The world fights back against chemtrails

dh says:

"Actually, I believe it did And I think the residue lingers on..."

How nice. We have our own resident psycho therapist, able to diagnose patients by reading their posts. And to think that you didn't even need to borrow a fingernail-clipping or my tea-leaves!

"You need to be able to to perceive the way the skies are now and the new phenomena occurring there, without stressful pre-conceived baggage."

When you say "stressful pre-conceived baggage" do you mean a degree in engineering, 35 years' experience in the aerospace and defense environment, experience as a private pilot, and a somewhat broad background in various disciplines?

I prefer that kind of "stressful pre-conceived baggage" to technical illiteracy, a deep desire to believe to the point of refusing to look at scientific evidence, and a desire to sell "chem-busters" to Africans, thank you very much -- if there are any people of that persuasion here.

"You need to question why cell towers are springing up intently in so many places, not only in city places, but in far-flung deserted places where the few attempting to scrape a living have no access to a cell phone."

Why should I question such? I already know the answer -- and now you do, too, thanks to our colleague Mr. Kidfinger.

"Most of all you need to escape the consensus organised scientific rationale for just about everything."

Right. Who needs technology or a civilization like ours, anyway?

"It's all aimed at twisting your natural concepts into percepts that suit someone elses agenda."

That certainly doesn't stop you from using that same technology provided us by the "consensus organised scientific rationale"-boys. In this case, of course, it's for your agenda! The difference, of course, is that I understand the technology -- and it's hard to fear things you can understand.

If you could live your life without the vestiges of Luddite fear -- what a happy person you could be!

[edit on 29-11-2004 by Off_The_Street]

I'm certainly no Luddite - I believe the new technology has changed us
For the good on the whole - what better time to see acutely the whole agenda and its well-developed techniques to oppose the fundamentally good aspirations of the human race
And to see how these are twisted and perverted , how human health is corrupted, how the hidden dudes will utilise any method of advanced technology to control, ultimately control, and cull hman life-form
I don't see this as a reactive spin we're in, more about taking back our own control of our life processes and production and invention
I'm not impressed with your qualifications
Qualifications are another form of mind control

@ Off the street,

We've had this con-trail discusion before, and I've asked you this before.

WHY are you so concerned with trying to convince ppl that chemtrails don't exist?

Where is your proof? What do you know that we don't?

You pop up in every chem trail thread on here, and you even started a thread trying to convince us of their non existence.

Why are you so determined to convince ppl they're not real?

You talk about pilots and air traffic controlers debunking it. But I posted links to sites with pilots and air traffic controlers who DO believe they are happening and you just dismiss it. Are those ppl and links any less credible than yours?

Like abdul said weather control is and has been on ongoing programme by The US and other countries, especialy Russia.

anok says:

"WHY are you so concerned with trying to convince ppl that chemtrails don't exist?"

Because they don't, anok. They're just a hoax, spread by hoaxters and liars to convince well-meaning but technologically unsophisticated people that they're true. Even though this forum is supposed to "deny ignorance" I don't leave it at that.

I fight ignorance.

"Where is your proof?"

We have discussed this before, anok. It is impossible to prove a negative. I can no more prove that "chem-trails" don't exist than you can prove I'm not the long-lost King of France. It is the hoaxters and liars -- who are fooling well-meaning folks like you and dh -- who have made the assertions, and it is up to them to make the proof.

And like all hoaxters and liars, they have failed to do so -- and always will.

"What do you know that we don't?"

The aviation industry, how aircraft engineering operates, physics and meteorology, and mathematics.

"You pop up in every chem trail thread on here, and you even started a thread trying to convince us of their non existence."

Yes, I have, and I will continue to do so. Like I said earlier, I see my job to fight ignorance, which means exposing people like Rense, Carnicom, Thomas, and all the other people fooling other folks like you and dh as the liars and scam artists they are.

"Why are you so determined to convince ppl they're not real?"

Becaue they're not.

"You talk about pilots and air traffic controlers debunking it."

That's because they do.

"But I posted links to sites with pilots and air traffic controlers who DO believe they are happening and you just dismiss it."

That's because you did not post links to sites with pilots and ATCs . You posted links to sites where the usual gang of scam artists wrote about these completely "made-up" people. Did you notice how every single one of these "witnesses" just happens to be "anonymous" or "prefers not to be named"?

For God's sake, anok, doesn't that tell you anything at all?

Would you believe me if I said that I talked to ten high-level government agents who all told me that Skeptic Overlord is really Saddam Hussein, and I would tell you who those ten high-level government agents were, but they all "chose to remain anonymous"?

Would you believe such a stupid story as that?

Would anyone?

No, they'd be too busy spitting up their Rice Krispies laughing!

And yet you go to some nutbar site where the whole agenda is to convince you and dh and everyone else that there really is something to the "chem-trail" scam, and of course the stories they make up and the people they make up are "anonymous"! If they weren't, then people would find out that they're lying! They don't want you to find out that they're lying LOL!!

C'mon, anok, think about it. That's no evidence. That's just another "chem-trail" lie.

"Are those ppl and links any less credible than yours?"

Well, anok, you have to decide that for yourself. If you believe that every single pilot, engineer, scientist, meteorologist, etc. is all in on the Secret And Dastardly Plot To Spray Us With Bad Juju, then you will probably think that clowneycon's site is more "credible".

"Like abdul said weather control is and has been on ongoing programme by The US and other countries, especialy Russia."

So what else is new? Every country wants to fix the weather. Do you really consider that "evidence" for the "chem-trail" hoax?

Hey, I want to get a new car next week. Is that "evidence" that I'm robbing banks to get the money? What kind of logic is that?

[edit on 29-11-2004 by Off_The_Street]

What you keep failing to remember is I witnessed SOMETHING that looked a hell of a lot like two aircraft spraying something in a chequerboard patern in the sky for over an hour. On two occasions.
Just like you see described in the chem trail sites by other ppl.
What I saw was not normal air traffic behaviour.

Am I part of a conspiracy to fool ppl into thinking that something is being sprayed in our skys?
I don't see the point of faking this. There's many other things I could think of to waste my time convincing ppl of, that would have more effect than chem-trails.

I also have engineering and aviation experience.
I didn't pay much attention to the chem-trail thing untill I saw it for myself.
I don't just believe things just cause they're on a web site.
If I hadn't seen what I did, I wouldn't be posting this.

All I'm sure of is what I saw. I have no idea what's going on.
I DON"T think it's anything that's meant to harm anybody.
Climate/weather control is my first guess.
That would explain the secrecy. They don't want us to know how bad our climate is screwed up. In other words if they are having to try and artificialy control our climate then there must be something seriously wrong. But then again who knows?....

When you can convince me that what I saw was an halucination then I'll carry your flag right along side with you.

Something is going on, maybe the chem-trail web sites are way off the mark as to what, but it's something.

Yes, off_the_street, you deny that there are people, maybe a little cynical and a little sceptical, but with an open mind , who are able to observe phenomena and changes with our own hearts and minds, and of course the sky is a screen that we can see every day and we watch what goes on there
Now, I've met people like you before, who try to belittle people by suggesting that some just read and believe what they see and read on the net, while they have some serious scientific, experiential or even common sense background
Now what is that famous quote about science being able to prove that an elephant can hang off a cliff supported by its tail wrapped round a daisy?
Some of us know that all the values of dominance that you try to espouse are as dumb as anything you try to accuse us of
All you believe is what you were trained to believe, , all you perceive is what you were trained to perceive. Starting in your childhood, all you accept is what you've been told to accept.
You will militate against any other views that challenge your conditioning because you are afraid of what occurs if you let go your body armoring and then what streams up- honestly - there is nothing to fear
Thus ways the controllers can find plenty of dupes and emplacements to defend their cause and rubbish opponents with fine words

Please don't try to put us down - rather argue on the evidence and supposition
There is rather a lot of it out there

Damnit Street, you weren't suposed to talk about that!!

Then why do you ignore the basic science of meteorology

I'll tell you what, dh.

Go look up the term "standard atmosphere" and tell me what the standard temperature is at 30,000 feet.

Can you do that?

Anok says:

"What you keep failing to remember is I witnessed SOMETHING that looked a hell of a lot like two aircraft spraying something in a chequerboard patern in the sky for over an hour. On two occasions."

I do not debate that you saw SOMETHING. But I believe you misinterpreted what you saw as "chem-trails", when whatever it was was easily explained by normal atmospherics, as both Mr. Roark and I have gone over many times.

"What I saw was not normal air traffic behaviour."

I think it was, and you simply misinterpreted it.

"Am I part of a conspiracy to fool ppl into thinking that something is being sprayed in our skys?"

I doubt that very much. I am sure that both you and Mr. dh are honest and decent people who simply don't understand what you see.

"I don't see the point of faking this. There's many other things I could think of to waste my time convincing ppl of, that would have more effect than chem-trails."

I agree completely. Why people like the hoaxters spend so much time lying to us is almost beyond my comprehension. Of course, Jeff Rense has built his radio career and all his sales on this type of crapola, so he needs people to buy into his scams to they'll buy into his products.

In other cases, it's probably some sort of power trip on the part of the hoaxters. Maybe some of them are frustrated that they are not "important" people and they figure that coming up with a scam will make them feel important -- or whatever. I'm an engineer, not a psychologist; I don't know why people like Rense and Will Thomas are trying to do what they do.

"I also have engineering and aviation experience."

I am not sure if your experience extends to meteorology, especially phenomena such as like supersaturation, sublimation outside of a particular temperature-humidity gradient, the relationship between RH at different temperatures with respect to actual grams of water per cubic meter of air, the action of "seed" crystals in cloud formation, and the actual dynamics of atmosphere at eight to eleven thousand meters.

If they do, you should be able to explain every type of persistent contrail without having to make up assertions about huge plots which run counter to just about every fact of science, logistics, and pulic health which I can think of.

"If I hadn't seen what I did, I wouldn't be posting this."

I know that. Again, I believe that both you and Mr. dh are honest people, but that does not mean that what you think you saw was really what was happening.

"Climate/weather control ... would explain the secrecy."

You're assuming there is some secrecy because you're assuming there's some conspiracy. A better assumption is that the government doesn't talk about it because there is nothing to talk about -- because there really isn't a conspiracy -- because there is nothing to cover up. That is certainly a lot simpler assertion than having to come up with huge secret plots which have no evidence. Are you familiar with "Occam's Razor"?

"They don't want us to know how bad our climate is screwed up. In other words if they are having to try and artificialy control our climate then there must be something seriously wrong. But then again who knows?..."

If the government is trying to hide our climatic problems from us, then they're doing a pretty poor job LOL! Just about every single article in the science section of every news journal, including all the mainsteram ones, is chock full of people calling attention to the crisis (and there really is a crisis) in our climate.

You can't open a single magazine nowadays without seeing some group of scientists and/or activist chewing President Bush out for his lack of a energy policy which has contributed to our climate problems, and his lack of a coherent policy on the global warming concern. And I think he deserves this chewing out; although the Kyoto Protocol is fatally flawed, Bush hasn't done jack to resolve the problem.

"When you can convince me that what I saw was an halucination..."

I don't think you're hallucinating; I just think you misinterpreted what you saw, because you don't have the full story on the way weather works.

Howard Roark Says:

"Damnit Street, you weren't supposed to talk about that!!"

Oops. Sorry. I thought that'd been cleared by Reptoid Central. My bad.

Yawn - so what? HowardRoark - I've spent a bit of time, money and energy in interelating with what's happening out there with various orgonite devices. I've run and periodically modified a cloud/chembuster for 2 1/2 years and 'gifted' cell towers. I don't get carried away with this stuff and rarely contribute to the forums surrounding this kind of activity. I know they're rife with personal paranoia, as well as interesting information.
I keep my distance not wishing to be sucked in to some mass delusional kind of thing
Nevertheless, I have observed changes resulting from my interventions and those of others. Not, admittedly subject to verifiable or refutable 'scientific' data. 'Scientific' expressed thus because this just expresses a phase in the developing scientific paradigm development stretching from around Newton to Einstein. And now we're into a new era of holographic reference, where 'measurable' may have to take on a whole new meaning as observed phenomena are changed by the mere fact of observation
So I don't need some lecture on frozen water vapour being trapped in the atmospheric layers, I've seen that innumerable times, and I've seen the chemtrails phenomenon ably described by Anok innumerable times and it's different, and over the past few months I've seen the Sylph phenomenon and the HAARP vibrations with far greater frequency
So, I'll keep watching the skies and from time to time try to make a difference

It's the greatest of times we're in and I remain optomistic while the agenda is most evidently exteriorised and you can hardly believe the mass of people can accept what's happening to their lives and the continuing massacres out there in dark-skinned land by burying themselves in propaganda and unreality TV
It's not a matter of what's up with me, or with us, it's more wtf's going on with them

So, in other words, you would prefer to believe is some made up mumbo-jumbo over proven science?

I don't care what anyone says, chemtrails are real. Of course they are contrails of planes but certain ones are not regular. The patterns, the particles, the cloud effects that follow, the little spheres that show up on film, all the delusional stuff you have heard. It happens.

btw, i found it better not to discuss this subject anymore, especially with HowardR on the scene we, I believe, have agreed to have differing opinions on this matter.

No - that's not the other words at all, Howard
We can all accept proven science for what it proves, which is how the world operates on the accepted consciousness level - which is just about those with proven authority telling us the world is how it is and because they have peer evaluations in the so-called scientific press then everythings alright with the world and things happen as they should do
ffs - it's clearly and evidently not ok
science hands us down a tissue of mumbo-jumbo ideology only agreed by the mass of so-called scientists buying in to the mumbo-jumbo
This all concerns which reality the mass mind is accepting
Surely and slowly this is changing
See the DMT link on the presently adjacent Acid thread
Bless

@ Off the street,

OK forget all about weather for a second, we've been over all that.

Pls explain what 2 aircraft would be doing going back and forth across the sky in a repetitive patern. One flying east then turning and flying west, and the other north/south. At a fixed altitude with a white cloud comming out the back, on a clear sunny day. No other contrails from other aircraft.
After about 1.5 hours there was a chequerboard covering of white chem/con trail that slowly spread out into a hazy covering.
Looked like classic spraying to me, what else could it be?

I know enough about aircraft and how they operate to know that was not normal traffic.

What were they doing?????

'Scuse the cheasy diagram, I was in a hurry, but this was the flight pattern, for over an hour.

anok says:

"OK forget all about weather for a second, we've been over all that."

No. Let's not forget all about weather for a second. If you don't understand basic meteorology and basics of atmospheric physics (and I'm not talking graduate-school stuff here, just basics), then how can you make an argument? How can I attempt to explain stuff in terms of things you don't understand and seem to to have any interest in learning?

"Pls explain what 2 aircraft would be doing going back and forth across the sky in a repetitive patern. One flying east then turning and flying west, and the other north/south. At a fixed altitude with a white cloud comming out the back, on a clear sunny day. No other contrails from other aircraft.
After about 1.5 hours there was a chequerboard covering of white chem/con trail that slowly spread out into a hazy covering. Looked like classic spraying to me, what else could it be?"

How should I know? You don't have any video so I can't tell if it's even the same planes.

My guess is that you saw one aircraft on a N-S heading and another on an E-W heading, both at about the proper height and in the proper atmospheric conditions for persistent contrails.

If you saw two planes on two discrete track, the chances are that they are flying two more-or-less straight line (or Great Cicle) routes between their two respective airports.

This means that, a few minutes later, another couple of planes flew the same (more or less) patterns, which makes sense, because planes fly in more-or-less common lanes. So you didn't see two planes, you probably saw six or seven, separated by a few minutes of time.

If you were a serious researcher of this, you would be able, using Flight explorer ( www.flightexplorer.com... ) to tell you everything about those aircraft, including their airline, flight number, vector, altitude, departing/arriving airport, etc., etc., etc. You would also be able to get radiosonde information from several sites that would tell you what the temperature and RH are in that area at any particular altitude, so you could cross-reference the meteorological and flight-time information to see the correlations.

Now I don't want to wee-wee in your Wheaties, Anok, but you need to think about this. If there were such things as "chem-trails" and the aircraft flew these "tic-tac-toe" arrangements in order to cause the sky to be blanketed sith "chem-crud"...

Then why do you claim that a single aircraft's contrails is a "chem-trail", and why does a single "chem-trail" spread out to cover the sky all by itself?.

And if you need all that "tic-tac-toe" stuff to blanket the sky, then are you saying the "chem-trails" from a single aircraft (which, of course, are the source of the vast majority of persistent contrails) aren't doing the job? And if they're not, then why are they being "sprayed' inthe first place?

Anok, it seems to me that, in order for there to actually be such a thing as "chem-trails", you have to postulate a bunch of scenarios which all have the same things in common:

They just don't make any sense.

(BTW, Your comment about it being a sunny day is irrelevant, as would be any discussion ot temperature measured on the ground; neither has any bearing on the ambient temperature and relative humidity at ten thousand meters altitude.)

Now perhaps I could ask you kindly Off_The_Street, as you may have been asked before, to produce evidence of tic-tac-toe grids, or repeated parellel lines, maybe with A formations occurring before the mid to late nineties
This must have been going on back in, say, 1984. There was jet airliner travel back then so there must be evidence to show the contrails and other phenomena
A single one won't do - I know that flights have grown exponentially since then but to my mind, the patterning appearing in the skies has only been happening since the late Nineties
Some National Geographic pix or something will do

dh says:

"Now perhaps I could ask you kindly Off_The_Street, as you may have been asked before, to produce evidence of tic-tac-toe grids, or repeated parellel lines, maybe with A formations occurring before the mid to late nineties."

What would that prove to you, dh? That there is no such thing as a "chem-trail" conspiracy?

Or would you be forced to come up with some other modification to your hypothesis?

Let me know. If you're serious about using the existence of contrail lines before 1990 as "evidence" that there are no such thing as "chem-trails", then I'll go out and find you some, okay?

I personally don't believe the existence of persistent contrails in parallel groupings or crossed or whatever proves or disproves anything, but if you really want to use it as "evidence", I'll be glad to do your research for you.

Again, let me know.

Off the street I give up with ya...

I'm tired of being patronized.

I think I can tell how many aircraft I was looking at

It isn't a photograph, but Kieth Ferris's 75 foot wide mural at the Smithsonian was painted in 1975. Will that do?



[edit on 2-12-2004 by HowardRoark]