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

reply to post by Zaphod58


yes i agree to that. i think one must first prove the existance to be able to second talk about what they are there for.
that is what i said 6 pages ago but got ignored

reply to post by Korg Trinity


I wasn't talking to you. If I was, it would have had your name in the reply area.
Now back to the discussion, ......

Contrails are scientific fact and can persist for minutes, hours, or many hours depending on the conditions. These conditions are very basic and are less prevalent in the summer time (in the US) and more apt to be conducive for contrail formation in the fall, winter and spring. Although they can and do exists in the summer, just not as much.

Chemtrails are a modern conspiracy theory based on the mis-identification of contrails. If they were real, and if global warming were real, it's possible that chemtrails could be used for all sorts of purposes to include modifying the temperature in a localized area, hiding Niburu, hiding the GFL ships, a cloaking method for transient UFO's or even sunblock for bigfoot.

//discuss//

reply to post by network dude


where is the proof of what u say? i would like to see it?

i have seen some of the proof given from , in quote , 1915 ,

but honestly, that is not very definate or real .
please give real proof that what we are seing is just contrails.

exiteternity

network dude
reply to post by exiteternity

 

I am a shill

really? are you admitting it? or was it a typo?

an attempt at humor. I fix computers for a living. But since I don't' believe in chemtrails and I try to offer facts as to why I feel that way, I must be a shill.

You should try not to take everything literally. That is kind of why I said what I said earlier. You seem to bypass the logical, common sense answers in favor of the fantastic. That's fun and cool, when around here, but I worry that that kind of belief system will at the very least, get you ridiculed, and at worst, leave you open to be taken advantage of. You seem intelligent and nice, so I just don't' understand that mindset at all.

reply to post by network dude


i dont take anything literally. but when i see such comment , that in my eyes are extremely serious "i am shill " i do get concerned as to what the reason for it is.

if its just to make fun, as it was in your case, then ok, fine i got it.
no need for the further remarks, as they are all just in your head and not necessarily real at all.

exiteternity
reply to post by network dude

 

where is the proof of what u say? i would like to see it?

i have seen some of the proof given from , in quote , 1915 ,

but honestly, that is not very definate or real .
please give real proof that what we are seing is just contrails.

Everything you ever wanted to know about contrails is right here. Any question you may have and most of the videos and "proof" of chemtrails is debunked on this site as well. The site owner is a member here and fully admits he is just a regular guy, but he also offers the chance for anyone to prove anything on his site wrong. To data, nobody has done that. All his data can be backed up by his sources. I hope that helps.

reply to post by exiteternity


The only one that ignored you was Korg. I agree completely, it doesn't make sense to say chemtrails are used to stop global warming when you can't even prove they exist.

reply to post by Zaphod58


thank you for replying. it warms my heart that i wasnt ignored afterall

reply to post by network dude


yes but i dont see how that is definate proof.
im trying my very best to stay open minded to both camps here, and you can verify that by just looking at my posts. i do not take any sides.
yes i am affiliated by the camp that belives, but that could be changed at any times.
and i dont see it just yet.

Korg Trinity

exiteternity
After reading all this last 5 pages I think Korg is driven by anger and the opposite camp driven by reason.
Now I don't know what to think

Not driven by anger... but driven to anger by the complete lack of discussion about the topic this thread was supposed to be about.

It's like trying to discuss politics with children!

Korg.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought the discussion was supposed to be about the idea that 'chemtrails' are being deliberately produced to cause cooling/combat global warming?

A premise whih goes against all the scientific research showing that what people normally mean by chemtrails - those white lines in the sky left behind aircraft, which can under the right conditions persist and spread - do in fact produce a net warming.

Thus, if contrails/chemtrails are a deliberate attempt at geoengineering the only possible conclusion is that they are intended to produce a very small amount of warming.

Aside from this, it is true that the idea of spraying sulphur particles into the stratosphere, using very high flying aircraft, has been proposed - the idea being that it would replicate the effects of very large volcanic eruptions which also put sulphur particles into the stratosphere and which scientific research shows does cause a net cooling effect. However there is no evidence such proposals have been put into effect, especially on a massive, global scale (which would be needed for it to have any impact on temp); any such operation would likely take place in equatorial regions (where the sulphur particles will most readily disperse across both hemispheres); there are many scientific arguments against such a proposal; and perhaps most important of all, there is no evidence that such an operations would be any more visible than is the case with volcanic eruptions (sufficent sulphur particles would probably increase haziness and perhaps lead to more vivid sunsets, but why would they appear as streaks of ice particles in the troposphere when naturally occurring sulphur particles from volcanic eruptions don't?)

exiteternity
reply to post by network dude

 

yes but i dont see how that is definate proof.
im trying my very best to stay open minded to both camps here, and you can verify that by just looking at my posts. i do not take any sides.
yes i am affiliated by the camp that belives, but that could be changed at any times.
and i dont see it just yet.

It's definitive proof that contrails exist. That they can last for hours and spread into clouds. That they have been around since powered flight began.

Of course it's not proof that chemtrails are anything. But if you understand that to date, every line left in the sky by a plane looked just like a contrail, and acted just like a contrail, and lasted as long as it should have, based on known science, then isn't it kind of safe to say that what you are seeing is most likely a contrail? And until there is some evidence that suggests differently, it's silly to try to argue that anyone can look up and say with authority "look! a chemtrail!" because when you ask them how they know, they just say, I can tell.

I don't have calibrated eyeballs, and I have no ability to determine the chemical makeup of a cloud or a line in the sky by looking at it. I understand that some here claim to have that power, they just don't share with the rest of us how it works.

reply to post by exiteternity

yes but i dont see how that is definate proof.

Look at it this way... most of the members that reply in these threads have aviation experience in their background so they have a real good grasp on what is happening in the sky, and that includes the person who created contrail science.

BTW he is also a member of ATS.

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


Uve mentioned him now a couple of times. Who is it.

reply to post by network dude


See I've never disputed contrails. Never did it.
But I have yet to see proof that kills the theory dead.

I've seen the following excuses and they doesn't cut it. Money and contrails.
It doesn't kill theory

reply to post by exiteternity


It doesn't have to kill the theory. Having a notion that something may not be what it's advertised is just fine. The problem comes in when someone looks at this

And claims that they are not contrails, but chemtrails, and the fail to explain how they arrived at that conclusion.

None of us that I know of make the claim that chemtrails couldn't exist. Knowing what a contrail is, I think it would be very easy to make a contrail on purpose (then making it a chemtrail) but since it would take lots of weight and cost lots of money, the purpose seems very unlikely.

I was offering the science that explains what everyone sees in the sky. Nothing more, and nothing less.

reply to post by exiteternity

Uve mentioned him now a couple of times. Who is it.

He goes by Uncinus on ATS and he has a good grasp on aviation.

Here you go check out some of his threads it might give you some info that may clear up questions you have.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

exiteternity
reply to post by network dude

 

yes but i dont see how that is definate proof.
im trying my very best to stay open minded to both camps here, and you can verify that by just looking at my posts. i do not take any sides.
yes i am affiliated by the camp that belives, but that could be changed at any times.
and i dont see it just yet.

If you are looking for definite proof of what chemtrails are, there isn't any, which is really the point.

When one looks at all the accumulated knowledge about contrails, their formation, appearance and persistence, you can apply it to every single chemtrail picture and video and see that it fits. When you do the same thing in reverse for chemtrails, all you have is that someone said it was a chemtrail.

If you want to verify for yourself that persistant spreading contrails have been known for decades longer than chemtrail claims have existed, just one of many sources is here

www.flightglobal.com...

Flight is a weekly aviation magazine that has been published every week since January 1909 and it's entire back catalogue up to 2004 so far has been made available to view, for free, online.

You can search for articles as you wish, but because of the vast quantity of material you may like to limit yourself to 2-3 year blocks for each search, just to keep it manageable.

Interestingly, when you type in chemtrails it says 0 results

Here is one example which shows persistant trails were understood in 1956


www.flightglobal.com...

reply to post by exiteternity

I've seen the following excuses and they doesn't cut it. Money and contrails.

You did see my post about how much it costs to go to one of the chemtrail conferences, and how much the DVD's are.

It may not seem like alot of money but when hundreds of people pay upwards of $100 it can be very lucrative.

reply to post by network dude


That picture doesn't show any chemtrails.
It shows clouds and contrails.
I would appreciate u don't insult my intelligence for no reason and I'm sure I leave enough reason for you already.
But that pic doesn't contain anything close to a chemtrail

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


In fact I think "he " makes the issue more cloudy no pun intended.
it's not very clear