Chemtrail pushers/believers: you should be ashamed of yourselves

originally posted by: beforemorning

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: IShotMyLastMuse
you fail to understand how things work in the conspiracy world:
people just want to hear that they are right, they don't want to offer any real solution to the problem.
it is "clear" that 9/11 was an inside job, and yet they sit all back and circlejerk. kinda like the occupy wallstreet movment, a bunch of people just sitting in a park, hoping things will change or justice will come via magic.
it's just about proving who is smarter.

Maybe so...but lets not start by pointing fingers and by insulting the other parties (i know you didn't mean it that way, don't worry)...

Well, as for me, maybe I do mean it that way... because I am reading all these comments and waiting, not very patiently, for somebody to mention Mr. Clifford Carnicom, who has been doing exactly what you are advocating in your original post here for 14 years, full-time. Have a nice day. Serious researchers on chemtrails know Mr. Carnicom's name, and yes, I have been following his methodical, unsensational, but totally convincing documentation of an immense body of real evidence for 14 years. But I do it in my spare time, because I also am a coward and an idiot. I supposedly have better things to do with my life than to dedicate it to a lost cause like 'saving the world'. Thank God, someone on a cross cared enough.

Really? I wasn't aware of him doing any of the things on that list.

a reply to: Rodinus

Ummmm.....i'm not the one making the outrageous claim. I'm not the one who believes we are being sprayed. Why on EARTH would i have to do anything at all?

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: beforemorning

I had sent a message to Cliff asking him why he wouldn't take direct air samples of the chemtrails and end this back and forth bickering, but he claimed it would be too expensive and they couldn't raise that kind of money. When I sent him a link to where he could get this done and for how much, he didn't reply anymore. (actually, it was someone working for him that answered)

It's not terribly expensive, 4-6 thousand dollars including lab work. So for less than the cost of a quality vacation, the answers to the chemtrail conundrum could be answered. But if it was found that chemtrails are actually just contrails, what would Mr. Carnicom do for a living? (that is the key to this whole puzzle)

4-6 thousand to save humanity seems like a bargain really, doesn't it? I wonder why no one will spend that...plus once they uncover everything, they will become rich and famous.

I have no doubt the idea of putting "chemicals" in jet fuel has been looked at seriously, and found to be unfeasible for any large scale distribution. I would think we should be more focused on the scientific data showing the huge increase in air traffic over decades has had an environmental impact.

a reply to: mrthumpy

No matter what is presented and who testifies no one is ever going to believe it but we few nut cases.
I don't really care who else believes I have seen my proof in my face the rest of you can just la dee da your way through your perfect world.

The video below documents the events of this landmark day in the fight to expose the crime of global geoengineering, all experts are identified with labels in the video (the new edited, condensed version).
Dane Wigington

chemtrailsinourskies.wordpress.com...

I recently started looking into this and a fair bit of it seems pretty wacky but I do find it interesting that emissions of aerosol and particulate matter at high altitudes, can be observed by the apparent increased incidence of cirrus clouds and the persistence of contrails.

Ive noticed a lot a people mentioning "cirrus" clouds as evidence of somethings not right and contrails that linger too long only to be told that is perfectly natural, but its not.

I just want to know though can anyone actualy discern the difference between unnatural cloud formations because of aircraft engine emissions vs Government backd spraying programmes or "chemtrails"

a reply to: Dabrazzo

Why do you think it's not natural or normal for contrails to persist? What's wrong with that?

a reply to: beforemorning

for somebody to mention Mr. Clifford Carnicom, who has been doing exactly what you are advocating in your original post here for 14 years, full-time.

Here you go a bit about Mr. Carnicom and what he does...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Enjoy.

a reply to: waynos

Read a couple of articles by NASA on aircraft emissions stating how increased particulation and aerosols can lead to this effect.

Atmospheric Aerosols: What Are They, and Why Are They So Important?

Atmospheric Effects of Aviation Project (AEAP)

a reply to: Char-Lee

I don't really care who else believes I have seen my proof in my face the rest of you can just la dee da your way through your perfect world.

So this proof that you saw, did any of it show where a chemtrail was tested in the air after it was sprayed, because if it didn't then how is it that you can say they are real?

And I don't la dee da...I skip to my own beat.

a reply to: Dabrazzo

Atmospheric Aerosols: What Are They, and Why Are They So Important?

What exactly is this link supposed to be proving?

Atmospheric Effects of Aviation Project (AEAP)

And this has been known for a while and isn't new, so what is it your thinking this says?

a reply to: waynos

They also state an increase in cirrus cloud formations as a direct result from particulation and aerosol levels from jet exhausts.

So perhaps people who presume they are "chemtrails" are infact just confusing it with pollution fallout from jet engines?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

I think it says exactly what I stated above.

a reply to: Dabrazzo

They also state an increase in cirrus cloud formations as a direct result from particulation and aerosol levels from jet exhausts.

And I think you may not have understood what they were saying...

The third effect results from emissions of aerosol and particulate matter at high altitudes, and can be observed by the apparent increased incidence of cirrus clouds and the persistence of contrails,

www.aeronautics.nasa.gov...

So now where is it they said this?

So perhaps people who presume they are "chemtrails" are infact just confusing it with pollution fallout from jet engines?

Except the fact that they say they are full of stuff that isn't in jet fuel so how does that work?

a reply to: Dabrazzo

I don't need to (though I did, years ago). You said contrails persisting is not normal. I asked you why you think that, no external link is going to tell me why you think something, especially one that doesn't say anything about persistence not being normal. I'm afraid you have to do that yourself. It's called discussion. And I still don't know.

a reply to: Dabrazzo

I don't think it does say that, unless you can point me to a part I've missed. Anyhow, even if it does say that, formation is not persistence. I will agree that more contrails are formed, I get that. More planes, bigger engines, they all play a part, it's this question of saying persistence is not normal I don't get.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

So now where is it they said this?

Right at the top of the page

Aircraft engine emissions affect climate change in three ways that are expected to increase in concern as aviation grows:

And also here

NASA's ongoing Atmospheric Effects of Aviation Project (AEAP) has measured emissions from the engines of several commercial and research aircraft. Jet engine emissions have been shown to affect the concentrations of atmospheric water vapor and aerosols and they may affect how clouds form

Except the fact that they say they are full of stuff that isn't in jet fuel so how does that work?

Jet fuel contains measurable levels of both sulpher and particulate matter. I dont know how the spec for U.S Aviation Kero differs from that of UK JET A1 but I imagine its fairly similar.

a reply to: waynos

If increased persistence is normal why is it highlighted as an effect?, that was my reasoning behind it not being normal. Or at the very least a measurable anomaly.

Where I moved from last spring had a woman 3 houses down that claimed all kinds of stuff was falling from the sky and she had jars of it. I asked for 1 to take to work and have checked out. Nope wasn't going to happen I was trying to make her look crazy. I didn't have to she was doing quite well on her own

Nobody with any credibility has done this. Carcinom could crowd fund the tests if he really wanted the truth. He is so invested in his opinion he fears being discredited. The people who post images on social media with captions like "increased spraying today" or "they're spraying us" are just posting conspiracy hogwash. Contrail science is sound science and pollution is not a conspiracy it is a side effect. I agree with the OP that purposeful spraying of poison would be sinister. So sinister that if it existed the lid would have been totally blown off by now by either whistleblowers or concerned citizens doing exactly what the OP suggests.

originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: mrthumpy

No matter what is presented and who testifies no one is ever going to believe it but we few nut cases.
I don't really care who else believes I have seen my proof in my face the rest of you can just la dee da your way through your perfect world.

The video below documents the events of this landmark day in the fight to expose the crime of global geoengineering, all experts are identified with labels in the video (the new edited, condensed version).
Dane Wigington

chemtrailsinourskies.wordpress.com...

So, you are seeing them spraying everyone on a daily basis and yet you do nothing about it? You just sit there and let it happen? Let them poison the whole world? Wow...thats cold.

a reply to: Dabrazzo

Right at the top of the page

Care to point it out?



I ask because I just don't see it?

Here I am going to leave you with something to read if you wish...

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...