If You Think These Are Just “Contrails” Think Again – Here’s What They Really Are

a reply to: network dude

Cloud seeding, while it does involve chemicals, is not visible from the ground. It doesn't leave visible trails.

Maybe this will help...

"young ones, parental units, we summon you"
narfle this garthuk?

a reply to: Dabrazzo

Not quite yet (regarding that star you asked for). You posted me something about cloud seeding. Something I've known about since it was covered in my school science class (circa 1978, I was 13).

Cloud seeding is almost mainstream (apart from whether it works, or whether people just believe it works is just about unproveable) at least the theory is completely well understood. It is also, by its nature, localised and, pretty importantly, about precipitation, not about affecting the climate through solar radiation management.

It's the SRM spraying operations that aren't happening, despite many uninformed claims to the contrary. Your star await you showing me I'm mistaken on that score, the one that is supposed to be chemtrails according to all the sites that make these claims. If you don't understand there is a difference, I'll let it be as it would be unfair to make demands that are beyond you at the present time.

Hint, nobody is arguing that weather modification isn't real, this odd belief of yours that people are denying weather modification or ignorant of cloud seeding is what leads me to think you don't understand what the conspiracy theory is actually about.

a reply to: Dabrazzo

Because countries like America ban weather modification,

I guess someone needs to tell these people...

www.weathermodification.org...

www.weathermodification.com...

www.nawcinc.com...

What Is Geoengineering?

Well it isn't weather modification.

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


I specificaly said weather modification. But I dont really know about the connotation of "chemtrail" but if Silver iodide qualifies as a chemical then yes they clearly do exist, China does it, has been doing it for a lot of years and it is very open about it. Dont understand why anyone would deny that.

You also specifically said solar radiation management. This is the bone of contention, not weather modification or cloud seeding.

a reply to: UNIT76

,

"young ones, parental units, we summon you"
narfle this garthuk?

Well if the HAARP Report says that's what they are, how can one argue with that.

a reply to: UNIT76

Why aren't those just contrails being blown with the jet stream? Serious question.

a reply to: network dude

Why aren't those just contrails being blown with the jet stream?

Because HAARP Report calls them chemtrail or SRM aerosols, so how can you argue with that?

In the op's link there is a video of a handful of doctors, scientists and former military that have some very interesting things to say about what they know about this topic. So I guess the question is why should I believe the handful of debunkers that jump on every chemtrail thread over people that have a real resume? Why have the debunkers not addressed the link in the op? To me, this is where the rubber hits the road, but instead we have three pages of fruitless bickering.

a reply to: jaws1975

That video has been addressed many times before.

All it proves is that doctors, "scientists" and whoever else can be as misinformed about this topic as anybody else.

And as far as a "real resume" goes who's word are you taking on that, I have seen chemtrail proponents many times in the past trump themselves and/or others up to make their argument seem more credible.

It all boils down to your own personal bias, if you want to believe these people, go ahead knock yourself out.

a reply to: jaws1975

What you call bickering, I call clarification. But whatever creams your twinky.

The video in the OP has been discussed here before.

here. search is your friend.

Here is the full video of what the OP posted. Not the hacked up version.



Edit to add:
BTW, my resume, or any other resume is irreverent. The facts that we bring are what an intelligent person should be focusing on.

originally posted by: jaws1975
In the op's link there is a video of a handful of doctors, scientists and former military that have some very interesting things to say about what they know about this topic. So I guess the question is why should I believe the handful of debunkers that jump on every chemtrail thread over people that have a real resume? Why have the debunkers not addressed the link in the op? To me, this is where the rubber hits the road, but instead we have three pages of fruitless bickering.

Solved that for you

< sarcasm >
I guess the chemtrail conspiracy goes further back, since isn't it evident that the reason for WWII was to spread a vast set of chemtrails in the sky over Europe?
< /sarcasm >



Rolls eyes....contrails from aircraft exhaust have been lingering in the sky ever since the first piston engine flew high enough to create one.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Haven't you seen this??

This video shows that old text books make no reference to contrails, even in their indexes. Some trails shown in later textbooks have three possible explanations:....

a reply to: sn0rch

Contrails modify the weather.
Radiative forcing, causes days to be cooler and nights warmer.

originally posted by: seabhac-rua
a reply to: jaws1975

That video has been addressed many times before.

All it proves is that doctors, "scientists" and whoever else can be as misinformed about this topic as anybody else.

And as far as a "real resume" goes who's word are you taking on that, I have seen chemtrail proponents many times in the past trump themselves and/or others up to make their argument seem more credible.

It all boils down to your own personal bias, if you want to believe these people, go ahead knock yourself out.

This is the first time I have seen it, and seeing as the video is the crux of the op, don't you think it relevant to discuss it?

Maybe people have their own "personal bias" because of things like this.

Army scientist's secretly spray St. Louis residents

or this

Army sprays San Francisco

If you want to believe whatever the "official" sources tell you, knock yourself out

a reply to: network dude

The video in the OP has been discussed here before.

here. search is your friend.

Why do I have to search for it, it's the only link the op cited and feel it is relevant to the op and should be discussed? Isn't that how it works on this site?

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

originally posted by: jaws1975
In the op's link there is a video of a handful of doctors, scientists and former military that have some very interesting things to say about what they know about this topic. So I guess the question is why should I believe the handful of debunkers that jump on every chemtrail thread over people that have a real resume? Why have the debunkers not addressed the link in the op? To me, this is where the rubber hits the road, but instead we have three pages of fruitless bickering.

Solved that for you

So you wrote off the whole hearing based on what a poster at metabunk had to say about a couple of the speakers. OK, confirmation bias goes both ways you know.

a reply to: jaws1975

Or you could read the whole thread.

either way there is still more analysis there than in the OP - if they are claiming credibility due to their "qualifications" then it is perfectly reasonable to point out that those "qualifications" are [cough] exaggerated [/cough] - for example the guy shown in the opening graphic as a "former defence technician" - well that's just a lie - he's an artist.

Ex-pilots claiming to know all about contrails are shown to have never flown anything that was likely to make a contrail.

they claim contrails can't persist - but offer no evidence and the idea is itself contradicted by numerous "real" studies and anecdotally has been known to be rubbish since it was documented by Antoine de Sainte Exuperry in regard to his flying over German lines in 1940 -

"The German on the ground knows us by the pearly white scarf which every plane flying at high altitude trails behind like a bridal veil. The disturbance caused by our meteoric flight crystallizes the watery vapor in the atmosphere. We unwind behind us a cirrus of icicles. If the atmospheric conditions are favorable to the formations of clouds, our wake will thicken bit by bit and become an evening cloud over the countryside." -- Flight to Arras, by Antoine de Saint-Exupery. c. 1942 -

Flight to Arras is still available on Amazon - Exuperry was killed in 1943

anything else you need?

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Interesting if true. You would think that the Shasta County Commissioners would not be too happy if they knew that those people were fabricating their credentials. I wanted discussion on that video because I thought it was interesting, but knew that people better versed than I could break it down either way.