Are the chemtrail agencies currently on holiday?

reply to post by MysterX


If you believe that persistent chemtrails differ visually from normal persistent contrails, a simple explanation as to how you can tell the difference would suffice, would it not?

Sounds to me like you're afraid to put your cards on the table.

If a million people believe a lie, does that make it the truth?

Originally posted by MysterX


Apart from seeing it with my own eyes, a huge number of times over recent years, I've personally read, many, many times exactly how they are different. To the point of being fed up to the back teeth of reading exactly HOW they are DIFFERENT!

And yet, despite that, you still can't or won't say HOW they LOOK different. Just like every other time a chemmie is asked to explain this assertion.

How can you post arguing that you don't know about Chemtrails or don't believe even the possibility exists that the government is using either the military or private contractors to spray chemicals and toxins over populated areas, and then turn around and claim that you've never read a post from any one of the thousands of reports, from almost any of populated areas of our planet, that describes the different appearence and physical apsects and how they act once sprayed?

I don't believe you.

Au contrare, I don't believe YOU.

You see, you are even lying in a reply to me about what I have said, you can't help yourself. Unless to can point to one single post where I have said spraying is not possible? I made several where I have said the opposite. What I am saying is nobody has ever said what a Chemtrail looks like without describing a perfectly normal contrail, so what's the difference? I've lost count of the number of times this has gone unanswered so, instead of arguing about the point why not just answer it?

Research this yourself, i suspect that no amount of describing the obvious differences between persistent contrails and persistent chemtrails will make a dent on what seems to be your intentional ignorance on this.

I have, in depth and for years, coming here initially with real concern about what chemtrails are. It's not my fault that all the claims I've read turn out to be crap. It's not my fault either that they fooled you.

Go to ANY chemtrail website, Youtube or Google video (or whatever online video service you use) and LOOK up any one of the thousands of descriptions available for your education.

But I'm asking you. Why can't you just say? You aren't being shifty and evasive are you?

reply to post by FireDragonDan

I read newspapers, I watch News channels, I read a lot of news websites both MSN and Alternative News,

Fair enough.....most people would call that research of one form or another.....but each to his own


n.b
You've mentioned that you think that you are being "attacked" in this thread......most people would call it debate, but I can see that we appear to differ on some definitions

reply to post by Argyll


We'll have to agree to disagree,

I would say though that being called a "Miner" when providing certain users with evidence that refuted their statements and then continuing to try to belittle me as I did not have the same views as them is a form of attack possibly bordering on bullying, as this is the type of behaviour you expect in a school yard not a site such as ATS. I'm more than happy to debate all day as long as people don't get personal, which unfortunately happens quite a lot on ATS as of late.

reply to post by MysterX


Dammit I've been looking at all the wrong sites and youtube videos! All the ones I've seen have this ridiculous claim that contrails can't persist and that's how you spot a chemtrail. Now it appears that I'm right and they're all wrong. Perhaps you could point us to the sites with the correct definition or even just tell us what it is.Maybe those sites will have the test results of samples taken from the trails to establish what they contain?

reply to post by MysterX

Go to ANY chemtrail website, Youtube or Google video (or whatever online video service you use) and LOOK up any one of the thousands of descriptions available for your education.

That is fine, but are you willing to do the same with contrails?

You can start here...

contrailscience.com...

And here are a few good videos...





If you need more just ask and I will supply that for you?

Originally posted by FireDragonDan
I live in the north west of England and all day yesterday there were thick "Contrails/Chemtrails" and like the OP i thought that as the weather conditions were not right for contrails to last then the only conclusion was they were chemtrails. These were sprayed from 9am till gone 7pm and the blue sky's of the Northwest were replaced with a milky white sky all day. And as I write this looking out my window I can see the same planes with contrails/chemtrails being left. So perhaps as the OP states contrails cannot be formed and last in these weather conditions can only prove then that these are in fact Chemtrails.

Just to add, the planes leaving these trails are not following normal flight paths

I live in the north west too and on Monday I filmed the sky all day because of the constant trails being made in the sky.
As usual spreading pretty wide to completely cover the sky.
They still continued when the sky was completely covered till early evening.

reply to post by FireDragonDan

I would say though that being called a "Miner" when providing certain users with evidence that refuted their statements and then continuing to try to belittle me as I did not have the same views as them is a form of attack possibly bordering on bullying, as this is the type of behaviour you expect in a school yard not a site such as ATS.

I see your a fairly new member and I would like to help you understand that I don't think it is you personally, but the evidence you have posted.

Trust me there have been enough names that chemtrail debunkers get called in just about every thread in this forum.

Originally posted by FireDragonDan
reply to post by Argyll

 

We'll have to agree to disagree,

I would say though that being called a "Miner" when providing certain users with evidence that refuted their statements and then continuing to try to belittle me as I did not have the same views as them is a form of attack possibly bordering on bullying, as this is the type of behaviour you expect in a school yard not a site such as ATS. I'm more than happy to debate all day as long as people don't get personal, which unfortunately happens quite a lot on ATS as of late.

you got called on eth evidence you provided, and then refused to admit the obvious mistake.

That is a common tactic of the chemtrail crowd, and you didn't get called anything like what I've been called over the years.

The answer is to realize where you went wrong and do better next time - not to cry and whine because you were caught.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


One last time, and I really hope it sinks in this time! You said and I quote "Cloud Cover does not have an effect on Vitamin D production". I disagreed with your statement and provided you a link to a report that showed that cloud cover did have an effect.

At no time in your Orginal comment did you refer to Contrails, cirrus clouds, high level clouds etc, your comment was cloud cover total. With that in mind, the purpose of my link provided was to refrute your comment. Stop referring to me as a part of a Chemtrails group, I make my own mind up with evidence on both sides of the debate.

Still amuses me that you fail to acknowledge this simple fact and continue with your drivel!

reply to post by FireDragonDan



Although you are technically correct, the discussion was rather obviously about aircraft trails in relation to vitamin D deficiency, so saying "ah, but you only said clouds" after the fact is pointed out that the report you linked is bout cumulous, and therefore obviously not aircraft cirrus or any other kind, smacks of semantics and evasiveness with regard the the subject under discussion. It is still the case that aircraft trails do not cut UV and contribute to vitamin D deficiency.

I point this out merely as an observer who did not take part in that exchange.

reply to post by waynos


Agreed, but the same report also mentioned that Haze, pollution and smog etc also decreased UVB rays by up to 23% and whilst it made no reference to Contrials ect, I think we can agree that persistent contrails in certain conditions does create a "Haze" and thus reduces UVB rays.

The complete cloud cover was up to 99% reduction in UVB rays, I provided the link to the study to provide evidence to more than one contributor to this thread that stated cloud cover had no effect to UVB Rays. With that in mind I stand by my comments made during this thread.

I believe the main issue with this particular thread is due to its connection with Chemtrails and there are avant believers on each side of the debate and no matter what one person on either side says, the other side go into debunk mode. I think if the discussion on Vitamin D reduction had its own thread, the tone of the thread would have been very different.

reply to post by MysterX


You have not read the entire thread.

Here is a post from page 2, by me. post

Please answer the three questions, or two, or just choose one......

You will see I have already dismised your "research for yourself", which doesn't answer anything, and is used so many times when the three questions (or just 1 or 2) cannot be answered. I have researched for myself for several years. I can answer all the questions intelligently.

You make the assertion that you can tell a difference. Prove it.

I(sic) suspect that no amount of describing the obvious differences between persistent contrails and persistent chemtrails

emphasis mine

Describe what you see that I cannot.

As to the previous spraying by the government, you have not researched that very well. I live in a city that was used, and specifically in an area of that city that was tested. I researched it when it was disclosed. Nothing "toxic" or "poisonous" was used, just something that could be found and traced when broadcast. The only way that the chemical used could hurt someone is if a bag of it fell on their head. In the many years since, no claims have been made by anyone, which you would expect if we had been poisoned or exposed to something toxic. How it was spread is not like what is called a "chemtrail" today, in fact, they sometimes used trucks and just broadcasting it off a tall building.

Now the biggest part of the whole "they did it before, they are doing it now" fable. It was done as a matter of defense, against the threat of other nations, not offensively against their own people. There was fear then, thought to be real at the time, that someone was going to bomb us, or gas us, or poison us, and such tests were done to help figure out how something bad used against us, the US citizens, would spread, so they would know how and where to help should something really happen. It was the COLD WAR mentality, and the US citizens were told to prepare, complete with fully stocked bomb shelters if possible. We (it was a bit before my time) had drills in schools to "duck and cover" should an atom bomb strike. There were people in each neighborhood, shelters in most government and other large buildings....under the name of Civil Defense a whole other after-attack system was in place to shelter, feed, and help. It was different then. Vastly different.

Using it as comparison to your magically, "obviously different chemtrails" is apples to....Tang, a completely fake "orange" product.

We learned from the tests. Much of what everyone was told to do we now know was just...well, dumb. But it wasn't the US government (or British, they did it too) attacking it's citizens....it was the government preparing to HELP the citizens, in the best way they could, with the knowledge they had.

LEARN about the culture of things, it makes a huge difference.

reply to post by FireDragonDan


Some interesting reading here. Haven't had time to get to fully understand it yet.

sirta-dev.ipsl.jussieu.fr...

Just incase people have not seen this... came from Snowden's twitter account earlier today.

Edward Snowden ‏@EJosephSnowden 13h
I'll be releasing more secret-government documents on chemtrails, coming soon!

reply to post by Tharamis

Just incase people have not seen this... came from Snowden's twitter account earlier today.

And he also has this to say...

“The chemicals which are released by passenger airplanes have been covertly introduced as “additives,” supposedly to improve efficiency. Only as the plane reaches cruising velocity does the heat and atmospheric pressure cause a chemical reaction which synthesizes the top secret carbon-trapping molecule.

www.chronicle.su...

With evidence like that he might blow this wide open....

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


Yeah - the chronicle....just in case someone was thinking of taking it seriously perhaps this needs to be pointed out:

At the Chronicle.SU, we take truth seriously. We take what we do so seriously, untruths at chronicle.su are punishable by mutilation or death.

Sadly, chronicle.su is not of this earth. After crash landing in an asteroid December 30th, 1976, the alien husks of Chronicle editors rapidly adapted to Earth climates and bacterial flora. They are able to survive naturally in the wild and reproduce freely.
Here at chronicle.su, we take a liberal stance on drug abuse and theft of intellectual property, but that does not mean we are liberal because liberals are faggots and I ain’t no steer-boatin’ queer!
Receiving tweets twice daily via fax from religious advisers impregnates our right-wing furnace of hate, enabling us to bring you the most horrifyingly sensational headlines you’ve ever seen, or your money back – guaranteed!
If you wish to write us spam, please use [email protected] and we will get back to you at our earliest possible convenience, or whenever.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Yeah - the chronicle....just in case someone was thinking of taking it seriously perhaps this needs to be pointed out:

I should have paid closer attention to what I was reading. I thought it was funny to read though....

Been a long day....

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


Ok, SkyRocket is a bit exaggerated, I guess. I suppose I was comparing Personal Rates, like when I was younger, There were only a couple of kids in my entire School that had a parent with Cancer. Now in My neighborhood alone, within like 5 square blocks, there are 13 Cases of Cancer, That I know of. I would think this qualifies as an increase of Cancer Rates. I do not believe the CDC info. They will NOT give Real accuracy in their reports. (obviously my opinion......) Thanx for Your input, Syx.

reply to post by fiftyfifty

FiftyFifty,
I reside in central North Carolina, USA. If you are getting a reprieve from this nonsense, I am gladdened by it. Here, in Winston-Salem NC, this week has shown a marked increase in the Chemtrails. Sometimes 2 or 3 planes can be seen ant one time, marking the sky with this poison. In this region, in 2013, it seems as if they have dramatically stepped up their efforts in spraying.

This week, the local weather maiden, forecast dry air would be moving in. The next day, I saw 3 dark gray colored planes spraying in the on and off, and back on again, mode. Before I left work to go home, I was in a down pour. I mean a real Frog Strangler.

Both, my wife and I, have had bouts of severe headaches, along with itching swollen eyes. There seems to be no relief for these conditions. Our computers seem to have Content Filter blocking us from getting any documented facts as to what it is that they are using, exactly. As I respond, my spell check will not recognize the word chemtrails. I do hope in pulling together, we all can gain some ground in being heard about this
Take Care, and know that you have Friends... GeoThom