chemtrails" are anything other than contrails.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by smurfy

 

I'm pretty sure he meant that there is no evidence that "chemtrails" are anything other than contrails.

And theres no evidence that says that some "contrails" arent chemtrail sprays.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by smurfy

 

I'm pretty sure he meant that there is no evidence that "chemtrails" are anything other than contrails.

Already looking at his other posts, the words "scientific evidence" is used in the negative to chemtrails, without qualification. The popular form is derived in exactly the same way as the word contrails was formed. Nobody seems to mind too much about talking the science of contrails, but when it comes to chemtrails, all of a sudden there is no science, when in fact there is. He is not serving people well by calling all and sundry 'hoaxers' in baldy statements, and most of us, no matter what we think, rightly or wrongly, don't wish for hoaxers in any form. It's a two way system at least.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
The word "contrails" is the word by definition of what the trails are. That's why the word exists. The word "chemtrail" isn't even a word:

With so many new, invented words coming out everyday I always found deadly suspicious that the now common word chemtrail isn't in any dictionary. I mean, Santa Claus is in the dictionary.

Just that fact enhances the chemtrails conspiracy even more. So you shouldn't use such argument to defend the non-existence of chemtrails.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Contrail means "condensation trail", the same thing that comes out of your mouth in the winter:

The same thing yet, I don't exhale burnt petroleum.
So it's not the same thing.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
It's all moisture. If we could breathe in the air at the altitudes that planes fly at, we could make contrails across the sky with our breath. If we could drive our cars in the sky at the altitude planes fly at, we could make contrails across the sky as we drive.

Well this is only theory, I know where you are getting at, but it's still fluff.

If contrails are the same thing that we exhale, then you are giving my definition of "plane emissions" even more weight since it's much more precise. Well, plane engine emissions would be even more precise, but no need to explain this far.

This thread is about plane emissions causing shadows in google earth pictures not if chemtrails exist or not.
It's not very hard to all agree that it's plane emissions causing the shadows, wherever they be chem or con trails.

You debating against me this way wasn't very productive imo.

reply to post by theMediator


The thing is, "plane emissions", exhaust, is not usually visible (unless there is something wrong with the engine).

What is visible is the frozen ice crystals which form, both from the water vapor in the jet exhaust and from the surrounding air.

Originally posted by TriForce
And theres no evidence that says that some "contrails" arent chemtrail sprays.

Every single trail in the sky is a contrail. That's the word that was created and chosen for those trails. If you want to make up words and call those trails anything other than contrails, you have to first get some physical evidence, and some scientific evidence.

Since there is neither, the word doesn't exist, and neither does the suggested theory.

Originally posted by smurfy
The popular form is derived in exactly the same way as the word contrails was formed.

The word "chemtrail" is neither popular, nor proper. It's a made-up word by the few fear-mongerers left who keep peddling the "chemtrail" disinformation.

Originally posted by smurfy
Nobody seems to mind too much about talking the science of contrails

That's because the science of contrails is a known and proven science. We know how they are formed, and how they can persist or not.

Originally posted by smurfy
but when it comes to chemtrails, all of a sudden there is no science, when in fact there is.

There never has been any repeatable, provable science. Ever. Has anyone gone up and tried to capture the "spray" from a "chemtrail" to examine the particles in a lab? Has anyone gotten any swabs of objects that sit outside all day and night under the "heavily sprayed" skies to see what's being "sprayed"?

If you have some repeatable, provable science showing that some contrails are "chemtrails", then please post it for us. We've been waiting for years for real scientific evidence of "chemtrails".

What are you waiting for?