Beware of the Chemtrail minefield

If someone has noticed odd trails in the sky and their search for answers has brought them here, they have come to a place where they can see active debate by both sides of the argument, which is what anyone seeking answers would want of course.

However, in my personal opinion and experience, Their initial state of 'not knowing' is exactly what the Chemtrail trollers (those who repeat the same false claims over and over, despite having things explained to them personally and them never having refuted any of it) rely on. They seem to descend like moths to a flame to try and indoctrinate the unwary.

The average lay person, with no direct interest in aviation, cannot be expected to know much about air routes and traffic frequency, neither are they going to pay too much attention to what happens higher up in the atmosphere beyond what affects us directly, such as is it raining etc. They can realistically be expected to know even less about changes in aircraft fleets and engine types, that is definitely the area of expertise for professionals and geeks.

Therefore it is of little surprise that noticing a big, loitering 'X' shape, or other,in the sky appears strange and raises questions. They search the net, finding, or even looking for, Chemtrail discussions and wander in like a baby deer into a field full of Lions.

I find those who then swoop, professing to know with absolute certainty that this is caused by a mysterious and secret spraying operation by persons unknown for reasons unknown (yes, absolute certainty). That this has been going on for years, that this is proven merely by the fact the trail is there and no other physical evidence is needed, to be, at the very least, mischievously dishonest.

Their dishonesty is compounded when known fake evidence is presented, only to be debunked for the umpteenth time. I remember one person defending such an action, in all seriousness, by claiming that even if it is fake, it only illustrates the point!

When they then try to validate their own fantasy theories by attacking fellow members who are actually professionals in the field and trying to discredit their perfectly sound explanations with wild accusations of being paid agents etc, they take on a much more sinister look.

It must surely, by now, be abundantly clear that anyone who has regularly contributed to this board over a time that STILL uses the "contrails don't persist" line are deliberately trolling. Even the Chemtrailers-in-chief are now accepting that trying to deny that contrails exist just makes their position look stupid, but some on here still cling to it.

Likewise we see mention of the Northrop B-2 and it's "anti contrail" tanks, deliberate trolling. It has been discussed in full on here, we know it DIDN'T WORK and so the detector system that tells the crew when to reduce altitude so as to remain visually stealthy when they are on an operational mission was introduced instead. No link to chemtrails AT ALL. This is just one example of misrepresentation of known facts, see also the roping in of water bombers and cloud seeding to try and nail this flimsy story into some kind of solidity.

Then there is the magical power to look up and know a Chemtrail from a contrail, or the temperature and humidity 6 miles up or the height and speed of disparate aircraft, all from the eyeball. Deliberate trolling, or utter stupidity? It's got to be one of em.

There have even been posts/threads on here calling for anyone who doesn't believe the Chemtrail hoax to LEAVE the forum! Someone obviously doesn't want anyone making their own mind up from reading both sides, why would that be?

What is the motto here? "if the facts aren't there, make some up"?

Anyone questioning something they don't understand or are concerned about is one thing, and it's a good thing.

BUT those select few on here that choose to ignore true facts, choose to dismiss credible sources and choose to attack anyone trying to pass on some background knowledge (as opposed to theory) and attempt to discredit them through ridicule would appear to have a much more sinister and evil agenda.

They seem to WANT people to worry and fret about something that isn't even there, and that is quite different from "truth seeking". What for?

Still, all anyone can do is read both sides of the debate with an open mind and decide for yourself. That's how I first came to this board and I remain here to share what I know, and to see if something g solid and credible does emerge, never say never.

Originally posted by waynos

Therefore it is of little surprise that noticing a big, loitering 'X' shape, or other,in the sky appears strange and raises questions. They search the net, finding, or even looking for, Chemtrail discussions and wander in like a baby deer into a field full of Lions.

I find those who then swoop, professing to know with absolute certainty that this is caused by a mysterious and secret spraying operation by persons unknown for reasons unknown (yes, absolute certainty). That this has been going on for years, that this is proven merely by the fact the trail is there and no other physical evidence is needed, to be, at the very least, mischievously dishonest.

I hadn't heard of chemtrails when one day, going over 'the tops' to work I encountered such a breathtaking sight that I nearly crashed the car. It was if someone had been playing draughts in the sky. A vast area was evenly laid out like a huge chequerboard. Only an idiot would deny that this pattern hadn't been deliberately created. Somewhat more than a 'big loitering X shape' my friend.
I was in my late 50s at the time and had never seen such a thing. Nor was it at a time of typically heavy air traffic. So don't count me in your 'mischievously dishonest' generalisation thank you very much.
There are two sides to this debate - each claims scientific evidence and there are of course those will lean automatically to one or the other depending on their mindset. I am not going to follow your example by being derogatory about anyone who thinks differently. To each his or her own eh?

reply to post by waynos


You will be trolled and I will shudder a little bit in my engineering heart whenever someone does use his "magic eye" to detect humidity and temperature in 6 miles hight and therefore can deduct that this can only be Chemtrails.

reply to post by starchild10

I hadn't heard of chemtrails when one day, going over 'the tops' to work I encountered such a breathtaking sight that I nearly crashed the car. It was if someone had been playing draughts in the sky. A vast area was evenly laid out like a huge chequerboard. Only an idiot would deny that this pattern hadn't been deliberately created. Somewhat more than a 'big loitering X shape' my friend.
I was in my late 50s at the time and had never seen such a thing. Nor was it at a time of typically heavy air traffic. So don't count me in your 'mischievously dishonest' generalisation thank you very much.

Yes, the patterns are "deliberate." You might want to check out these sites before jumping to a conclusion:

skyvector.com...

planefinder.net...

What is the point of your post?

No links, no pictures, just a rant about ... chemtrails, i think? Or the fact that there aren't any? Or is it about forum dynamics?

I really don't know what you're on about, you should try structure your argument before presenting it.

reply to post by harryhaller


He's saying that the chemtrail "truth" movement is filled with lies and liars and that people new to the subject could be easily misled by these types .

I concur with Waynos.

reply to post by waynos


do you feel better now? it seems this thread was designed to allow you to vent frustration rather than stimulate debate...... I will give anyone time who knows more than I (thats how we learn right?) but your posting runs with the theme of "its all BS....because I say so"

Originally posted by harryhaller
What is the point of your post?

No links, no pictures, just a rant about ... chemtrails, i think? Or the fact that there aren't any? Or is it about forum dynamics?

I really don't know what you're on about, you should try structure your argument before presenting it.

Well said. It clearly bothers the OP to start up a rant all on it's ownsome and not linked to existing comments. There is a lot on here that makes me think 'WTF'. If I was going to have a little say about all of them I would be on here all day!

We had a complete shutdown of commercial jet traffic here while the Icelandic volcano was emitting large amounts of ash. The effect was remarkable. The constant, distant roar of jet engines causes universal stress, judging by the positive change in everyones mood while that roar was absent. The amount of light reaching the ground increased noticeably. Colours on the ground were more vibrant and small aircraft were more defined and easier to see. The sky was clear of man-made clouds. In the evening there was a greater difference than usual between the West and East of the sky. These differences from the usual state made life much more pleasurable for everyone. I saw the world as being similar to story book illustrations and I realised these kind of illustrations are painted in a world without needless jet travel. Regardless of the chemtrail/persistant contrail issue I would like to see a dramatic decrease in the use of jet aircraft.

While the main flightpath here is East West the most obvious cloud seeding/spraying/chemtrailing is carried out North South. I've never seen a plane laying these curtains of whatever it is. The strangest cloud I saw was green and at low altitude. I have no idea what it could have been. I tried to photograph it but the colour didn't show up well. There are so many different spraying programs, many of them secret, no one could be an authority on the subject.

Tube and wing aircraft use more fuel and carry smaller loads than Burnelli aircraft. Therefore they are a greater polluter. Are there any threads on Burnelli? I'll post this then have a look.

I can add one little snippet of information to the story of jet engine development. I know a man who spent two years designing a new type of engine. When it was tested it ran backwards for 20 seconds then exploded.

Originally posted by starchild10
....So don't count me in your 'mischievously dishonest' generalisation thank you very much.

If you read and understood my post it should be obvious that I do not.

There are two sides to this debate - each claims scientific evidence and there are of course those will lean automatically to one or the other depending on their mindset. I am not going to follow your example by being derogatory about anyone who thinks differently. To each his or her own eh?

Ah, you did misunderstand it. I love a good two sided debate me, I thought I made that clear at the beginning

Originally posted by harryhaller
What is the point of your post?

No links, no pictures, just a rant about ... chemtrails, i think? Or the fact that there aren't any? Or is it about forum dynamics? I really don't know what you're on about, you should try structure your argument before presenting it.

Fair question. There is certainly an element of 'rant' in there. This is because of the strength of feeling the post was borne from. It is an expansion of a reply to another poster in another thread but I didn't want to derail someone elses topic so I made my own.

I could have included links and pictures, but I didn't want to witch-hunt individual members, I just wanted to get the point across and everything I referred to will be familiar to regular readers anyway. It is purely about a small but vociferous section of the site that will havre no truck with science or learning and the post came out of my frustration at the way they react with newcomers generally. There are many other pro chemtrail members who write about their concerns genuinely and, though I disagree with them, they aren't a problem for me, a debate needs two sides, but they must also be receptive to discussion or there is no point.

Originally posted by TreehouseIndustries
reply to post by waynos

 

do you feel better now? it seems this thread was designed to allow you to vent frustration rather than stimulate debate...... I will give anyone time who knows more than I (thats how we learn right?) but your posting runs with the theme of "its all BS....because I say so"

Yes, it was quite cathartic to write, but nevertheless I stand by everything I wrote. Anyone is free to disagree.

Originally posted by Kester
We had a complete shutdown of commercial jet traffic here while the Icelandic volcano was emitting large amounts of ash. The effect was remarkable....The sky was clear of man-made clouds.

It sounds as if you agree that commercial airline traffic is responsible for most of the persistent trails. That somewhat goes against the chemtrailer's general argument that says persistent trails are NOT the same thing as jet contrails, most of which are produced by commercial airliners -- i.e., if a trail persists, then it is NOT a condensation trail (or contrail).

reply to post by starchild10

Only an idiot would deny that this pattern hadn't been deliberately created. Somewhat more than a 'big loitering X shape' my friend.

Basic geometry: Unless two lines are perfectly parallel, they will intersect at some point.

It is no wizardy or nefarious plans that contrails can intersect, it's basic geometry.

reply to post by waynos


If the average lay person with little to no knowledge of flight paths or weather fronts were only seeing those X's in the sky then you may have a point. However the vast majority of lay persons aren't just seeing X's in the sky.

Some of us out here including this lay person sees so much more. I know what flight paths are and understand the science of condensation and the amount of cold at varying altitudes. But despite your explanations many days the published flight paths don't even come close to the patterns of chemtrails left to blanket my skies. Today I'm looking at clear blue skies in central Texas. I suppose there are no planes flying over head at all. Let me beat you to the predictable....the air is just as cold at 30,000 feet as it was yesterday and the day before.

I have also read and researched the many patents, all available for public viewing, and the subsequent sale of certain patents to the likes of Raytheon. The Air Force's need to control weather, they said so themselves. Eastlunds suggestion of dumping massive amounts of barium into the upper atmosphere in order to charge the ionosphere. The list goes on.

I find it amusing that you and others, who are so obviously superior in knowledge to the average lay person would spend so much time on such a silly debate. Or do you just get off on talking down to people who happen to believe their own eyes?

reply to post by Witness2008

Today I'm looking at clear blue skies in central Texas. I suppose there are no planes flying over head at all. Let me beat you to the predictable....the air is just as cold at 30,000 feet as it was yesterday and the day before.

Well, you can actually check the data for yourself.

Atmospheric Soundings

Appleman Chart

And temperature is only one factor of many, including relative humidity and barometric pressure.

Originally posted by Witness2008
Today I'm looking at clear blue skies in central Texas. I suppose there are no planes flying over head at all. Let me beat you to the predictable....the air is just as cold at 30,000 feet as it was yesterday and the day before.

Humidity is also a factor.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


The operative word being condensation in my post. NOAA has such a complete site, with archives and everything.

reply to post by Witness2008


I used the X as an example because it is the most widely reported variant, but I have seen and photographed much more elaborate trails myself too such as this below and the thread i posted it in linked below it (with many others too if you haven't seen them)



www.abovetopsecret.com...

you see I do follow these discussions out of interest, not simply to deny everything.

The thing is, when I'm doing this, I also use flightglobal atlas to identify the aircraft as much as possible. Sometimes, such as the 747 in that post which I did not pinpoint, I cannot decide which of the aircraft on the site I am looking at due to proximity and timing, but, and here's the rub, there are always enough commercial flights with a destination and origin and flight number, airline and aircraft type listed to match the number and type of aircraft I am looking at, I just don't always recognise the airline names on screen against the livery. But I have not yet had one plane too many in the sky, if you get my drift.

The flightglobal data was not used in that thread, as it was more about sharing the images, but as an example of how I satisfy myself what I am looking at see this thread here, scroll down the page to two consecustive posts from me.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This would mean that it cannot be a military operation and as we know it cannot be the airlines because of all the reasons we've discussed so often, the only thing I have left is that the trails are contrails and there is no spraying.

Naturally that is MY location, but what other people report in theirs looks and behaves in exactly the same way.

I'm not superior to anyone in any way, I only know what my 40 plus years following aviation has taught me. On another subject I would flounder hopelesssly.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

It sounds as if you agree that commercial airline traffic is responsible for most of the persistent trails. That somewhat goes against the chemtrailer's general argument that says persistent trails are NOT the same thing as jet contrails, most of which are produced by commercial airliners -- i.e., if a trail persists, then it is NOT a condensation trail (or contrail).

I can only speak for myself. I live under a heavily used flightpath. It's a disgusting trail of smog. Of course the weather affects the end result but generally speaking the commercial aircraft that travel overhead have a dramatic and detrimental effect on life in this area. Most days, today for example, many of the trails can be seen expanding slowly and drifting southwards, creating a haze covering a vast area. The worst I ever saw was on one occasion when there was little apparent wind at the altitude the aircraft were travelling. The flightpath was one grey mass stretching from horizon to horizon.

Sometimes I see very large trails at right angles to the flightpath. These are usually seen early in the morning and are very different from the usual contrails. They spread without fading as much as the usual contrails and have the appearance of a curtain of vapour. I've never seen the aircraft they come from. None of this was visible during the blissful days when the Icelandic volcano was active.

I don't personally think the amount of volcanic ash was sufficient to justify the grounding of so many aircraft for so long. I suspect the clearest satellite imagery of Europe was obtained during this time. The same goes for the days after 9/11 when commercial aircraft were grounded. The effects on the weather were well documented both times. Both periods of grounding may have been used to enable the clearest possible images of areas of interest to be obtained.

Regardless of the identity of the aircraft, possible fuel additives or actual spraying, we are all suffering from the effects of excessive use of aircraft. In true frog boiling style the gradual increase in aircraft numbers over several decades has rendered most people oblivious to the changes these aircraft cause to our environment.

reply to post by waynos


I'm pretty obsessed with the subject, I'm probably paying more attention to it than you. I prefer FlightAware. Is there another provider that lists all military flights?

reply to post by Witness2008


Its possible you are, I wouldn't know. The site I use works well for me, flightaware is very good, but rather US centric.

I dont think you can do anything to track militarty flights, but the only military aircraft I see leaving trails are the Sentry's and Sentinels from RAF Waddington. I suppose different location = different perspective as your own air force is far larger and more diverse than ours.

So, given what I've said, what do you make of the image I posted showing six visible parallel trails?