Could "Chemtrails" be a kind of medication?

a reply to: network dude

I didn't see what you saw. So I don't know. I haven't seen Bigfoot either, but some say they have.

Indeed... Some say they have. I believe there is something to that, too. Things like that are what I most enjoy about ATS. Exploring areas not readily available or much tolerated to chat about elsewhere.

Perhaps you missed the part where I tried to explain what all the debunkers here are attempting to get across.

Actually, I've closely studied the arguments over the course of a couple months with the threads in this forum before choosing to jump back in. I hadn't done that when I posted my thread about the IPCC Conference in Peru and one place where Chemtrails, by relative definition of what was being described, were on the table for recommendations on international policy formation. Having really spent time watching though, I'm quite aware of the debate and points to either side. No further explanation needed there.

Contrails can persist. So far, any picture, video, or personal encounter described, is most likely a contrail. Based on the science that explains them.

There is where I disagree with you. Not in ignorance or lack of understanding or knowing the science. I even maintain links to aviation altitude temperature charts to be able to quickly see where freeze point is across given areas of the U.S. and elsewhere. (historic archives for it too, for that matter) It's amazing, really, how much that varies. I had once thought anything above a certain level was freezing as a matter of course.....when that's definitely not any static point.

Anyway... Main point being. Disagreement is what we have on it. Sincere disagreement. I can't say they exist, but the lack of evidence does not equate to the lack of phenomenon or possible existence of test programs, prototype aircraft or development of methods.

There are things which very well may be short term in nature, seen by few over short windows of time, but absolutely real in being exactly what they appear to be for dispersion of chemicals or other substances at flight altitudes into the jet wash and sky beyond.

In fact.....this very thread asked about something which was not only once thought possible? It was extensively tested by the Japanese Military in their biological warfare unit, as I linked in my first post to this thread. It took them testing all variations of biological attack by airborne spraying to rule out higher altitudes and confirm that, at least, wasn't feasible. I can't blame the OP for wondering tho...after all, an Empire once had the same curious question.

Had it not been tested, we'd likely not know with any certainty how feasible it might (not) be.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Is there? You've made a number of claims in your posts now and I'd asked for clarification and support to your points... I'm really insisting you supply some form of support here as those statements not only should have it, if accurate, they are meaningless without it.

The same can be asked of you.

Also saying that something does in fact exist without having evidence is meaningless, but it happens in every thread concerning chemtrails.

See above.. Your claims require support to be taken seriously. I proposed the questions and half way rhetorical. You attempt to address them, and I appreciate that. Give me some idea how you're getting to that point? I'm really not clear on it.

What proof exists of one over the other?

I do not see you asking chemtrail believers to adhere to the same standard you are asking of me, why does that not happen?

That right there. We need to double the wattage on that spotlight on hypocrisy.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

I do not see you asking chemtrail believers to adhere to the same standard you are asking of me, why does that not happen?

I'm not asking anyone to adhere to anything, as far as that goes. However, as a fellow member, I've been aggressively 'debunked' on things peripheral to this topic, let alone the topic itself.

It's something I once didn't have all that much interest in beyond what I saw in a Texas sky a few times (and I've seen a few weird things beyond unusual 'contrails' in Texas skies, FTR), but after seeing such passion opposing mere discussion? It, along with the more fascinating topic of overall proposed efforts at Geoengineering, has become something of a pet project to learn about over the Spring.

I still don't know if Chemtrails exist as something being done or not. I now have absolutely no doubt it's been seriously talked about and considered at high international levels, if nothing else though. Real world? That's quite a stretch.....or is it? (X-Files Music)

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

one place where Chemtrails, by relative definition of what was being described,

You keep saying this but I really have no idea what you mean by that. Can you explain that a little more?

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
You know there is a world of difference between the standards of proof ....

Verifiable evidence isn't proof - often the word "proof" is used when what is meant is actually "evidence".

Evidence comes in various grades - me or you saying something exists is evidence.....it's not very good evidence, but it IS evidence.

A double randomized blind test giving a clear indication (or lack thereof) of something is extremely good evidence.

And in between are various means by which evidence can have more or less credibility - high credibility generally depending upon being repeatable, or being backed up by other credible evidence that supports it somehow.

After all the evidence has been submitted it is a matter of weighting up how good it is.

thousands of eyewitnesses seeing white lines across the sky is excellent evidence of white lines across the sky. Their eyewitness testimony is supported by what we know about contrails from many other sources - together it builds a good body of evidence that contrails can form white lines across the sky.

Those same people saying the white lines are some sort of poisonous trails that are not "normal contrails" is very poor evidence when weighed up against all the available evidence from lots of other sources that they ARE "normal contrails".

Thousands of people saying contrails cannot persist more than "a few minutes" (which may be quantified in some cases) without showing any justification why that should be the case is poor evidence when compared to what we know about contrails - which includes studies of persistence that show they CAN remain for hours on end.

these last 2 show a conflict in the evidence - and in both cases one side has poor evidence - "eyewitnesses" who do not have any supporting evidence beyond them and others saying it is true vs decades of atmospheric study from all around the world.

Someone looking at all the evidence and saying they are "still on the fence" is not actually being open minded IMO - they are being bloody minded and refusing to acknowledge the plain weight and quality of the evidence that shows all the common stories about chemtrails are nonsense.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

I'm more than happy to.. I spent a great deal of time putting the thread together that explains the report and what ground it covered. (Related ATS Thread). Now to keep it brief, the link to the full report is top of Part 2 of the Op set. It's a PDF and I'm refering to page numbers of the reader, which should be standard.

It starts on page 14 with SRM description as including

the artificial injection of stratospheric aerosols, low-level cloud brightening through the injection of sea-salt particles in the marine boundary layer, or brightening of the Earth’s surface.

on page 19:

Geoengineering methods can be largely classified into two main groups: Solar Radiation Management (SRM) and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR).

*under the SRM method

Other techniques aim to enhance marine cloud reflectivity by introducing sea salt aerosols in low clouds, mimic the effects of volcanic eruptions by injecting sulphate aerosols into the lower stratosphere, or place shields or deflectors in space to reduce the amount of incoming solar radiation.

(Comment and Emphasis by me)

I've heard the argument put forth that Stratosphere is not where planes would be or that it's not the same as we'd be discussing. In addressing that, I found something awhile back which explains it.

The Stratosphere - overview

It's somewhat amazing, but depending on where you are in the world and conditions? The Stratosphere can start at 23,000 feet. The UN are picky folks on terms, and so I take them literal in how these are defined in the report talking about it.

Finally on that UN/IPCC report and what properly could fit into the category of chemtrails is this, and it's one of the more telling, I thought. Page 28:

Strategies to persue SRM include: 1. Adding small reflecting particles in the stratosphere; 2. Adding more clouds in the lower part of the atmosphere; 3. Placing various kinds of reflecting objects or diffraction gratings in space either near the earth or at a stable location (the L1 point) between the earth and the sun; and 4. Changing large portions of the planet's land cover from things that are dark and absorbing, such as trees, to things that are light and reflecting, such as open snow-cover or grasses. Again, in the talk, each is described and critiqued briefly.

Of the four SRM options, adding fine reflective particles to the stratosphere is the most feasible in terms of cost and effectiveness.

There is something else ..and it's one of the reasons I've come to love reading Government reports. Bean Counters are always trying to impress someone, so they love throwing in very interesting but generally unimportant trivia to the direct matter at hand. In this case? Well... it's educational!

Although weather and climate modification has been considered for at least a century, the idea of deliberately cooling the planet by increasing its reflectivity probably dates back to Budyko (1974), who proposed that if global warming ever became a serious threat, society could counter it with airplane flights in the stratosphere burning sulphur to make aerosols (small particles), similar to those found after a volcanic eruption.

Source - 108 Page PDF - BIG

Anyway, I didn't write the report or set the conference in 2011. I just found it back in January and it really started me researching the whole thing from a technical and real world stand point.

Since we are connecting dots to get there instead of direct proof how about my evidence it is myth. I present to you Federal Whistleblower Protection Act

The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 protects federal employees who disclose evidence of waste, fraud, or abuse. Under the Act, the statement below, upon this or other notice, is incorporated into the SEC’s nondisclosure policies, forms, or agreements in effect before the Act’s effective date of December 27, 2012:

These provisions are consistent with and do not supersede, conflict with, or otherwise alter the employee obligations, rights, or liabilities created by existing statute or Executive order relating to (1) classified information, (2) communications to Congress, (3) the reporting to an Inspector General of a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, or (4) any other whistleblower protection. The definitions, requirements, obligations, rights, sanctions, and liabilities created by controlling Executive orders and statutory provisions are incorporated into this agreement and are controlling.
The controlling Executive Orders and statutory provisions referenced in the statement include the following, as of January 15, 2014:

Executive Order No.13526 (75 Fed. Reg. 707) (prescribing a uniform system for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national-security information), or any successor thereto;
Section 7211 of title 5, United States Code (governing disclosures to Congress);
Section 1034 of title 10, United States Code, as amended by the Military Whistleblower Protection Act (governing disclosure to Congress by members of the military);
Section 2302(b)(8) of title 5, United States Code, as amended by the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 (governing disclosures of illegality, waste, fraud, abuse or public health or safety threats);
Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421 et seq.) (governing disclosures that could expose confidential Government agents);
Sections 7(c) and 8H of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) (relating to disclosures to an inspector general, the inspectors general of the Intelligence Community, and Congress);
Section 103H(g)(3) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 403–3h(g)(3)) (relating to disclosures to the inspector general of the Intelligence Community);
Sections 17(d)(5) and 17(e)(3) of the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 (50 U.S.C. 403q(d)(5) and 403q(e)(3)) (relating to disclosures to the Inspector General of the Central Intelligence Agency and Congress); and
Statutes which protect against disclosure that may compromise the national security, including sections 641, 793, 794, 798, and 952 of title 18, United States Code, and section 4(b) of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)).
The foregoing statement is also provided in accordance with the requirements under section 715 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (Pub. L. 112–74, December 23, 2011, as extended by subsequent acts).

So with all the federal protection provided and all the supposed ill effects of said chemtrails why in gods green earth has no human come forth with real proof of a plane getting loaded or chemicals transported or system maintenance being performed or even the plane being fueled?

Certainly someone must have a conscience....somewhere?

Or they only exist in the internets so there are no whistleblowers.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

I've heard the argument put forth that Stratosphere is not where planes would be or that it's not the same as we'd be discussing. In addressing that, I found something awhile back which explains it.

The Stratosphere - overview

It's somewhat amazing, but depending on where you are in the world and conditions? The Stratosphere can start at 23,000 feet.

No. You have no explanation because your source states clearly:

The lower boundary of the stratosphere can be as high as 20 km (12 miles or 65,000 feet) near the equator and as low as 7 km (4 miles or 23,000 feet) at the poles in winter.

AT THE POLES!!! IN WINTER!!!

Now, on to operational ceilings.

For civil aircraft, certified ceilings are typically 45,000 feet (or 8.5 miles), with instances of the now retired Concorde at 60,000 feet.

By comparison, military planes operate at higher altitudes. The B-52 marginally operates at heights above 50,000 feet, while the U2 and SR-71 operate at heights near 80,000 feet.

Altitude Record

The highest current world absolute general aviation altitude record -General Aviation World Records- achieved by a manned air-breathing jet propelled aircraft is 37,650 metres (123,520 ft) set by Alexandr Fedotov, in a Mikoyan Gurevitch E-266M (MiG-25M), on 31 August 1977.

These planes can operate at that altitude, but not on a regular basis.

a reply to: totallackey

No one is specifying where in the world we were judging reports of chemtrails (In the Reporting IPCC reference), or where they may or may not be viable within the technical stratosphere?

I've seen it raised that the stratosphere is ABOVE the level planes fly at. In some latitudes, it absolutely seems to be. In others, it's definitely not. That was the point of the reference and explanation. To see a report refer to action within the stratosphere CAN mean as low as 23,000 feet or, yes, as you note, above 60,000 feet at extreme North and South.

It wasn't meant to be any definitive point but a point of reference to something else.

a reply to: howmuch4another

Have you actually read the United Nations work and IPCC working group material on these things? If you had, you'd know the answer to that question, and I don't mean offense but I'm really shocked at the reference you raise.

I actually addressed this where I wrote about it in noting not everything they propose for global geo-engineering is necessarily a BAD idea. Some, even to me, sounds like it may just be logical and without such drastic impact as to risk creating it's OWN set of problems...assuming we are right about the base problem to begin with.

The people proposing, considering and forming policy based on the results from places like the IPCC working groups BELIEVE in what they are doing. I think we're way off in opposite sides to assume it would be a nefarious spraying plot to kill us all. The real world methods being looked at are to SAVE, not KILL, so if done in secret, it would be a basis those involved would likely agree entirely with.

Now whether the rest of us would agree with the logic of any of the specific methods being considered (or perhaps already tested) for global climate engineering is a WHOLE different matter, IMO. I've never assumed it was necessarily intended to be harmful though. (note roads paved to hot places with good intentions...too)

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Yes it is factual information, and yes, we are talking about where the reports are coming from...You stated you referred to that point raised in your source in order to address claims that the planes, paraphrasing," Do not fly in the stratosphere."

Well, the simple fact is, most planes do not operate in the stratosphere. Aside from perhaps the retired Concorde (at times), and planes heading from Moscow to New York for a brief period of time...

I doubt anyone here has posted any photos purported to be "chemtrails," taken at the poles.

Last I checked, no ATS'er maintained a perpetual residence (or even summer/winter digs) at any polar region.

So your insistence on the issue regarding stratospheric heights (min and max) is moot when it comes to this topic. Because for any and all purported claims of "chemtrails," here at ATS, those claims have NOT originated from the poles.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: howmuch4another

Have you actually read the United Nations work and IPCC working group material on these things? If you had, you'd know the answer to that question, and I don't mean offense but I'm really shocked at the reference you raise.

I actually addressed this where I wrote about it in noting not everything they propose for global geo-engineering is necessarily a BAD idea. Some, even to me, sounds like it may just be logical and without such drastic impact as to risk creating it's OWN set of problems...assuming we are right about the base problem to begin with.

The people proposing, considering and forming policy based on the results from places like the IPCC working groups BELIEVE in what they are doing. I think we're way off in opposite sides to assume it would be a nefarious spraying plot to kill us all. The real world methods being looked at are to SAVE, not KILL, so if done in secret, it would be a basis those involved would likely agree entirely with.

Now whether the rest of us would agree with the logic of any of the specific methods being considered (or perhaps already tested) for global climate engineering is a WHOLE different matter, IMO. I've never assumed it was necessarily intended to be harmful though. (note roads paved to hot places with good intentions...too)

Um....what? How would that data answer my question? Why no whistleblowers? Even if everyone thought they were doing gods work on a project with that economy of scale someone somewhere maybe prompted by social media or peers would be posting pics regularly. A secret world wide program with everyone onboard and tight lipped? How much does one have to stretch to actually give that credibility?

a reply to: howmuch4another

You would need to stretch from here to the stratosphere to lend any credibility to mythological "chemtrails."

a reply to: totallackey

Yes it is factual information, and yes, we are talking about where the reports are coming from...You stated you referred to that point raised in your source in order to address claims that the planes, paraphrasing," Do not fly in the stratosphere."

Okay, I'm a bit confused by your focus on this one point, however, lets also settle that point for the fact it is an important reference where it's used. The stratosphere is EXACTLY where transcontinental and long distance aircraft operate. (BTW, The Concord flew 50-60,000 feet from the tech spec sheets I can find on it)

(Source: The National Center for Atmospheric Research

10 Kilometers is 32,808.4 Feet. If we go by Boeing for their own statement of operating altitudes....

Cabin Altitude

The percentage of oxygen in cabin air remains virtually unchanged from ground through all flight conditions, but as altitude increases, the partial pressure of oxygen decreases. The altitude for a typical transatlantic flight is 35,000 to 39,000 feet above sea level. Inside the cabin, the pressurized altitude is equivalent to 5,400 to 7,000 feet above sea level. (Denver, Colorado, U.S.A., is 5,280 feet above sea level, the center of La Paz, Bolivia, is 11,811 feet, and St. Moritz, Switzerland is 5,978 feet.)

Source

USA Today put it this way...

Planes equipped with jet engines fly at greater altitudes than propeller-driven aircraft. These include commercial flights, cargo jets and even private passenger jets. The air traffic control tower usually assigns a cruising altitude of up to 39,000 feet, but long flights are typically assigned higher altitudes.

Source

Finally, NASA has this to note...

The troposphere runs from the surface of the Earth to 36,152 feet. In the troposphere, the temperature decreases linearly and the pressure decreases exponentially.

The lower stratosphere runs from 36,152 feet to 82,345 feet. In the lower stratosphere the temperature is constant and the pressure decreases exponentially.

Source

I'm not sure again why this became a point to dispute, but there is certainly plenty more on the issue of distance flying being in that area of the atmosphere. I've actually seen the question come up before to use of terms, which is why I referenced it.


** Just an FYI, but I'm playing on FlightRadar and finding a variety over the continental US at 37,000-39,000 feet. A few over 40,000, but they are private jets too.

a reply to: howmuch4another

Okay, what I was saying was that for the people who are working on solutions to what they honestly believe is a threat to the human race....which is a belief held among a segment of the academic and policy making community....then whistleblowing isn't high on the list to defeat the very effort one would believe in.

The fact it's been discussed and considered is, well, printed and published fact. Whether it's actually moved off printed page into so much as a test phase for people to have ever seen would be the question ..and if it had, would those people doing something for very good reasons be apt to take action that destroys it? I'm not thinking that's likely.

It could even be that mitigation through these methods does make sense, as it's been described. I don't know. It's not my field of specialty, nor will it ever be. It makes for interesting topics to chat about though......

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000

Contrails can persist. So far, any picture, video, or personal encounter described, is most likely a contrail. Based on the science that explains them.

There is where I disagree with you. Not in ignorance or lack of understanding or knowing the science. I even maintain links to aviation altitude temperature charts to be able to quickly see where freeze point is across given areas of the U.S. and elsewhere. (historic archives for it too, for that matter) It's amazing, really, how much that varies. I had once thought anything above a certain level was freezing as a matter of course.....when that's definitely not any static point.

Anyway... Main point being. Disagreement is what we have on it. Sincere disagreement. I can't say they exist, but the lack of evidence does not equate to the lack of phenomenon or possible existence of test programs, prototype aircraft or development of methods.

There are things which very well may be short term in nature, seen by few over short windows of time, but absolutely real in being exactly what they appear to be for dispersion of chemicals or other substances at flight altitudes into the jet wash and sky beyond.

Perhaps you could do a thread on what you witnessed that was so far out of the ordinary, and maybe others have seen it or even photographed something like it.

Even thought I believe there is more credible evidence for Bigfoot then chemtrails, I am still holding out hope that the big furry guy might exist.

a reply to: network dude

With the open hostility and quick jump to attack and ridicule that is the common response in here at the moment? I wouldn't post a thread of personal experiences if someone paid me to and offered to double it for combat pay.

Aside from that..what great tales are there to tell? I saw a sky in one state before going in to eat at my favorite Amarillo truck stop on a few different days and I saw a radically different sky state when I came out 45-60 minutes later. It was amazing...but little more to say than what it's taken here to say it.

However... Perhaps with some genuine respect for each other's positions on opposite sides of a discussion many folks here care about...from either side...the whole oppressive atmosphere can lift a bit and not be so discouraging to such things.

One can hope...

BTW... I've never seen Bigfoot. I may well have seen Chemtrails with my Mark I Eyeballs. So, we'll agree to disagree on Bigfoot vs. Chemtrail and who has better P.R. at the moment. The frosty lines in the sky have it by a mile, in my opinion.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: applesthateatpeople

If you are asking, do I trust all forms of science and every scientific study EVER...

The answer is --NO

And if you trust the results of any study that you personally have not conducted yourself, fine.

Now can you be more specific?

No need to be anymore specific as you answered the question, also I don't need to do the study myself as that is what those in that field are paid to do.

You never answered my question...

So, you trust everything that is said by a scientist?

Blindly?

With no need to see the results firsthand?

I answered your vague question (or so you said).

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: GeekOfTheWeek

Exactly. The old days, 50's and 60's there were hardly any, if there were any, it was smoke from old jet engines. Today, jet engines are state of the art, VERY little smoke if any at all, they are designed to be highly efficient compared to when they first came out. Smoking engines are not efficient. So you would expect to never see persistent contrails.

Really...

Take a look at this, as this is from pilots who flew in WWII...before the 50's and 60's.

www.457thbombgroup.org...

And how do you explain these pics from WWII...

Google contrails from WWII and you can find more.

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. because it's WAY too cold. And before anyone says it, NO, there's not enough steam coming out of the engines to make a cloud... so they dissipate almost right behind the jet. THAT is a normal contrail. Those that linger all day long are NOT normal.

You really aren't serious are you?

I know that you tried that this explanation in another thread and that was explained to you, so why are you trying that explanation again.

In fact I offered this video for you...

But I see you didn't pay attention to it, so I will offer this for you...

science.howstuffworks.com...

skymanbob.com...

cimss.ssec.wisc.edu...

UH, those weren't JET engines. AvGas burning engines LOL

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

originally posted by: GeekOfTheWeek
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Exactly. The old days, 50's and 60's there were hardly any, if there were any, it was smoke from old jet engines. Today, jet engines are state of the art, VERY little smoke if any at all, they are designed to be highly efficient compared to when they first came out. Smoking engines are not efficient. So you would expect to never see persistent contrails.

Visible smoke has nothing to do with contrails - what makes you think there is some connection??

Even without visible smoke there is still plenty of miniscule particulates of soot and other substances for ice nucleation.

OK, you got me, I had no idea that hot jet engine exhaust puts out ice... my bad. I have no idea why I would even think that moist air going through a hot jet engine would even create steam, because as you are pointing out to me, it creates ice...