Should Chemtrails be separated from Geo-Engineering.

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   
An increasing number of people seem to completely understand what Contrails are and what they look like. Yet they share a concern for the environment and wish to stay vigilant with regards to Geo-engineering. If you follow any of the chemtrail threads, you will notice that the two are very separate entities.

I am interested in everyone's opinion on this subject. This isn't about who's right or wrong, but more about should this forum be split so chemtrails would have to stand on their own and Geo-engineering could be discussed as a completely separate topic.
edit on 17-11-2013 by network dude because: spelling




posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Something is going on in the skies, imo. I don't have a real strong opinion on what and certainly don't suggest we are being deliberately poisoned.

But I don't think there's any evidence that chemtrails--should they exist--wouldn't be related to geo-engineering. If they exist, geo-engineering would seem to be near the top of Occam's actually.

I've yet to see anyone posting here--including the dancing chicken--who have top secret clearances presenting evidence that they're not. If human health can be impacted by it, then chemtrail is probably a good moniker.

Respectfully, sir, I think geo-engineering and chemtrails should not, at this point, be separated.

edit on 17-11-2013 by The GUT because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


It would be good if people could see the difference, but decades of furious web spinning by the various chemtrail promoting sites means, I fear, that one will never now successfully separate the two.

This is simply because all the sites that talk of GE also talk about chemtrails as if they are the same thing.

They then reinforce their message by preaching about why you can tell they are chemtrails (grid patterns, persistence etc).

To me this serves two purposes. Firstly anyone seriously concerned about GE who has a background in aviation or weather immediately dismisses the entire site as garbage, which might be a shame because there could be some gems hidden away among the trash.

Secondly, the uninformed reader, thinking the site knows what it's talking about, takes away those same errors and believes them and repeats them. This means that person hasn't got a hope in hell of ever getting a handle on real issues because they are wasting their time and effort on aircraft contrails, while others who do know better waste their own time trying to undo the damage and the believer just digs in. We have seen it today on this very board.

This makes me think the real conspiracy lies there, a tactic of deflection and bamboozlement, and it's worked a treat. We all just argue with each other.

This is why you can't really separate them on here either, anyone coming here to talk of GE seems to inevitable bring some chemtrail baggage with them.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by The GUT
 


Thanks for your opinion.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   
With a little modification to the jet engine and a tweeking of the fuel additives, the contrails became Geo-engineering practices. Making cloud cover is all it is about. The contrails could have been engineered to create cloud cover. We have very good scientists working in these fields, if they are told to accomplish something they can. The chemistry of the contrails is what is a deciding factor of whether the name chemtrails are real. This is a legal classification. Looking at chemistry is what decides if the contrails are Geo-effective. Different procedures cause the formation of different chemical makeups in chemistry.

So Geo-engeneering is going on in my thoughts but it is cleverly hid and I doubt if it is very toxic. Altering air chemistry can always cause different results though, air is a complex molecule. So is water, being that water is not just H2O



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   
I think a definition of terms is in order…

Geoengineering

Nebulous… got it. And in others…

Site that Watches Geoengineering

And, closer to earth…

Geoengineering from an engineers perspective

The definitions vary, depending who you talk to.
edit on 17-11-2013 by intrptr because: fixed link



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


The definition of chemtrails is very dynamic. I just thing with all the different ideas about it, plus the reality of geo-engineering, are muddying the waters much more than needed. I believe they are two different things. But I am not sure about ATS as a whole. Before I try to fix something, I thought I would see if it was broke.

Do you think they should be separate, or combined as they are?



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
No they should not be separated. Aircraft are the delivery vehicle for methods of geo-engineering. I sounds like you are trying to remove the motive for why chem-trails exist. For example if they were separated, your argument would be that the 2 subjects are unrelated. That's the exact opposite of what's true.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


Jet fuel has certain standards that must be adhered too. You can find them both online, and in print. You can also buy a gallon of jet fuel and have it tested and compared to that standard.

And like waynos said at this point I don't think you can separate the two.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by The GUT
 





I've yet to see anyone posting here--including you or the dancing chicken--who have top secret clearances presenting evidence that they're not.


And nobody has posted any evidence they are.



Respectfully, sir, I think geo-engineering and chemtrails should not, at this point, be separated.


That is just it they aren't even remotely connected.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Mikeultra
 





For example if they were separated, your argument would be that the 2 subjects are unrelated. That's the exact opposite of what's true.


Interesting because one is actually being studied( geoengineering ) and the other is a hoax started in the 90's, so yes they aren't even remotely related.

Here is a good example...

So when the weather gets cold and you go outside you breathe in essence the same thing that comes out of a plane engine in the right conditions.

So just because you do that does that make you related to a plane engine?



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 





This is why you can't really separate them on here either, anyone coming here to talk of GE seems to inevitable bring some chemtrail baggage with them.



And for that I blame youtube, as that is where most chemtrail believers receive their evidence.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 



Do you think they should be separate, or combined as they are?

Climate modification on conspiracy websites seem to link the two. The "spraying" at hi altitudes is modifying the earths climate. Some think that is a deliberate attempt to modify ("engineer") the biosphere (Geo) and affect people's lives for secret sinister reasons. I don't agree with that, by the way. I don't even know if thats what conspiracy theorists are trying to convey.

To me, pollution is not a theory and it surely affects people health.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   

tsurfer2000h
And nobody has posted any evidence they are.

Thusly, then, it's still up for grabs and as such should remain an open subject and thereby not have any restrictions placed on its discussion.


edit on 17-11-2013 by The GUT because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 





Site that Watches Geoengineering



Not a very credible site when it pushes Dutchsinse, and Michael J. Murphy videos.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by The GUT
 





Thusly, then, it's still up for grabs and as such should remain an open subject and thereby not have any restrictions placed on its discussion.


Actually it isn't up for grabs especially when the top geoengineering scientist says they aren't related..



And here is the problem with chemtrail believers as they say they want the truth, yet...




posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Mikeultra
No they should not be separated. Aircraft are the delivery vehicle for methods of geo-engineering. I sounds like you are trying to remove the motive for why chem-trails exist. For example if they were separated, your argument would be that the 2 subjects are unrelated. That's the exact opposite of what's true.


Yes they should be separated.

firstly Geoengineering isnot all about the climate- climate modification is one subset of geoengineering!

And even in the subset of climate geoengineering that is Solar Radiation Management aircraft delivery systems are not the only means available

and lastly - geoengineering is a serious topic that receives a great deal of informed discussion.

chemtrails are, at best, specuilation, and at worst an outright hoax. The suggestions that they exist at all are punctuated by lies, disinfo and hoaxes.
edit on 17-11-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: Aircraft systems aer not the ONLY means available.....



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


I am thinking Ron White was correct. You can't fix stupid. It's forever.

Let them wallow in their own brain dead stew. I am done. Throwing in the towel. What is the point?



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I can take the same food and completely change it's structure by different ways I cook it. The same is with burning jet fuel, the process can be altered to get specific desired results in the exhaust just by altering temperature, the metals making up the exhaust cone, and a lot more. Look at a catalytic converter and see how it changes the exhaust. It is possible to alter the contrail using the same fuel and a specialist in this can do it to get a desired effect. If someone wanted an expanded contrail, they could engineer the engine to accomplish this. I see contrails a lot more today than I did twenty years ago when the jets didn't leave them at the local base. I knew a few pilots and they told me that it was water injection that I saw when the jets took off. It was injected right after the turbine I guess but am not quite up on exactly how it used to work.

I do not think the new Contrails are harmful but I will not believe that these contrails could not be intentionally boosted for purposes of Geo-engeneering purposes. Chemtrails and contrails are basically the same thing. They are both chemical mixes of gasses. I look beyond what is said to be to find possible things that are occurring. I know a jet engine could be designed also so it would not have contrails, the radar blocking stealth jets can't have contrails, that would be counterproductive...they design them not to be detected.
edit on 17-11-2013 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


And then you completely change the engine. Aircraft are extremely sensitive to changes, and a simple change in metals used in the engine can change the characteristics enough that it would be noticed. Even if the flight crew didn't the maintenance crew would.

Stealth aircraft lack of contrails has more to do with detecting and not flying through areas where contrails form and less to do with the engines.
edit on 11/17/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



  exclusive video


top topics
 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join