In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: network dude
You do understand that contrails and their ability to block sunlight have nothing to do with chemtrails right?

DOUBLESPEAK

If you don't know why, you will find out soon enough.

Let me guess, you're going to move the goalposts again.

a reply to: waynos
Oh my gosh, thank you so much for letting me know about
Flightradar 24. I very much want to get this app, and I will
be having lot's of fun with it.

BTW I gave you another star. I can't wait to get this app.

Rebel 5

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: Bobaganoosh
I usually stay away from this topic.

Couldn't escape it today though. I don't like to choose a side on it, but I do watch the skies a lot. I have seen things in person that would make it quite difficult for me to completely write off the possibility of these operations.

Earlier I happened across a good read.

Figured I would share [the link below].

I missed this from above:

Chemtrails Exposed: A History of the New Manhatten Project

This was excellent on the history of weather modification and the US military's interest in "owning the skies," even for a blog, which is no reason to immediately discredit the info. There's a lot more interesting info at the link other than talk about the HAARP project. I like this:

In the 1967 National Science Foundation's ninth annual weather modification report, it reads, "ESSA [Environmental Science Services Administration] is also investigating the effect of cirrus clouds on the radiation budget of the atmosphere by studying aircraft-produced contrails which often spread into cirrus layers covering considerable fractions of the sky. One technique proposed for modifying lower cloud development has been the generation of a high level cirrus deck with jet aircraft. By intercepting solar radiation at high altitude it may be possible to influence larger scale cloud development elsewhere by reducing solar input and reducing convective cloud generation in areas where they are not needed."

No misinformation there at all on this document, and highly relevant regarding the claims made by some people labelled "chemtrailers" but dismissed by debunkers.

Interesting but I can't find any further reading on that. Do you have a copy of that report or the ESSA investigation?

a reply to: rebelv

You're welcome. I look forward to seeing any findings you come up with that you'd like to discuss.

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
Chemtrails will never be proven. For the very simple reason that believers just cannot furnish a reason why ? What would be the purpose? Until this very simple question can be answered there is no discussion that would be logical.

I'm not even saying I'm sold on the idea, but honestly, many reasons have been put forth, one of the primary ones being weather modification.

Let's just say that climate change is real. What if this is a clandestine solution to it?

Again, I'm not saying it is true but there are patents for weather modification through airborne means.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: FamCore

Well-written thread about the many approaches debunkers use to put down conspiracy theories.

So explain this to me...

How does one know they exist when not one person or group has ever flown up and tested one in the air after it was sprayed?

You see that is a fundamental red flag that chemtrails are real, because as it has been shown in many threads about chemtrails...there is no evidence to back the chemtrail claim.

But feel free to provide any evidence you have that proves they exist.

I am open to debunking. But I can say that when I lived in California for most of my life during the 2000's there were countless times where my friends and I would see crisscrossing planes laying out grid-like trails, which most definitely coalesced into "cloud" looking formations. Did not look like basic contrails.

Have you not seen this somewhere?

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
Chemtrails will never be proven. For the very simple reason that believers just cannot furnish a reason why ? What would be the purpose? Until this very simple question can be answered there is no discussion that would be logical.

I'm not even saying I'm sold on the idea, but honestly, many reasons have been put forth, one of the primary ones being weather modification.

Let's just say that climate change is real. What if this is a clandestine solution to it?

Again, I'm not saying it is true but there are patents for weather modification through airborne means.

Climate isn't weather. Modifying the weather doesn't change the climate, it just makes it rain a bit more than it would have at that time and place.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: FamCore

Well-written thread about the many approaches debunkers use to put down conspiracy theories.

So explain this to me...

How does one know they exist when not one person or group has ever flown up and tested one in the air after it was sprayed?

You see that is a fundamental red flag that chemtrails are real, because as it has been shown in many threads about chemtrails...there is no evidence to back the chemtrail claim.

But feel free to provide any evidence you have that proves they exist.

I am open to debunking. But I can say that when I lived in California for most of my life during the 2000's there were countless times where my friends and I would see crisscrossing planes laying out grid-like trails, which most definitely coalesced into "cloud" looking formations. Did not look like basic contrails.

Have you not seen this somewhere?

Contrails are clouds, sometimes they linger and spread and sometimes they don't.

And if you can picture multiple planes flying to many different destinations with their contrails moving on the wind as any other cloud will you can see how crosses and grids can be formed.

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: rebelv

You're welcome. I look forward to seeing any findings you come up with that you'd like to discuss.

Absolutely!

Rebel 5

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
Chemtrails will never be proven. For the very simple reason that believers just cannot furnish a reason why ? What would be the purpose? Until this very simple question can be answered there is no discussion that would be logical.

I'm not even saying I'm sold on the idea, but honestly, many reasons have been put forth, one of the primary ones being weather modification.

Let's just say that climate change is real. What if this is a clandestine solution to it?

Again, I'm not saying it is true but there are patents for weather modification through airborne means.

Climate isn't weather. Modifying the weather doesn't change the climate, it just makes it rain a bit more than it would have at that time and place.

Yes and no.

Conceivably it could be to alter the impact of the greenhouse effect and such, or ward off incoming climate-change derived weather effects, which include extreme weather.

The two are interconnected, with weather being a local phenomena of a more macro and globalized climate that includes many other systems.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

But surely that doesn't work even as a concept? To use weather modification in response to climate change is like taking out 7 day loans constantly because you don't earn enough money. When what you really need to do is get a better paid job?

In this comparison getting a better paid job could be analogous to SRM programmes (IF they are safe and work) while the short term loan (weather modification) fixes nothing and is utterly pointless.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
Chemtrails will never be proven. For the very simple reason that believers just cannot furnish a reason why ? What would be the purpose? Until this very simple question can be answered there is no discussion that would be logical.

I'm not even saying I'm sold on the idea, but honestly, many reasons have been put forth, one of the primary ones being weather modification.

Let's just say that climate change is real. What if this is a clandestine solution to it?

Again, I'm not saying it is true but there are patents for weather modification through airborne means.

Climate isn't weather. Modifying the weather doesn't change the climate, it just makes it rain a bit more than it would have at that time and place.

Yes and no.

Conceivably it could be to alter the impact of the greenhouse effect and such, or ward off incoming climate-change derived weather effects, which include extreme weather.

The two are interconnected, with weather being a local phenomena of a more macro and globalized climate that includes many other systems.

Conceivably it could be used to mitigate the effects of climate change on the weather.

If that's what weather modification did.

But it doesn't.

Unless you have some new information?

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

But surely that doesn't work even as a concept? To use weather modification in response to climate change is like taking out 7 day loans constantly because you don't earn enough money. When what you really need to do is get a better paid job?

In this comparison getting a better paid job could be analogous to SRM programmes (IF they are safe and work) while the short term loan (weather modification) fixes nothing and is utterly pointless.

I agree that if it were true it would be merely treating symptoms.

However, we can't get most countries, people, and leaders to agree to the rigorous actions needed to mitigate climate change. So if that secondary point is true, then if the causes aren't being addressed then the symptoms have to be.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
However, we can't get most countries, people, and leaders to agree to the rigorous actions needed to mitigate climate change. So if that secondary point is true, then if the causes aren't being addressed then the symptoms have to be.

By symptoms, you mean the global temperature is rising slightly? I think that is not in dispute. (I could be wrong) What I thought the dispute was, is how much, if any, man's activities contribute to it. And in this case, aircraft contrails do contribute to warming. Albeit localized, it exists.

www.pbs.org...

These results suggest that contrails can suppress both daytime highs (by reflecting sunlight back to space) and nighttime lows (by trapping radiated heat). That is, they can be both cooling and warming clouds. But what is the net effect? Do they cool more than they warm, or vice versa? "Well, the assumption is a net warming," Travis says, "but there is a lot of argument still going on about how much of a warming effect they produce."

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

But I can say that when I lived in California for most of my life during the 2000's there were countless times where my friends and I would see crisscrossing planes laying out grid-like trails, which most definitely coalesced into "cloud" looking formations. Did not look like basic contrails.

So do planes not fly N/S/E/W where you live, because they do where I am in Georgia?

And what exactly is a basic contrail and what are they supposed to look like?

Have you not seen this somewhere?

Yes all the time it's called air traffic...and flight paths.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
However, we can't get most countries, people, and leaders to agree to the rigorous actions needed to mitigate climate change. So if that secondary point is true, then if the causes aren't being addressed then the symptoms have to be.

By symptoms, you mean the global temperature is rising slightly? I think that is not in dispute. (I could be wrong) What I thought the dispute was, is how much, if any, man's activities contribute to it. And in this case, aircraft contrails do contribute to warming. Albeit localized, it exists.

www.pbs.org...

These results suggest that contrails can suppress both daytime highs (by reflecting sunlight back to space) and nighttime lows (by trapping radiated heat). That is, they can be both cooling and warming clouds. But what is the net effect? Do they cool more than they warm, or vice versa? "Well, the assumption is a net warming," Travis says, "but there is a lot of argument still going on about how much of a warming effect they produce."

First, there is not a "dispute" as to whether global warming is caused by humans except in the minds of a small minority of people, most of whom have no scientific credentials.

Second, one of the asserted consequences of climate change is an increase in extreme weather events and a variety of other problems. Mostly at a regional or local level.

We are not speaking to contrails, we are speaking to a possibility that CHEMTRAILS might be used to alter the localized effects of climate change on the weather.

I am not saying it is true, but it is possible.

Or, they simply are altering weather NOT in answer to climate change.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Yes, thanks for clarifying your point.

In the discussion that chemtrail could be used for weather manipulation in rearguards to climate change, anything is possible. Yet when presented with common sense thinking, it seems to miss the mark. (IMHO)

If it were to block the sun to cool the planet, why are there blue sky days and more importantly, why are there many blue sky days in a row? Where I live, you see contrails, but rarely do they cover the sky, usually just a few scattered about. Is my sky less apt to warm the planet?

Plus you get into the article I quote you. In the day, contrails and clouds reflect the sunlight, causing a net cooling affect. Perfect for warming mitigation. But, at night fall, the clouds and contrails will hold in the heat and cause a net warming affect. Which is detrimental to the efforts of cooling the planet as a whole. Never mind that these trails don't exist over the entire country or let alone planet. But all of that is just my thinking an not linked to any scientific articles.

I would be interested to hear your thoughts on that.

Why aren't chemtrails the crystallised water from the combustion process?

a reply to: OcelotJoe

Because then they would just be boring old contrails. Not a juicy enough conspiracy.

a reply to: network dude

Of all the conspiracies I have seen in my life, this must be one of the dumbest

What will it take for you guys to see that there is nothing? There can never be proof that there is NOT a conspiracy, just like we can't prove that there is not a moon out there somewhere made of cheese.

This is something thats talked about ONLY in a few forums where some people are gullible.

Why aren't there pilots, engineers and chemists talking about this? (or anyone else that would be in contact with it)

I really think its time to close the chemtrail conspiracy and focus our efforts elsewhere. Specially you who guys who have to come in here once in a while to write why this is so incredibly stupid. I mean if a conspiracy about contrails can be made up, then I dont see any limits at all. At the top of my head I have come up with these:

1. Why is there always a sock missing in the washing machine?
2. Northern lights? Natural phenomena or spaceship waste?
3. Politicians; secret alien spies? or just a greedy humans?
4. Are we sure dust bunnies aren't planted by the government?

Sorry if you feel made fun of, but at least consider that this is utterly made up. Most likely cos someone thought some contrails looked a bit odd