In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists

duplicate post removed

a reply to: Petros312
It's not even debatable as a "conspiracy theory," it's fact.
Just Google "weather modification" or look up the patents for HAARP.
It's no secret, but since there aren't commercials for it during the Grammys and Fox News "meteorologists" act surprised that it's 65 and rainy in NY one day and a blizzard the next, even though they know damn well why, no one gets it.
When you can pretty much track their flight plans online, why is anyone still denying this?
Must be some reason lol...

a reply to: ParasuvO

When will someone go up in planes and test these "contrails" to see what they are made of??

That's a good question. See my signature line. Members here have been asking for years why "chemtrail" believers haven't tested in-situ for years. Tests have been done but contrail deniers don't seem to accept the results. It's up to them to test, to find evidence for their claims.

It's possible and it's less expensive than some propaganda films that could have done it. So why have none of the contrail deniers done this? Crowd funding could make their dreams come true.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: ParasuvO

When will someone go up in planes and test these "contrails" to see what they are made of??

That's a good question. See my signature line. Members here have been asking for years why "chemtrail" believers haven't tested in-situ for years. Tests have been done but contrail deniers don't seem to accept the results. It's up to them to test, to find evidence for their claims.

It's possible and it's less expensive than some propaganda films that could have done it. So why have none of the contrail deniers done this? Crowd funding could make their dreams come true.

Maybe by some incredible coincidence, they are all afraid of flying?

originally posted by: SheopleNation
a reply to: waynos

When two large aircraft are flying at the same elevation, and one has a contrail, and other does not, that might suggest that they could be spraying something, or releasing something. Pay close attention to the word COULD.

That would beg two questions, have you determined that they are at the same elevation? How can you know the RH is the same where both aircraft are flying? If these were both proven (and I only know how to prove the first one) then there could be reason for some suspicion. As we are unable to do that, there is no basis for suspicion, only speculation, which is fine as long as one is honest enough to admit it.

When one of those contrails just stops in mid air, that could suggest that something is being turned off, switched or the aircraft has stalled. Like I said, I think they could be doing weather modification. We are in a very severe drought out here.

Why though? I know you said 'could suggest', but really why? It's not as if contrails can't stop and start at any time due to conditions, it can only suggest it if you have already decided that it is a spray, which sounds like confirmation bias.

Oh and uh in all reality, we don't "know" anything. ~$heopleNation

And you said we do, which prompted my question. Thank you for the honest climbdown.

originally posted by: SheopleNation
a reply to: 3danimator2014

Not sure what Female posters have to do with the discussion, so lets not make this a sexist debate. I can't speak for the OP, or any other so called female posters, cause I am not female. Just as this thread was started yesterday, so not sure about the "weeks of unconstrained arguments" suggestion.

Some of us have made it perfectly clear, which is, Weather modification is not chemtrails. However, some trouble makers wish to argue the contrary to make themselves feel better. No big deal really, but it is what it is. What makes ATS great, is that everyone has their own views about a certain subject.

Personally, I think what is going on is an attempt to control the weather. Which = Weather Modification, not chemtrails. ~$heopleNation

Which is, I think a different thing. We know weather modification goes on. It's not a secret, businesses exist to profit from it and so they need to advertise. Whether or not it's a good thing might be a sound debate, but not whether it's hsppening. Large jets aren't used for weather modification, because they aren't necessary, planes cost lots of money and it would be like buying an 18 wheeler Mack truck to carry home a bag of shopping. You also don't change weather by creating cirrus clouds in the stratosphere.

originally posted by: ParasuvO
a reply to: Krazysh0t


When will someone go up in planes and test these "contrails" to see what they are made of?? Cause they certainly are not just water, pretty crazy that they have not been found to be most damaging to the Earth.

If you're not aware of any tests, how can you be certain? Your position is false. Jet Exhaust is not JUST water, but the trails you can see are. All the bad Ju ju is present in jet exhaust at all times, this is one reason chemtrail claims are laughably stupid. They have been tested, but of course believers don't accept these tests because they disagree with their claims. They were the wrong trails. So those trying so hard to convince others that chemtrails aren't just fantasy need to do it themselves.

Some reading : www.faa.gov...

Just how is making artificial clouds that DO NOT RAIN (according to cloud seeding experts here they are different) not one of the biggest problems around and ways to stop them been found ??

See link. Chemically, contrails are indistinguishable from natural cirrus. Cirrus has been around forever and has never produced rain. Not producing rain isn't a problem.

Question, WHY DO WE NEED CONTRAILS, surely the tech exists to eliminate them EASILY by now.

Nobody needs contrails, they are an entirely incidental by product of aviation. Tech has nothing to do with it. If you nucleate large amounts of water vapour in sub-zero temperatures it will freeze, that's why you get persisting contrails in areas of high humidity and you don't when humidity is low. The water in the exhaust freezes then sublimates when humidity is low (short trails), but cannot when humidity is high as the air is already holding as much water as it can. The contrail itself can often then trigger further nucleation in the saturated air (persisting and persisting spreading trails).

Why is the known science unnacceptable to you in the face of this strange fantasy?

Finally YES. contrails can be avoided. By flying in the lower, warmer, denser air where trails don't freeze. This won't change the composition of the exhaust one iota, but will add further pollution to the air as engines work harder and burn more fuel. But you'd prefer that just because you won't see the damage?

originally posted by: KAOStheory
a reply to: Petros312
It's not even debatable as a "conspiracy theory," it's fact.
Just Google "weather modification" or look up the patents for HAARP.
It's no secret, but since there aren't commercials for it during the Grammys and Fox News "meteorologists" act surprised that it's 65 and rainy in NY one day and a blizzard the next, even though they know damn well why, no one gets it.
When you can pretty much track their flight plans online, why is anyone still denying this?
Must be some reason lol...

Weather modification is very, very real. It's called cloud seeding. The act of causing rain to form on demand, or eliminating the possibility of rain on demand. Here is a company that does that. www.weathermodificationinc.com
They have a nice web site.

But HAARP? it's not even running anymore. They shut it down over a year ago. I am sure there is some new and improve version of ionic heater, but even then, it was a communication tool.

The discussion is about those white puffy lines in the sky. The one's that don't look 'natural'. The lines that form behind planes that are ice crystals, not massive chemical dumps.

But I am interested in tracking their flight plans online. And super curious as to who "they" are.

Please let me know.

originally posted by: SheopleNation
Well we do know that they are spraying something. I personally do not believe they are chemtrails, in the sense that they are poisoning us all, at least not intentionally. I mean, they would be poisoning themselves and their own families.

Not to pick a fight, but the "we do know" as opposed to "they might" type language is the kind of thing that antagonizes these discussions. We are all guilty of it, but at least it helps to understand.

They were hosing us for two days straight in Northern California last week. Growing up out here and knowing the commercial Airliner routes, it was clear these were different Aircraft, much larger too.

Norther CA has been the loudest voices of chemtrail since I started to hear about it. I was under the impression there wasn't a day EVER where you didn't have a sky full of lines. Have you looked into all the stuff about what contrails are and how the form/last? Is it possible that those are really all you are seeing?

Basically when you watch them, in this case there were two that would just go back and forth for hours on end, yet you also see commercial Airliners flying in their normal direction, but with no contrails at the same elevation, it's obvious something is going on.

If you can get this on film, at least this part of the mystery might be explained. Save for a few minute holding pattern, or the rare AWACS flight, planes circling for hours is an anomaly. If you or anyone can get footage of this, it would be important.

Personally, I believe it could be an attempt at weather modification. ~$heopleNation

I believe it's probably normal contrails.

a reply to: ParasuvO

When will someone go up in planes and test these "contrails" to see what they are made of?? Cause they certainly are not just water

Rewind back to 2010..

www.abovetopsecret.com...

5 years ago I proposed to chemtrail believers to get up there and prove their beliefs.

I provided data on previous contrail tests to use as a benchmark
I provided a link to a company that owns a plane designed to take air samples


5 years later? Nothing.

As far as I am concerned, the big players in pushing chemtrails...like Michael J Murphy, he was involved in creating WITWATS, are deliberately lying and misleading the weak minded. I'm sure you've heard people say that Murphy had $50,000 to spend on WITWATS, and ask why he didn't spend the money on actually proving it..That was me in 2011..

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Armed with this knowledge, how the hell could anyone defend chemtrail conspiracy theorists?

They are clearly not interested in the truth, or have been completely mislead by those not interested in the truth.

In an age of crowd funding and kickstarter funds, there is absolutely no excuse anymore, you're either a charlatan or misinformed.

originally posted by: rebelv

originally posted by: dezertdog
a reply to: AutumnWitch657

For the very simple reason that believers just cannot furnish a reason why

"Why" is the crux of the matter.

BTW, I haven't confirmed the story, but I heard on a talk radio
station that the fairly new curriculum for public schools includes
a textbook that actually teaches children what geo-engineering is,
that they are spraying chemicals from airplanes into the air,
and their purpose is to combat "global warming"

Good. It's a very important subject and the more people that learn about it, the less will be sucked in by the chemtrails hoax.

originally posted by: ParasuvO
a reply to: Krazysh0t

How is it you know what Chemtrails are or look like, or what they are made of if they do not exist ??

Don't be cute. You and I both know the picture of what chemtrails are supposed to be regardless if they exist or not. Chemtrial believers post tons of pictures of contrails saying they are chemtrails, so don't pretend like we don't have an idea of what they are supposed to be and look like.

When will someone go up in planes and test these "contrails" to see what they are made of?? Cause they certainly are not just water, pretty crazy that they have not been found to be most damaging to the Earth.

Why haven't you gone up? Is it that hard to rent an aircraft or a drone, rig it up to take a sample, collect it, then send it away for testing? What's stopping YOU from testing them?

Just how is making artificial clouds that DO NOT RAIN (according to cloud seeding experts here they are different) not one of the biggest problems around and ways to stop them been found ??

Sounds like a topic for a different thread since cloud seeding aren't contrails and therefore aren't chemtrails.

Question, WHY DO WE NEED CONTRAILS, surely the tech exists to eliminate them EASILY by now.

We don't NEED contrails anymore than we need exhaust out of a car. It is just a byproduct of flying a plane.

Just a thought regarding the justification of chemtrail belief with the line that one "knows the local air route so it can't be them"'.

In my years of sky watching and taking around 30,000 photos of planes (hey! I enjoy it), as well as understanding about aviation, I've also become familiar with certain flight routes. Now one of these, by way of example, is EK17 and its return counterpart EK18 which pass directly over my house on a daily basis, except that sometimes they aren't directly overhead, sometimes it passes North of me, sometimes South. Indeed I've learned that it can appear almost anywhere in the visible sky as the highly distinctive and recognisable white Emirates A380 double decker makes its way to and from Manchester. So you see, flight routes are fairly flexible, so that justification just doesn't work.

originally posted by: waynos
Just a thought regarding the justification of chemtrail belief with the line that one "knows the local air route so it can't be them"'.

In my years of sky watching and taking around 30,000 photos of planes (hey! I enjoy it), as well as understanding about aviation, I've also become familiar with certain flight routes. Now one of these, by way of example, is EK17 and its return counterpart EK18 which pass directly over my house on a daily basis, except that sometimes they aren't directly overhead, sometimes it passes North of me, sometimes South. Indeed I've learned that it can appear almost anywhere in the visible sky as the highly distinctive and recognisable white Emirates A380 double decker makes its way to and from Manchester. So you see, flight routes are fairly flexible, so that justification just doesn't work.

Plus 'planes in the sky may appear closer than they are'. I've been surprised to find just how far away flights that looked pretty much overhead to me actually were when I get home and check

a reply to: waynos

In slightly more detail, here.

A Barium swallow and meal involves swallowing a drink that contains barium (a substance which shows up on X-rays). The barium coats the inside of your throat, oesophagus (the pipe that goes from your mouth to your stomach), stomach and small bowel. This allows for clearer X-ray images.

The test is often done as an outpatient procedure in a hospital's imaging or radiology department.

A barium swallow and meal test can give your doctor information about your swallowing action. It can also pick up patches of irritation such as ulcers, abnormal growths, narrowing or a blockage.

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: waynos
Just a thought regarding the justification of chemtrail belief with the line that one "knows the local air route so it can't be them"'.

In my years of sky watching and taking around 30,000 photos of planes (hey! I enjoy it), as well as understanding about aviation, I've also become familiar with certain flight routes. Now one of these, by way of example, is EK17 and its return counterpart EK18 which pass directly over my house on a daily basis, except that sometimes they aren't directly overhead, sometimes it passes North of me, sometimes South. Indeed I've learned that it can appear almost anywhere in the visible sky as the highly distinctive and recognisable white Emirates A380 double decker makes its way to and from Manchester. So you see, flight routes are fairly flexible, so that justification just doesn't work.

Plus 'planes in the sky may appear closer than they are'. I've been surprised to find just how far away flights that looked pretty much overhead to me actually were when I get home and check

I posted a graphic that illustrates this in the Aviation forum today. A flight you can see in the sky could be 100 miles away, even one 20 miles away can appear to be almost overhead.

Edit to add graphic. I think it was created by Mick West.

a reply to: Astyanax

I do wonder if the nhs is actually talking about something else.

a reply to: network dude

I just was unable to come up with what I thought would be an easy thing to find.

Enjoy!

But I'll save you the trouble of wading through all that. Here are the relevant bits.

6.1. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION

Barium is a dense alkaline earth metal that is widely distributed in small amounts in the earth’s crust. Under natural conditions, barium occurs as the divalent cation in combination with other elements. Barium enters the environment through the weathering of rocks and minerals and through anthropogenic releases. Barium toxicity is produced by the free cation, and highly soluble barium compounds are more toxic than insoluble compounds, such as barium sulfate.

Intentional or accidental human ingestion of barium compounds causes gastroenteritis, hypokalemia, acute hypertension, cardiac arrhythmias, skeletal muscle paralysis, and death.

Sounds scary, eh? Nah.

Note that 'barium toxicity is produced by the free cation'. For those who aren't familiar with chemistry, this means it's the other substance in the barium compound that causes the toxic reaction. The barium itself (the 'anion') is harmless.

Barium is passed out of the body quite quickly. Some does accumulate in bone and in the lungs, but there are no associated symptoms. Studies have established to a very high degree of confidence that barium is not carcinogenic.

And here's the reason you weren't able to find a 'normal' range.

Investigations of chronic barium toxicity in humans have focused on cardiovascular toxicity, with a specific emphasis on hypertension. A chronic dose of barium capable of producing cardiovascular toxicity has not been identified. The NOAEL for both Brenniman et al. (1981) and Wones et al. (1990) was estimated by EPA to be 0.21 mg/kg-day using standard estimates for drinking water intake (2 L/day) and average body weight (70 kg). However, low confidence is placed in these NOAELs because they are not linked to an adverse effect level and because of limitations in the designs of these studies.

Of course, all this data is from the EPA — the 'bad guys' — so Petros & Co are going to tell us it's eyewash and hogwash.

a reply to: waynos

No, it's pretty much the same thing. At which end the barium is introduced depends on whether the doctor wants an image of the upper or lower GI tract.

a reply to: Astyanax

Thanks very much for that. It was frustrating thinking that information was out there, but just out of reach! Damn google!

It does make a lot of sense that if it was a dangerous chemical doctors wouldn't be asking you to drink it or pipe it up your bum.

So it looks like at least one part of the hype has been put back into the reality box.