In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 2. Social Reality

originally posted by: OneManArmy

But its how we handle being wrong that separates the men from the boys.

Amen brother.

a reply to: rickymouse

The shift is easy, look at how many computer generated images for TV or pictures have them in there. I don't know about you but when I was a kid I drew white fluffy cotton like clouds because that's what I saw. Now these images show long lines of cloud cover. It's everywhere, they have already conditioned the next generation to believe this is normal cloud cover.

originally posted by: NONPOINT21
a reply to: rickymouse

The shift is easy, look at how many computer generated images for TV or pictures have them in there. I don't know about you but when I was a kid I drew white fluffy cotton like clouds because that's what I saw. Now these images show long lines of cloud cover. It's everywhere, they have already conditioned the next generation to believe this is normal cloud cover.

I remember clouds were different when I was a kid too. There were cirrus clouds but nothing like some of what we have today.

On "The Last Leg" they have a bull# button. I wish I had one.

There are two realities.

Mine, & everyone else's. If you can accept this, nothing will ever bother you again.


Accept Everything, Believe Nothing.

a reply to: rickymouse

In the sky's defense, there are a whole lot more airplanes in the sky today than there were when we were kids.
But I remember seeing some lasting contrails as a kid in Cleveland. (70's)

a reply to: network dude

The contrail back then were from water injection so the jets could gain power when accelerating or gaining altitude. Military jets did that a lot, not a lot of water was needed to boost power and it was injected after the turbines increasing the density of the exhaust.

The new jets have something else going on and they create these clouds a different way. Either way, these clouds created do have geoeffective properties.

a reply to: rickymouse

I think all clouds have geo-effective properties. Contrails are just man made clouds.

But if you watch the skies, and pay attention, you will see when cirrus clouds become plentiful, so do contrails.

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: network dude

The contrail back then were from water injection so the jets could gain power when accelerating or gaining altitude. Military jets did that a lot, not a lot of water was needed to boost power and it was injected after the turbines increasing the density of the exhaust.

The new jets have something else going on and they create these clouds a different way. Either way, these clouds created do have geoeffective properties.

That's not what I remember. I saw persisting contrails across the sky that behaved exactly as they do now, but fewer of them.

What you describe in the quoted posted aren't contrails. Water injection used to cause engines to smoke, this was transient and never persisted and, when it continued during the flight, was very faint and still quickly faded. It was mainly and most strongly visible during take offs. Smoke isn't a contrail.

a reply to: rickymouse
Here's those water injected "contrails" for you.


The water which forms persistent and spreading contrails comes from the atmosphere.

a reply to: Phage

I knew some pilots from the airbase here that flew B52s and one of them explained to me when they used the injection system and what they did. That was about twenty five years ago. I was helping him build his deck. The Cessna plain I flew in my flying lessons didn't have anything so cool. I remember the airbase contacting me when I got too close to the base, they were on alert and when they were they were a lot more finicky. So I decided to go fly circles around the local Iron mine pit. My instructor told me I needed to quit doing that because it might disturb the minors and I could cause an accident.

Gee, those instructors seem to take the fun out of everything. I actually flew right around a small puffy cloud one day and the instructor told me I had to fly in a straight line and quit playing around right above the airport. I was thirty five years old at the time, I was just a big kid at heart playing with a neat toy.

originally posted by: NONPOINT21
a reply to: Petros312

These are the best threads because the same people constantly come and vehemently call out anyone that thinks chemtrails are real. It's movie theater popcorn good how mad they get. They spout evidence this or that, but yet when you supply articles stating it's happening in some fashion, it's different from what they are talking about because as you said above they think everyone thinks it has a sinister context.

Another great argument, how could such a scheme be kept secret....LOL how many times can history repeat itself. We are just doomed as a species as nothing changes except for those calling the shots, but I digress. Let the fun begin i have the popcorn

I have a theory as to why they would spray and it's not sinister at all. There are easier ways to kill people.

Pretty sure you have that the wrong way round. The chemmies get very upset and start TALKING IN CAPS. I have yet to see a debunker get mad or upset. Bemused? Sure. Confused? Of course.

Please show us a thread where we go mad.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
I wonder if these people were suspicious?

Millions were in germ war tests

Was this ever disproved?

I don't understand. What does that have to do with chemtrails?


Is that your best evidence? That they lied about that so chemtrails must be true?

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: network dude

The contrail back then were from water injection so the jets could gain power when accelerating or gaining altitude. Military jets did that a lot, not a lot of water was needed to boost power and it was injected after the turbines increasing the density of the exhaust.

Water injection was only ever used at takeoff by large aircraft - they couldn't carry enough to make any difference at altitude or for a long period of time.

Some fighter planes - especially German ones in WW2 - would use it for a short burst of increased power during combat - but again the amount was small and it didn't last long.

Also it was not injected after the turbines - it wsa injected in the compressor to make the incoming charge of air denser hence get more oxygen into the combustion chambers so more fuel could be burned.

This is a commonly repeated myth among chemmies - totally ignoring that when you burn a gallon of any hydrocarbon your get MORE than a gallon of water as a totally normal byproduct.

That little bit of high school chemistry seems a bit much for them....along with the mechanics of engines apparently!!

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I may have forgotten a little of the particulars over twenty five years. I learned this from a B52 refueling tanker pilot. He said they use it to gain altitude and at takeoff. We used to see the contrails start sometimes after they looped to change direction. He told me they did this if they wanted to gain altitude, not just when they took off. I haven't seen him since around the early nineties. They closed the airbase here quite a while ago, his group was relocated a few years prior to it's closing if I remember right.

a reply to: rickymouse

Yes B-52's used to use water injection at takeoff and initial climb - and this is what it looked like:



You can't really mistake it for contrails!!

They had 360 gallons of water on board for this purpose in early versions, increasing over the marks until the "G" model increased this to 1200 gallons.

The H model did away with it in favour of switching to TF33-P-3 turbofan engines - which had 17,000 lbs thrust instead of the 12,000 (WITH water injection!) of the original J57-P-43W turbojets - so there was no need to carry over a ton of water and its associated plumbing and control systems anymore.

G's were built starting 1959, and H's from 1961. Most G's were scrapped in 1992 - so it's been quite a long time since operational B-52's had water injection onboard!!

When is part 3 coming out?


Everything these days is trilogy based, well in entertainment.

Are you going to do a prequel?


After all the years of seeing and participating in the debates can maybe you OP, define once and for all what a chemtrail is?

Is it like many years ago, a contrail but could only be seen with special eyes that could analyse the chemical composition of the said trails?

Is it Chaff, cloud seeding, spraying blood or other viruses or some type geo-engineering technique?

If you do define it, will that definition change like it has over the years from being lingering contrails that possible cannot linger because people remember differently to being chaff then cloud seeding and now in the recent years is pushing as geo-engineering?


Another point,

Why is this in this forum if you want the topic to be social reality, it would be better if you placed it in the general forum and covered a broad spectrum of topics and use what you have in your OP about the chemtrail conspiracy as simply one example of many, it could be your main example but add more and show how it works across the board?

It would do you more justice instead of attempting to prove your beliefs in the way you have with this 2 part thread being "in defense of", it reeks of grasping for straws to try and get other gullible minds to jump off the bridge with you or what ever it is you want other to confirm with you.

Like the so called debunkers and shills (as they have been called time and time again) have said, Geo engineering is a topic that needs to be discussed, however the repeated nonsense and/or ignorance of these debates only hurts whatever you try to prove.

Most readers of these threads and this forum know its the same crowd that come in to debunk the nonsense or try and shine a light on the ignorance that some exhibit on certain subjects only to be repeated over and over again, now it comes down to a in defense of thread?

Are chemtrails or the conspiracy really that weak that they are threatened to be exposed for nothing but speculation that it needs a "in defense of thread"?

Why not expose the incorrect science (such as meteorology, engineering and physics) that believers seem think is being used to brainwash them and others (or make them look ignorant) to cover up the so called chemtrail conspiracy, doing so would open up your case of Chemtrails being real and a threat or whatnot to something the so called shills in this forum would support as they have also repeatedly said?




Edit: Hey would look at that part 3 is already out, of to get a good seat in the back row, Already have my popcorn.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
Another point,

Why is this in this forum if you want the topic to be social reality, it would be better if you placed it in the general forum and covered a broad spectrum of topics and use what you have in your OP about the chemtrail conspiracy as simply one example of many, it could be your main example but add more and show how it works across the board?

It would do you more justice instead of attempting to prove your beliefs in the way you have with this 2 part thread being "in defense of", it reeks of grasping for straws to try and get other gullible minds to jump off the bridge with you...

Isn't discouragement of this type just a little too harsh, not to mention in violation of what the moderator of the subforum said HERE:

originally posted by: intrepid
As with many of the topics we discuss on ATS, Geo-Engineering and Chemtrails are controversial and prone to challenge. While skepticism and constructive criticism are always welcome, they are all too often supplanted by insults and cynicism, which disrupt discussion and discourage healthy debate.

A core principle of ATS is providing our members a place where they can discuss "alternative" topics without fear of intimidation, ridicule or retaliation.

...There's no need to qualify what an insult or attack is. We learned that as children.

ATS doesn't care if one believes in chemtrails or not. What the staff DOES care about is that the board is open to anyone that would like to post without fear of attack or insult.

Perhaps you'd like to prove my discussion about how social reality specifically is used to stygmatize anyone suspected of being a chemtrail conspiracy theorist based on the evidence presented from Wikipedia and The Washington Post is nothing but "grasping at straws" ?

a reply to: Petros312

Perhaps you'd like to prove my discussion about how social reality specifically is used to stygmatize anyone suspected of being a chemtrail conspiracy theorist based on the evidence presented from Wikipedia and The Washington Post is nothing but "grasping at straws" ?

You do understand the whole chemtrail conspiracy theory is grasping at straws at it's finest?

a reply to: Petros312

to date, the only thing we have discussed is some specific points bout barium, and how poorly you deal with interaction of opposing ideas. While I doubt you will answer this, and instead run on about how it was said, I do have a request.

In order to understand what you think about the chemtrail conspiracy, and why you think it, it's important to understand what you actually think it is. (there are many differing ideas) So after you post a few threads about my tone, could you please elaborate a bit on what you understand to be true about the chemtrail phenomenon?