Chemtrails- What are they?

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

This is another vote for the question in the thread title "Chemtrails- What are they?"

I think I answered that in one word...

Hoax

(Corrected)

I'm on vacation starting today guys... I had fun with the chat and wish all well. Hopefully Jesse can get to the bottom of it.

See ya all in some undetermined period of time! (waves)

a reply to: DenyObfuscation
They are natural occurring elements in all kerosene products, including jet fuel. It's not something that humans add. As a matter of fact, we grade the ones with the lowest content of sulfur as the highest grades (including what's used for jet fuel). The ones with the highest levels are basically treated as “scrap” gas, which is sold cheap.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Would they look "exactly" like a contrail? That's news...but I'd love to hear where you'd get that impression?

How about every thread in this forum.

And pretty much every chemtrail pusher on the internet.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

As a final note on this, since I was the one who brought it up.... Scientists and Specialists who do this for a living (not you and I) have, on multiple occasions, spoken at length about dumping both carbon and sulphur particular within the stratosphere for the purposes of specific mitigation and in particular, Solar Radiation Mitigation.

These are not, in any way shape or form, connected to or related to the content of gallon of jet fuel, either burned or unburned, in any condition. At any point in time.

It is about speculating on the open and public discussions by those who inform world science and political policy. You'll find the exact details and outlines in the thread I wrote on Climate Change and the IPCC, which quotes and works from the conference held in Lima, Peru and where these matters were the specific agenda for a good part of the conference.

Those people who determine the advice given to those who write and form the policies the world is defined by. I'll take their word for the possible uses...over any opinions to the contrary sans objective proof that all can see, review and independently judge the credibility of.

Kinda how I approach things... Anyway.. Off to vacation. Take Care!

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

As a final note on this, since I was the one who brought it up.... Scientists and Specialists who do this for a living (not you and I) have, on multiple occasions, spoken at length about dumping both carbon and sulphur particular within the stratosphere for the purposes of specific mitigation and in particular, Solar Radiation Mitigation.

They certainly have:

Here is the plan. Customize several Gulfstream business jets with military engines and with equipment to produce and disperse fine droplets of sulfuric acid. Fly the jets up around 20 kilometers—significantly higher than the cruising altitude for a commercial jetliner but still well within their range. At that altitude in the tropics, the aircraft are in the lower stratosphere. The planes spray the sulfuric acid, carefully controlling the rate of its release. The sulfur combines with water vapor to form sulfate aerosols, fine particles less than a micrometer in diameter.

www.technologyreview.com...

That's 65k feet and does not describe contrails from passenger airliners.

ETA: I don't recall anything about dumping carbon though. Carbon sequestration, yes.

a reply to: defcon5
Ok. My statement was a reply to this question though. Wrabbit asked

What would Sulphur or Carbon particulate that has been discussed in public reports look like?

Is there any reason this would be visible at 65k feet?

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Outstanding sourcing to one possible method.

The science staff of national delegations to the IPCC conference in Peru was not talking about Gulfstream personal jets. They hadn't necessarily specified which aircraft as I recall, as those men weren't in the operational phase of it. They were policy planners, advisors and national science staffs discussing it. 65,000ft may well be where some is discussed for altitude and levels. It isn't where it's all discussed and the Stratosphere (as illustrated in other threads) starts as low as 23,000 feet in elevation, depending on place and conditions on Earth across a given day. It's a fluid boundary, and more so in some latitudes than others.

Anyway.. Again, just clarifying and you can disagree with my sources. I absolutely disagree with many being used on counter-points. They say what they say though, and the one I refer to has said little or nothing along the lines of these "guidelines" you artificially determine must be the operational envelope we are to consider. Many methods have been and are being considered...some we don't even know about, I'm sure. Many fall outside the "boundaries" defined to restrict speculation and funnel debate on this.

Just my views and attempt to clarify.

Took this the other day..one of the trails has a right angle in it





and these a few days before

I believe chemtrails are used to prop up the ionosphere.

Radio frequencies utilize the ionosphere to propagate as waves.

The ionosphere becomes more tangible for this purpose at solar maximum.

We are at one of the lowest solar minimums, so the ionosphere is no longer viable for RF transmission.

By adding heavy elements, in monatomic form, the atmosphere could contain an artificial ionosphere.

What if the heavy element was monatomic gold. Would we get happy and healthy?

Just a theory I stole.

They control the digital and ALL of the analog.

They are REALLY good at analog, thank you Eric.

a reply to: OFFTHEGRID

Look,

Straight up: I don't think that you are ready to go where you need to go to understand "Chemtrails". If you were, you would have gone there.

If you're serious, then you need to do some reading.

You need to know who James Tilly Matthews is and why he is important, and you need to know what an Air Loom does according to Matthews.

After that you need to review the work of Victor Tausk and learn about his Influencing Machine.

"Chemtrails" are contrails, so all you are left with to study here, my friend, Is people's perception that they are Chemtrails.

We will learn a tremedous amount more about ourselves and how we relate to the world by studying that than we will trying to study something that doesn't exist.

But I honestly don't think that the CT community is ready for that much honesty.

We simply never have gotten beyond the horror and estrangement brought on by the industrial revolution and people aren't willing to cop to it.

a reply to: PhoenixOD


Yeah I took these last week in Brooklyn and Staten Island

a reply to: Bilk22
Have you guys taken this evidence to the police yet?

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

I know you are on vacation, and I certainly hope to read you enjoyed your respite when you return.

Which "chemtrailer" made the statement you quote there? Out of context and without reference to what aircraft or incident it might refer to, it has no meaning? I'd say it sounds like an assumption which I personally attempt to avoid, but I can't even say that much without a source for those quoted words.

The statement I made is paraphrased and has been encountered innumerable times within this very forum here at ATS. I would venture to say nearly every single member who is a proponent of chemtrails has written a similar statement over the course their posting life; I have yet to see a retraction or denial or dispute this paraphrase is inaccurate.

Would they look "exactly" like a contrail? That's news...but I'd love to hear where you'd get that impression?

I got this impression from this site...a chemtrailer posts a picture of a contrail and claims it is a chemtrail. And offers no proof of the assertion except, "expert eyeball analysis," and links purporting the substances contained in a chemtrail, such as strontium, barium, aluminum, etc...

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: Bilk22
Have you guys taken this evidence to the police yet?

It's a crime, isn't it?

This site doesn't allow more detailed pics to be posted, but there were "orbs" that also accompanied the planes. They were clearly visible to the naked eye, but needed to be greatly enlarged from my iPhone pics, to be seen. I can post them later for your enjoyment

a reply to: Bilk22

It's a crime, isn't it?

I'm not aware of any laws against contrails. It would appear that you posted the pics because you believe they are evidence of "chemtrails". Do you believe that? Then why not do something about it? Unless of course you realize it's evidence of nothing.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: Bilk22

It's a crime, isn't it?

I'm not aware of any laws against contrails. It would appear that you posted the pics because you believe they are evidence of "chemtrails". Do you believe that? Then why not do something about it? Unless of course you realize it's evidence of nothing.

Mind if I ask - WHAT"S IT TO YOU?

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: Bilk22

It's a crime, isn't it?

I'm not aware of any laws against contrails. It would appear that you posted the pics because you believe they are evidence of "chemtrails". Do you believe that? Then why not do something about it? Unless of course you realize it's evidence of nothing.

Just noticed - you have started exactly ZERO threads on ATS. Why not start a thread that chemtrails are like unicorns?

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: Bilk22

It's a crime, isn't it?

I'm not aware of any laws against contrails. It would appear that you posted the pics because you believe they are evidence of "chemtrails". Do you believe that? Then why not do something about it? Unless of course you realize it's evidence of nothing.

Mind if I ask - WHAT"S IT TO YOU?

I do mind but to be polite I'll answer. I'm concerned for you as a fellow ATSer that this behavior appears a bit disingenuous. Just a heads up.