I think I know What Chemtrails are... and it's worse than you can imagine!

Korg Trinity

mikell
You have to prove they exist first and no one has to the best of my knowledge. But have fun anyway

There can be no doubt that they do exist... all you have to do is look up.

And see contrails...and??

For me ther is no doubt that chemtrails do NOT exist - I have never seen a photo or video of a "chemtrail" that didn't have EXACTLY the properties of a contrail and could not be distinguished from a contrail in any way.

I have NEVER seen any analysis of the composition of a chemtrail, I have NEVER seen any equipment fitted to an aircraft to spray chemtrails or any chemicals added to fuel to accomplish anything of the sort.

I have been an aircraft mechanic and quality assurance engineer in airlines and for a national regulator since 1976.

Stating that they may not exist is like saying prove the earth exists... Yes sure you can deny it's existence all you want... But there is a physical object or phenomena so denying it just makes you look stupid..

Poison the well much?

Stating that contrails cannot last longer than a few minutes defies almost 100 years of known contrail characteristics (the first persistent contrails were reported before eth end of WW1!)

Pointing out that the supposed evidence does nothing to show that these trails are anything othe than contrails is just pointing out the truth.

resorting to baseless assertions, poisoning the well and personal attacks as you have just done is the resort of people who know they do not actually have any real evidence.

Aloysius the Gaul

Poison the well much?

Stating that contrails cannot last longer than a few minutes defies almost 100 years of known contrail characteristics (the first persistent contrails were reported before eth end of WW1!)

Pointing out that the supposed evidence does nothing to show that these trails are anything othe than contrails is just pointing out the truth.

resorting to baseless assertions, poisoning the well and personal attacks as you have just done is the resort of people who know they do not actually have any real evidence.

No you totally misunderstand me.

I have not ever throughout this thread stated that contrails cannot at some times look exactly the same as chemtrails..

What I stated is that Chemtrails exist where contrails could not exist.

and as for poisoning the well.... if there are fools who would drink the water before testing it... let them die!

Korg.

Let me Highlight a previous post.....


what about this one from the The Royal Society also credited is the Environmental Defense Fund (edf.org) and the TWAS, the academy of sciences for the developing
world...

Solar radiation management: the governance of research

In September 2009, the Royal Society published a report that reviewed ideas
for deliberately intervening in the climate to counteract global warming -
techniques collectively described as ‘geoengineering’ (Royal Society 2009). The
report recommended that the scientific and governance challenges posed by
geoengineering should be explored in more detail, and that future work should
take into account the significant differences between the two classes of methods:
carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiation management (SRM)

It goes on to say...

Box 1.2 What is SRM?
Geoengineering, defined by the Royal Society (2009) as ‘the deliberate largescale intervention in the Earth’s climate system, in order to moderate global
warming’, is divided into two primary techniques: carbon dioxide removal (CDR)
and solar radiation management (SRM).
SRM methods aim to cool the planet by blocking or reflecting a small
percentage of light and heat from the Sun (solar radiation) back out into space.
Commonly discussed examples of SRM include brightening marine clouds,
introducing reflective aerosols into the stratosphere, making parts of the Earth’s
surface more reflective by painting roofs white or planting lighter coloured
crops and positioning ‘sun shades’ in space. Of these, marine cloud brightening
and stratospheric aerosols are generally considered to be among the most
potentially feasible options. (See Royal Society (2009) for specific references
supporting the material in this box.)

And then...

At present there are few international governance mechanisms to ensure that
SRM research would be transparent, safe and internationally acceptable5
. This is
especially important for large-scale field research, which could have significant
intended and unintended consequences that would not be restricted by national
borders.
Large-scale field research could also be controversial not only because it may
cause environmental damage, but also through the suggested commitment
to develop and deploy SRM technologies that doing the research might imply.
Attitudes towards these complex issues are explored in the next section on goals
and concerns about SRM development.

Hmmmm..... the need to govern... to regulate.... Regulation recognizes the dangers and how do you recognize dangers... through conduction.

Korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity

What was the purpose of yours? as I have asked and you haven't given me an answer..

The purpose was to help you understand persistent contrails and what your seeing is wrong.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


So you would rather see any group that wants to just doing whatever they want, and doing like someone did and dumping masses of chemicals into the ocean just to see what happens? I for one would rather see scientists being proactive and taking steps to stop that from happening.

HanzHenry
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

It is to control the weather.

Determining where gets rain and where gets drought.

That is GOD LEVEL power.

That is absolutely asinine. The capability of harnessing the weather of the planet coincides with that of a type 1 civilization. It is a foreseen and EXPECTED happening. To assume it is a "god-like" power is completely ridiculous.

I would have to see someone blink a mountain out of existence with sheer power of will before I would deem them to have "god-like" capabilities.


As far as what the chem-trails are for, who really knows. I don't.

I have heard every theory under the sun from it being a giant screen to project holograms onto, to it being a form of weather control. Either way, it has been happening for years and we're all still alive. I'm not convinced it is something so nefarious.

Korg Trinity
Hmmmm..... the need to govern... to regulate.... Regulation recognizes the dangers and how do you recognize dangers... through conduction.

by "conduction" do you mean conducting the activity? That's what it looks like to me, and it seems a fairly silly position to take that you must actually carry out the activity in order to recognize dangers.

Why can't you logically examine the proposal and identify what the dangers might be??

tsurfer2000h
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

What was the purpose of yours? as I have asked and you haven't given me an answer..

The purpose was to help you understand persistent contrails and what your seeing is wrong.

Well you failed miserably then... you posted a snipit from a main stream newspaper... yet I present among many other sources a detailed paper by The Royal Society written by more doctorates than is mentionable here.

I had a quick looksee at your profile posts.... 99% of the threads you have created an posts you have made on ats are ANTI-Chemtrail.... almost as if you are focusing on this one subject to somehow discredit it.... I don't see posts in any other subject.... why is that??

Korg.

Zaphod58
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

So you would rather see any group that wants to just doing whatever they want, and doing like someone did and dumping masses of chemicals into the ocean just to see what happens? I for one would rather see scientists being proactive and taking steps to stop that from happening.

Talk about going of on a tangent..

Nope never said that or implied it. I would prefer openness and debate... But that isn't happening, which leads me to believe that there is an Agenda at foot.

Korg.

Aloysius the Gaul

Korg Trinity
Hmmmm..... the need to govern... to regulate.... Regulation recognizes the dangers and how do you recognize dangers... through conduction.

by "conduction" do you mean conducting the activity? That's what it looks like to me, and it seems a fairly silly position to take that you must actually carry out the activity in order to recognize dangers.

Why can't you logically examine the proposal and identify what the dangers might be??

yes, yes of course that forms part of the theory...

Because unlike a lab, out in the real world there are variables you cannot account for.

Hence the need for field testing!

Korg.

reply to post by AlphaHawk

You're right,the entire African continent don't get sprayed-idk about other countries? It seems to be an American thing-or am I mistaken? I'm wanting to learn,living in Africa we don't have it so I've never paid much attention before.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


It's not a tangent at all. That's exactly what those rules are designed to prevent.

And you don't have to field test on even a small scale any more with what can be done with computer modeling, or even with places like the environmental testing hangar at Eglin AFB. You can test any kind of environment in that hangar, and even conduct weather modification testing.

Raxoxane
reply to post by AlphaHawk

 

You're right,the entire African continent don't get sprayed-idk about other countries? It seems to be an American thing-or am I mistaken? I'm wanting to learn,living in Africa we don't have it so I've never paid much attention before.

The idea is to reduce the effects of Global warming by causing a cooling effect. This is achieved by creating a kind of cloud cover over a percentage of the earth to reflect back into space the heat of the sun.

The implementation can be anywhere in the world and the overall cooling effects felt all over the world.

Peace,

Korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


I'm with the OP. Chemtrails are being used to reflect more sunlight and fight global warming. Of course, there may be consequences to this. What are the effects of these added chemicals to our air on our bodies? Does this create more volatile weather patterns? How much will they have to "dim" our skies in the future and will this reduce crop outputs?

I've been convinced for quite a while that the chemtrails were about fighting global warming (via CO2 and CO).

Korg Trinity

Aloysius the Gaul

Korg Trinity
Hmmmm..... the need to govern... to regulate.... Regulation recognizes the dangers and how do you recognize dangers... through conduction.

by "conduction" do you mean conducting the activity? That's what it looks like to me, and it seems a fairly silly position to take that you must actually carry out the activity in order to recognize dangers.

Why can't you logically examine the proposal and identify what the dangers might be??

yes, yes of course that forms part of the theory...

Because unlike a lab, out in the real world there are variables you cannot account for.

Hence the need for field testing!

sure there would be a case for field testing if something was going to be deployed.

But that is not the same as needing to conduct the activity in order to propose regulations about it, which was your original point - so it seems you are changing the subject??

also - got any actual evidence of actual field testing?

The only field test I know of was SPICE - which was cancelled before it happened - see www.abovetopsecret.com...

pirhanna
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

I've been convinced for quite a while that the chemtrails were about fighting global warming (via CO2 and CO).

what chemicals?

reply to post by Korg Trinity


Problem though. While the overall effects of contrails on the environment aren't well known there is plenty of evidence that contrails that occur overnight have a net warming effect on the environment.

Zaphod58
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

It's not a tangent at all. That's exactly what those rules are designed to prevent.

And you don't have to field test on even a small scale any more with what can be done with computer modeling, or even with places like the environmental testing hangar at Eglin AFB. You can test any kind of environment in that hangar, and even conduct weather modification testing.

So let me ask you a question if computer modeling is so good...

What will the weather be doing on December the 25th this year in London England?

You cannot contemplate how complex the atmosphere is... No test could be devised that could simulate the environment.

No sadly current computational power is no where near close enough.... and won't be for a very very long time.

The very reason why you want a test in a controlled environment is also the reason it wouldn't work.... it's controlled.... the atmosphere is chaotic system.... yes you can theorise all you want about what the effects/dangers should be... but nothing will tell until you actually field test your hypothesis.

The exciting yet often horrific side of Science.

Korg.

Aloysius the Gaul

But that is not the same as needing to conduct the activity in order to propose regulations about it, which was your original point - so it seems you are changing the subject??

Not at all... I highlighted relevant sections of a paper written a number of years ago by an organisation one should take note of...

also - got any actual evidence of actual field testing?

Global warming seems to have halted in it's tracks....

The massive increase in chemtrails.....

Look up once in a while maybe??

The only field test I know of was SPICE - which was cancelled before it happened - see www.abovetopsecret.com...

A weather balloon that was cancelled supposedly due to a breach of confidentiality... a patent....

Hardly a serious field test now... surely a pipet in an ocean??

Korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


Yea, I didnt' think you were at all interested in the truth.

Enjoy your chemtrails sport.