Could "Chemtrails" be a kind of medication?

a reply to: applesthateatpeople

Maybe you see nothing wrong with a sky covered with contrails, but a lot of us feel something is just not right about the whole thing.

There is no way you can convince us it is perfectly harmless.

Just two cents and a carrot tossed back in, but I wanted to note how well that sums up my own feelings, as well. In a general and not personally specific way, of course.

There are some real hard efforts across society to carefully define a chemtrail before then debunking it into total nonsense, so far that no one dare say the word.

Indeed....Many of us do still find something odd about it all and no hours of lecturing will ever, by that approach, change anything.

Well said on that point.

a reply to: applesthateatpeople

I think we all agree they block sunlight. They affect weather. There sure seems to be a lot of them.

But, (and sorry to bring "logic" into this yet again) since there are more planes flying, and the planes that fly have new engines that cause more contrails, does that tidbit of information play into your uneasiness at all?

a reply to: applesthateatpeople

It looks planned.

Well you are right on that point, because they call it flight paths and they plan their flight using them.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I mean what is going on behind them is secret. What is in them is a secret. Not that it's a secret that they are out there. Obviously they are there. I should have been more clear in my post.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
Indeed....Many of us do still find something odd about it all and no hours of lecturing will ever, by that approach, change anything.

I never figured you for a closed mind kind of rabbit.
Oh well. I guess you need to watch out for foxes and clouds.

a reply to: network dude

Oh, I'm not closed minded. I'm quite the opposite.

I listen to all sides of an argument and one which has no way to determine either side with real certainty, such as this one? I keep from making any absolute positions.

After all, anything like that could stand to be proven wrong at some future point if we find out covert programs were, at some points, actually happening and just as some have occasionally described seeing.

originally posted by: applesthateatpeople

originally posted by: waynos

a reply to: applesthateatpeople

You said that you don't believe in chemtrails, but you find contrails suspicious. In what way do you find the suspicious if they're not chemtrails? What do you suspect them of?

I look up and see several persistent contrails crossing eachother. Soon, they spread and become one large cloud that covers the sky.

It looks planned.

It looks suspicious.

OK. can you then envisage how commercial airline activity could function at all, if aircraft never crossed paths? Also, do you disagree with the explanation that contrails are ice crystals? And so;

A; if you can see that airline traffic must cross flight paths and cirrus clouds can last all day and spread out, why would this not be a satisfactory explanation for contrails doing the same?

Or

B; if you feel either of those are not correct, please elaborate to help me see your position?

Most people I know, from all walks of life, are concerned about this.

Concerned about what though? If not chemtrails, planned to what purpose, why can't it simply be a byproduct of flying?

Maybe you see nothing wrong with a sky covered with contrails, but a lot of us feel something is just not right about the whole thing.

There is no way you can convince us it is perfectly harmless. At the very least it is affecting the weather. It is blocking the sun (in my area) weeks at a time.

Didn't you have a go at another member for making assumptions? I counted four assumptions from you right there. I'm just trying to get a handle on your position. I found your statement about NOT believing in chemtrails, but also finding contrails suspicious interesting. So far, you've talked about trails crossing and spreading and looking planned. So I ask again, if not chemtrails, what?

You believe everything is fine. Cool.

Five assumptions

Can't we agree to disagree?

Or are you going to lecture me on contrails and ice crystals?

Dealer's choice.

In my book, agreeing to disagree comes AFTER a discussion, not before one. No lecture from me, I just want to know why you don't believe it.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I mean what is going on behind them is secret. What is in them is a secret. Not that it's a secret that they are out there. Obviously they are there. I should have been more clear in my post.

There's no reason why what is "in them" needs to be a secret - there are aircraft out there equipped for atmospheric testing - but chemmies never seem to manage to hire one to take actual samples. Supposedly $50k was raised and spent on the mocumentary "What in the world are they spraying" - that would pay for quiet a lot of atmospheric sampling.....

What they are for is not a secret either - they are a conspiracy by ATS to keep posting numbers up!! (it makes more sense as any of the other mythology!!)

That's it!

Medication!

That's how they keep the thousands and thousands of people they would need for logistics from spilling the beans. Of course. we should have covered this earlier.

there is no better means to keep a secret than....doing it for the kids.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: GeekOfTheWeek

Today when you see a contrail, it's basically steam from the moisture coming out of the engine, it can't stay steam for long at 20-30,000 ft.

No. It isn't steam. It is a cloud of tiny ice crystals. Just like a cirrus cloud is a cloud of tiny ice crystals.

Contrails are clouds formed when water vapor condenses and freezes around small particles (aerosols) that exist in aircraft exhaust. Some of that water vapor comes from the air around the plane; and, some is added by the exhaust of the aircraft.

science-edu.larc.nasa.gov...

 

Those that linger all day long are NOT normal. Sometimes you can look up, and see a jet passing, with a normal contrail barely following it as it dissipates.

Yes, they are. Both types are normal. It depends on the humdity level whether or not they persist.

From 1970:

The spreading out of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent conditions exist from 25,000 to 40,000ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet.

journals.ametsoc.org...

I know, that 1800 degree jet exhaust, obvious steam at that temp, tends to create ice. Pesky systems...

a reply to: GeekOfTheWeek

I know, that 1800 degree jet exhaust, obvious steam at that temp, tends to create ice.

Well, yes. Water vapor anyway, which is invisible. That water vapor condenses into water when it cools on contact with very cold air and turns into ice crystals. Just like the ice crystals which make up cirrus clouds.

Contrails are clouds formed when water vapor condenses and freezes around small particles (aerosols) that exist in aircraft exhaust. Some of that water vapor comes from the air around the plane; and, some is added by the exhaust of the aircraft.

science-edu.larc.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: applesthateatpeople

originally posted by: waynos

a reply to: applesthateatpeople

You said that you don't believe in chemtrails, but you find contrails suspicious. In what way do you find the suspicious if they're not chemtrails? What do you suspect them of?

I look up and see several persistent contrails crossing eachother. Soon, they spread and become one large cloud that covers the sky.

It looks planned.

It looks suspicious.

OK. can you then envisage how commercial airline activity could function at all, if aircraft never crossed paths? Also, do you disagree with the explanation that contrails are ice crystals? And so;

A; if you can see that airline traffic must cross flight paths and cirrus clouds can last all day and spread out, why would this not be a satisfactory explanation for contrails doing the same?

Or

B; if you feel either of those are not correct, please elaborate to help me see your position?

Most people I know, from all walks of life, are concerned about this.

Concerned about what though? If not chemtrails, planned to what purpose, why can't it simply be a byproduct of flying?

Maybe you see nothing wrong with a sky covered with contrails, but a lot of us feel something is just not right about the whole thing.

There is no way you can convince us it is perfectly harmless. At the very least it is affecting the weather. It is blocking the sun (in my area) weeks at a time.

Didn't you have a go at another member for making assumptions? I counted four assumptions from you right there. I'm just trying to get a handle on your position. I found your statement about NOT believing in chemtrails, but also finding contrails suspicious interesting. So far, you've talked about trails crossing and spreading and looking planned. So I ask again, if not chemtrails, what?

You believe everything is fine. Cool.

Five assumptions

Can't we agree to disagree?

Or are you going to lecture me on contrails and ice crystals?

Dealer's choice.

In my book, agreeing to disagree comes AFTER a discussion, not before one. No lecture from me, I just want to know why you don't believe it.

*repost of the above where I cut some text off.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
There's no reason why what is "in them" needs to be a secret - there are aircraft out there equipped for atmospheric testing -

You are welcome to believe that. I feel otherwise.
There are contrails. And then there are chemtrails.
Not all contrails are chemtrails. But some are.
And that's where I am on this.
But like I said .. you are welcome to think otherwise.
Neither can be definitively proven.

a reply to: network dude

Close-minded?

Interesting.

I am close minded because I don't blindly believe all these persistent contrails are 100% harmless?

I think you have that muxed up a little.

And as far as your "logic" goes...

I find more logic in trusting my instinct. Once I started trusting my instinct over the nameless voices of the internet, and the talking heads of news media, I became much more enlightened.

I will trust my instinct long before I even consider trusting your condescension.

But go ahead, think logic to be whatever you like. I don't mind.

Kisses.

a reply to: applesthateatpeople

I will trust my instinct long before I even consider trusting your condescension.

So, now what about science do you trust that?

a reply to: waynos

I made no assumptions. I reflected what he and you (and others) always say on these boards...

"Persistent contrails are harmless"

It's all most of you ever say.

You think they are harmless...

Is that an assumption, or am I stating how you feel because I've seen your posts from previous threads?

I don't assume, I know how you feel..

They are harmless, right?

LOL

Your words.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: applesthateatpeople

I will trust my instinct long before I even consider trusting your condescension.

So, now what about science do you trust that?

Vague question.

Can you be more specific?

a reply to: FlyersFan

But like I said .. you are welcome to think otherwise.
Neither can be definitively proven.

It would almost seem that despite having a forum dedicated to discussion of this very topic, actually discussing it makes us fools or ignorant or worse?

Funny how that works... Science is supposed to be about the open discussion of facts and the hunt to establish them, sans assumption or presumption where it would interfere with fact. Yet...We are all but told we MUST assume our eyes are lying, others are fools and nothing which so many have seen does or even CAN possibly exist.

The very organizations who are charged with developing policy openly talk about chemtrails by the definitions if not word itself ....and we're all but ordered to follow a set definition of the term in order to discount all that we read from them. As if, again,. our lying eyes can't be believed but a segment of truth tellers MUST be taken at full face value.

If I didn't know better, I'd say there was an outright agenda in this nation to squash all talk of chemtrails and anything related to it.....however forceful or persistent the effort is required to be.


Not for the first time, I'm left to wonder who in this whole debate is seeking truth without preconception and who is based entirely within assumption and solid walls of presumption which become as confining as they are comforting.

a reply to: applesthateatpeople

I am close minded because I don't blindly believe all these persistent contrails are 100% harmless?

And nobody says they are, but what we can say is they aren't chemtrails.

Here is a good little article discussing persistent contrails...

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

And nobody says they are, but what we can say is they aren't chemtrails.

Can you? Really? Every individual reported sighting and every individual reported witness to what they believed were chemical dispersion by aircraft....you can definitively prove as bogus and impossible?

That's what it requires, quite literally, to say they do not, have not and cannot exist. It's a silly and absurd standard of proof to claim, IMO.

Can you supply where individual cases and places are debunked as a whole? I've yet to see it in the few months I've been carefully watching the debates in here.