A real chemtrail discussion

originally posted by: tetra50

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: tetra50

You seem confused, CGI is not something one can live in, it is art, created on a computer.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Perhaps you are confused. We are living on a planet. What we see, empirically, can very well be CGI inspired and produced, meaning we cannot any longer know what empirical evidence, what is seen, can be judged with validity. I am not confused at all about this. It's quite obvious to me. Perhaps you are the one confused about what this technology really means to all of us?

That notion seems to be bordering on solopsism, but with a CGI slant.

Interesting discussion, but not the topic here. I hope we can still focus on the central question, even if that means that we have to assume that there's an objective reality 'out there'.

originally posted by: payt69

How about this? We don't insult each other, as there is no need to, since I kinda think we're on the same side. Yes, I know what cirrus clouds are.

I didn't mean to insult you, and if I did, I'm sorry. But the cirrus cloud IS a relevant question, as so few people actually know anything about meteorology, and yet have very specific beliefs that fly in the face of our current understanding of it.

Frankly, I see contrails from jets everyday, all the time, and they don't make much sense, in terms of where a jet would be flying, gaining altitude, traveling horizontally, etc.....

Ok you're going to have a bit more specific here. I see contrails regularly too, but for me it's easy to understand what's happening, and often I can track the plane and see what kind of plane it is, what altitude it's flying at and where it's going and where it came from in flightradar24. You can also check weather conditions on that altitude, and usually the conditions up there and contrail persistence match up.

So exactly what is it that doesn't match up for you?

But I'm not really interested in having this argument about chemtrails or not, for this reason: It seems to me very clear that we are experiencing chemtrails. We have lots and lots of pics in different geographies that don't match commercial jet flight patterns. I'm already a believer and knower. But I think the argument is specious and silly.

Oh my.. that's exactly what I often think the mindset of a true believer is. but here we have it spelled out. Thanks for admitting as much though, as it's very enlightening.

Of course commercial jets leave a contrail. Is it a purposeful "Chemtrail," well we'll never know nor be able to prove such.....

How about the chemtrails caused by cars, ships, industry etc.. are they purposeful? Are they any different from those caused by jets?

But it doesn't take much to believe, as in even if the contrails are spewing fuel byproducts not intended to do damage to the human populous, the flight pattern and fallout from what I've already described probably leaves little doubt.....

What flight pattern and what fallout is that?

yet, I feel it's a useless, baiting argument to make one look like a conspiracy believing, paranoid fool, and so, rarely get involved in it....
regards anyway,
tetra

Well thanks for contributing to the debate here. You leave many questions though, and I too doubt that we can answer them all. But we can maybe look at it point by point, and see if there's anything to it.

There aren't any answers to those obvious questions.
Obviously. And baiting people about the obvious is just, well.....baiting them.
Did Chrysler or Dodge decide to poison the public? We will never know nor be able to prove it, and what if we could, really, anyway? It's rather a useless argument, and pointless, I feel.

All cars produce exhaust, and so do jet engines. Is that purposefully poisoning us or not? Who knows? Who gives a flying fu**, pun intended.

It's pointless argument, obviously intended to bait people and make them look stupid. At least that's my take on it.
Yes, jets leave a contrail, exhaust, and/or condensation. What does that do to us? Who knows? I've recently applied to be trained as a flight attendant, for what that's worth. In other words, in real life, even if we are purposefully poisoned in that way, I still have to earn a living, and so do all of us.

That's the reality of the world we live in. We cannot prove that fluoride was added to our water to help our teeth or poison us.....why do we debate this issue so heatedly? We all surely understand that there is a culling factor to the world we live in: we see commercials, ad nauseous, on televisiion, daily, telling us to eat fast food, and we are an obese population in the US.....

Money is made daily on giving us the signal to make ourselves sick through our choices so a business can earn money solving our deficiencies. To me, knowing this, makes the whole contrail/chemtrail discussion silly, frankly. we already really know what may or may not be happening, whether we can prove it or not.....
regards,
tetra50

originally posted by: payt69

originally posted by: tetra50

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: tetra50

You seem confused, CGI is not something one can live in, it is art, created on a computer.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Perhaps you are confused. We are living on a planet. What we see, empirically, can very well be CGI inspired and produced, meaning we cannot any longer know what empirical evidence, what is seen, can be judged with validity. I am not confused at all about this. It's quite obvious to me. Perhaps you are the one confused about what this technology really means to all of us?

That notion seems to be bordering on solopsism, but with a CGI slant.

Interesting discussion, but not the topic here. I hope we can still focus on the central question, even if that means that we have to assume that there's an objective reality 'out there'.

Frankly, if you ignore how all things fit together, these days, and isolate on one solipsism, then you can disregard pure logic using Occams Razor which doesn't cut anything, then, really......

In other words, it all has to be taken into account. If you aren't prepared for that logical analysis, but are wanting to focus on one singular thing, then you can make any mathematical or logical equation whatever you want it to be. All things must be taken into account, for all things to be considered.....

a reply to: payt69

As far as I can see, the basic claim of chemtrail believers is that contrails can't persist, because of reasons. Therefore, any trail that does persist is a chemtrail/geoengineering. Correct me if I'm wrong here

The scientific/meteorological stance is that contrail formation and persistence is to be expected, as contrails are just a form of cirrus cloud, and therefore can persist like any other cirrus cloud.

So let's resolve this for once and for all.

I want to know exactly WHAT is wrong with the current scientific explanation. I've perused the internet to try and find an explanation of WHY contrails allegedly can't persist, but I can't seem to find it. It's being stated as if it's a fact by chemtrail believers, but no explanatio is ever given. So those of you who believe contrails can't persist, please be so kind and explain yourselves.

You know me and what I`m going to say. Contrails are Chemtrails or, if you prefer it this way, Chemtrails are Contrails. So it`s easy to explain the science behind it. The basic claim that you want to further obfuscate comes from misinformation or misunderstanding. Persistent or not is nothing more than whether or not there are the right conditions for such to form.

Thing is though that, after many years of experiments, they know when the conditions are right for persistent contrail to form and make cirrus clouds. So that`s why you will see more air traffic than usual in these conditions. I call it intentional weather manipulation. Simply because they are making clouds that wouldn`t have formed without the help of contrails. So there is an agenda right there.

And that`s just a scientific observation. For now I`ll leave the nanotech conspiracy speculation out of it because we won`t be able to find a common ground.

P.S. Remember, this is my one and only post to this thread becasue I`m done with arguing

a reply to: payt69

Aerial cloud seeding is the process of delivering a seeding agent by aircraft - either at the cloud base or cloud top. Top seeding allows for direct injection of the seeding agent into the supercooled cloud top. Base seeding is the release of the seeding agent in the updraft of a cloud base. weathermodification.com...

Does this help?

Ok peeps, I have to run to work now. I hope you guys can continue the debate, and please try and focus on the main questin here.. It'd be nice to come back from work and find the answer to the question of WHY contrails supposed can't persist waiting here.

Thanks to all parties for your input, it's greatly appreciated!

a reply to: tetra50

Uhh, you mean the holographic universe?

Yes, it is you that is confused.

Anyway, drifting way off topic.

a reply to: alienscot1

There is no cloud seeding being carried out by large, commercial sized aircraft.

a reply to: payt69

I find it highly amusing that the "chemtrail believers" have done exactly what I said would happen in my first reply to you.

5 pages and still the same lol.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: payt69

I find it highly amusing that the "chemtrail believers" have done exactly what I said would happen in my first reply to you.

5 pages and still the same lol.

Well 2 seem to have admitted that indeed contrails can persist, much to my surprise! But they still somehow hold on to the chemtrail belief. An interesting development indeed!

Really have to run now.. lol.. Talk to y'all later!

originally posted by: Op3nM1nd3d
a reply to: payt69

As far as I can see, the basic claim of chemtrail believers is that contrails can't persist, because of reasons. Therefore, any trail that does persist is a chemtrail/geoengineering. Correct me if I'm wrong here

The scientific/meteorological stance is that contrail formation and persistence is to be expected, as contrails are just a form of cirrus cloud, and therefore can persist like any other cirrus cloud.

So let's resolve this for once and for all.

I want to know exactly WHAT is wrong with the current scientific explanation. I've perused the internet to try and find an explanation of WHY contrails allegedly can't persist, but I can't seem to find it. It's being stated as if it's a fact by chemtrail believers, but no explanatio is ever given. So those of you who believe contrails can't persist, please be so kind and explain yourselves.

You know me and what I`m going to say. Contrails are Chemtrails or, if you prefer it this way, Chemtrails are Contrails. So it`s easy to explain the science behind it. The basic claim that you want to further obfuscate comes from misinformation or misunderstanding. Persistent or not is nothing more than whether or not there are the right conditions for such to form.

Thing is though that, after many years of experiments, they know when the conditions are right for persistent contrail to form and make cirrus clouds. So that`s why you will see more air traffic than usual in these conditions. I call it intentional weather manipulation. Simply because they are making clouds that wouldn`t have formed without the help of contrails. So there is an agenda right there.

And that`s just a scientific observation. For now I`ll leave the nanotech conspiracy speculation out of it because we won`t be able to find a common ground.

P.S. Remember, this is my one and only post to this thread becasue I`m done with arguing

Other way round actually. Yes they know where the conditions exist but they're looking into avoiding them to prevent contrails contribution to climate change

www.bbc.co.uk...

Large condensation trails in the sky caused by aircraft could be eliminated by re-routing flight paths, say scientists.
Researchers are concerned about the climate change potential of these wispy, man-made clouds.
But a new study suggests that making changes to existing flight routes could curb their warming impact.
Avoiding a major contrail on a flight to New York from London would only add 22km to the journey, experts say

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: FightingBuddha

Except what's in a persistent contrail is not what is supposed to be in a chemtrail...so how can they be the same?

Can you provide a list of what makes up both because according to the experts there is a difference...chemtrail experts that is, as though there is such a thing.

Here is a list that is supposed to be in chemtrails...

stopsprayingcalifornia.com...

Interesting that none of it was found when contrail tests are done...and yes contrails are tested.

As argumentative and belittling as you are, I am half on your side. I do not believe chemtrails are made with sinister chemicals and ladden with viruses and other malicious components, but are just a simple altering of the conditions required to make a persistent contrail. Any chemical which has a relatively similar freezing point form a liquid state as water should be able to exist in a persistent contrail.

Oh, now it is my turn. Which contrails are tested? Can you provide me a list of every contrail tested, and at what altitude? Can you show that the sample of contrail tests is wide enough to statistically cover every flight over the US, and for a significant amount of time?

originally posted by: FightingBuddha

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: FightingBuddha

Except what's in a persistent contrail is not what is supposed to be in a chemtrail...so how can they be the same?

Can you provide a list of what makes up both because according to the experts there is a difference...chemtrail experts that is, as though there is such a thing.

Here is a list that is supposed to be in chemtrails...

stopsprayingcalifornia.com...

Interesting that none of it was found when contrail tests are done...and yes contrails are tested.

As argumentative and belittling as you are, I am half on your side. I do not believe chemtrails are made with sinister chemicals and ladden with viruses and other malicious components, but are just a simple altering of the conditions required to make a persistent contrail. Any chemical which has a relatively similar freezing point form a liquid state as water should be able to exist in a persistent contrail.

Oh, now it is my turn. Which contrails are tested? Can you provide me a list of every contrail tested, and at what altitude? Can you show that the sample of contrail tests is wide enough to statistically cover every flight over the US, and for a significant amount of time?

Well there'sthis study, for example:

Forecast models were used to find regions of airspace that would be ideal (i.e. cloud
free with high ice supersaturation) for contrail formation and sampling. Contrails were
20 then formed in a distinctive pattern and sampled by the FAAM BAe-146 research aircraft
both in situ using cloud microphysics probes and remotely using lidar and SWS.
Despite the difficulties involved with performing these types of experiments, contrails
were sampled at various ages from 7 min to over an hour old. The UK Met Office NAME
model was found to be an extremely useful tool for determining contrail location and

Number concentrations were found to be lower than in previous studies where sampling
was done closer to the source aircraft. Size distribution information shows ice
crystals typically ∼10 µm in size (no change at the contrail periphery was noted), with
a shift to larger (100 µm) crystals only observed when RHice was higher, thus illustrating
the impact of environmental supersaturation gradients on contrail development.

Here's the research plane involved in this:

www.google.nl... HcVyCwMQ_AUIBigB#imgrc=6vKFv6J5H-3T2M%3A

And the paper itself: juser.fz-juelich.de...

The paper doesn't hint at any chemicals being present in the contrail that shouldn't be there. In fact I've never seen any scientific material hinting at this being the case.

The thing is: we know how contrails form, and there is no reason to suspect that anything out of the ordinary is happening when they do form and persist. It's just chemtrail believers who seem to think there's something other to contrails than contrails, but they can't seem to settle on what it is.

The null hypothesis is contrails. If you think it's something else, then you have to provide evidence. Just like the null hypothesis for waves in the ocean is that the waves are formed by currents and wind. If you think there's a giant monster in the middle of the ocean causing all the waves, you have to provide evidence for said monster. That's the situation you find yourself in now.

originally posted by: alienscot1
a reply to: payt69

Aerial cloud seeding is the process of delivering a seeding agent by aircraft - either at the cloud base or cloud top. Top seeding allows for direct injection of the seeding agent into the supercooled cloud top. Base seeding is the release of the seeding agent in the updraft of a cloud base. weathermodification.com...

Does this help?

Yes I'm familiar with that. So do they use any commercial airliners in their program?

Hint: they have a page where they show all their aircraft: mostly little prop planes and 2 business jets. Are those few planes responsibe for all the alleged 'chemtrails'?

a reply to: payt69

Of that I'm unsure, I know the weather mod planes are small but there are some patents for chemicals to be added to jet airplane fuel. Mostly the more metallic particles, aluminum oxide and Thorium Oxide. As to whether this was done I have no idea. I imagine very few people would be privy to that information.

a reply to: payt69

Sections 3.1 through 3.2 of that paper refer to their own personal use of the research craft to not only measue and analyze the trails, but to form them(explained in greater detail in 4.1). As I replied before, it is not a reasonable assumption that all contrails are as represented in the studies, and in particular the study you posted.

Unfortunately, as I do not own a plane, or spectrometer or hygrometer or lidar, I won't be able to analyze persistent contrails anytime soon. But from personal observations of patterned persistent contrails over roughly the same area of land, at roughly the same time, (central Florida, USA, in between 5 and 7 am, I'll happily provide pictures at the next occurance) I can infer that SOME form of intentional contrail formation is occuring.

Also, it seems thay your steadfast resolve to mantain your question of "can contrails persist, and why or why not?" has somewhat deteriorated to you questioning whether or not I (or others) have proof of pervasive chemicals being present in such conditions. I might suggest posting another thread so as not to detract from the main point of this one, less it get to convoluted.

So here we are.

We know, from personal memory as well as the written content of their own websites, that chemtrail theory was BEGUN by a small group of people who did not understand the atmosphere and aviation and whose central tenet was that "contrails cannot persist".

We also know that every single chemtrail photo and video can easily be a contrail and is perfectly explained by known, experienced and proven science, despite the individual photographers apparent bafflement.

So, if this is not in dispute any more, and a few chemtrail proponents have said as much.

Why do you still think those lines in the sky are, or at least could be, chemtrails laid as part of a deliberate spraying operation?

If it's because you think it's what geoengineering or cloud seeding looks like, it's OK. I got you guys. The fact that neither thing does, or would, look like that, and that GE is all theoretical anyway, is irrelevant to you. I'm not going to argue with people who've read SRM papers that describe exactly what the aim is and taken only what they want to see, or those who cannot grasp that you cannot seed a cloud that isn't already there and that cirrus clouds don't produce rain etc etc. This has been argued ad nauseum. I do agree with those who say why keep going in circles? Those battle lines seem to be firmly drawn by both sides.

Having said that, it really does disappoint me that there are sides in this argument. None of us wants chemtrails fouling our skies, none of us wants geoengineering gambling with our very existence. It's tragic that fellows members suspicion of EACH OTHER utterly defeats the sharing of knowledge and experience in a quest to get to the real truth. As soon as one of us offers the benefit of what we know we get jumped all over with "shill" "who's paying you" etc etc. Debunking is not the enemy. Debunking is essential if one is not to be led up the garden path. Our debunking has exposed countless photos as being innocent and unconnected with anything chemtrail related, Renses French Air Force tanker, Carnicom's civil aircraft emergency fuel dump video and every Tankerenemy video ever published spring to mind. Believers need to ask themselves a question. If exposing such as that offends you, are you REALLY looking for truth?

Just one simple question, if you would oblige.
if the above passage doesn't include your belief, why do you find chemtrails believable?

a reply to: alienscot1

Jet fuel is subject to strict regulations as to what's in it. It's also regularly tested to make sure it conforms. You can't just add something. You can even buy some and have it tested yourself, seriously. Theories like this only stand up for people who can only imagine what happens at airports, then anything is possible.

a reply to: FightingBuddha

Where am I argumentative or belittling?

I pointed out a fact that chemtrails are supposed to made up of various things such as what is on the list in my link...so if contrails are chemtrails why do none of those things appear in any tests done on them?

Here is a better question...can you provide any test on contrails that will show a contrail has anything other than what is supposed to be there?

a reply to: waynos

I have piloted small aircraft and was a member of the Air Force in my younger days, yes I do know what happens at airports. I also know what can happen surreptitiously if you think it couldn't happen, believe me you are mistaken. I am not saying that it has, I have no need to know as it were.

I know that weather and solar radiation was trying to be controlled and various methods were being tried and tested.