Whatever they are, they are not normal cloud formations

Why would one abruptly stop like this?

ETA: Oops wrong pic lol......this


And the black shadowy trail? After it cuts off?

originally posted by: GoShredAK

Why would one abruptly stop like this?

The same reason that clouds don't always cover the whole sky as 1 massive cloud, but smaller, multiple clouds.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Fixed my pic terrydon.....even though it seems you answered......

I don't know man

Legit on the fencer here.....that is all....no Chem pusher or liar or whatever.

Everyone around me believes.

Don't hate.

jk

a reply to: Sometimes

It seems like the experts aren't really experts at all.
Metabunk

How can someone prove something doesn't exist? Do you not find it strange that these experts on "chemtrails" don't realize how flawed their method was when collecting samples and all the holes people have been able to poke in their arguments?

a reply to: GoShredAK

My answer still stands, regardless of which photos it is

a reply to: TerryDon79

Fair enough thanks for answering

✌

originally posted by: GoShredAK
a reply to: TerryDon79

Fair enough

thanks for answering

✌

That's ok. I'd rather people be honest and be "on the fence" than accepting something without real evidence.

a reply to: GoShredAK

The black line is a contrail shadow. Like any shadow it's going to be longer than the object casting it, depending on the angle of the sun.

originally posted by: GoShredAK

Why would one abruptly stop like this?

ETA: Oops wrong pic lol......this

And the black shadowy trail? After it cuts off?

The sky is not one whole uniform mass, there are fluid areas of dryer/wetter air that move around, you'll have heard of air currents no doubt. That's what was meant by it being the same reason you get scattered clouds. The part of the sky where the trail sits is humid enough to prevent a trail from sublimating, at either end of the trail it isn't. You can visualise it as a section through a cloud. If you watched the plane go by you'd have seen it leave a contrail all the way across the sky which disappeared quickly, except for this part.

The dark line is a shadow caused by the angle of the sun. You'll notice that the contrail has blown around a bit but the shadow is dead straight, it's like when you have a 40ft shadow in the evening.

originally posted by: nancyliedersdeaddog
a reply to: Sometimes

It seems like the experts aren't really experts at all.
Metabunk

How can someone prove something doesn't exist? Do you not find it strange that these experts on "chemtrails" don't realize how flawed their method was when collecting samples and all the holes people have been able to poke in their arguments?

If a government agency can legally use weather modification devices, why wouldn't they? To say chemtrails don't exist I want proof that every contrail does not contain some chemical that aides in cloud formation and or blocking out light from reaching the Earth. But when a farmer comes out and says, "Hey, in the past five years I have tested my soil and the metals aluminum and barium keep increasing in the top layer, how is that possible unless it is in the water," then what else is the cause if there are no factories near his farm and yet he has photographic evidence pointing to planes as being the main culprit? I'm sorry but a contrail should not bea able to sit in the air for hours and spread into a haze, that is not merely water exhaust.

a reply to: Sometimes

Why does the source have to be nearby? Winds circle the Earth and we've had sand from the Sahara desert deposited here in the UK in the past. I suggest that you are struggling to take in the explanations that other members are offering because you are being too narrow and restrictive in your overview. You seem to be saying that pollution can only be deposited locally to its source and deposits in rainwater or on the ground can only come from planes. If you set your own parameters so narrowly, you have no chance of concluding anything other than what you have already decided you want to conclude. That isn't science, it's confirmation bias.

Another error you are making is in mixing up contrails with weather control. You have previously mentioned operation Popeyes, which was cloud seeding, so I presume that's what you mean.

Aircraft contrails, what you are calling chemtrails, are in the stratosphere, above the weather, and cannot be used to control anything beneath them as upper air currents carry them hundreds of miles.

Cloud seeding is performed by small aircraft (very little materiel is actually needed) flying at low level directly above existing rain clouds in order to encourage precipitation from that pre existing cloud. Govehrnment agencies and private companies have done this for decades. It's not secret and it's not chemtrails. White lines high in a blue sky is not cloud seeding or weather modification. If you think otherwise you may need to do further research as you've simply got it wrong.

Interestingly you set an impossible demand that you want every single trail to be tested and proven to be free of additional chemicals before you'll accept that chemtrails aren't real. This speaks volumes for your own mindset as the simple fact that not one trail has ever been found to contain any additional chemicals and constant independent air testing around the globe has never found evidence of chemtrails being sprayed, means nothing to you.

Personally, I don't believe in the boogeyman just because someone told me he is under the stairs.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: GoShredAK

Why would one abruptly stop like this?

The same reason that clouds don't always cover the whole sky as 1 massive cloud, but smaller, multiple clouds.

It's also possible that the plane was ascending or descending through a humid layer. I see that here sometimes too from aircraft departing/arriving Glasgow or Edinburgh airports

originally posted by: Sometimes

originally posted by: nancyliedersdeaddog
a reply to: Sometimes

It seems like the experts aren't really experts at all.
Metabunk

How can someone prove something doesn't exist? Do you not find it strange that these experts on "chemtrails" don't realize how flawed their method was when collecting samples and all the holes people have been able to poke in their arguments?

If a government agency can legally use weather modification devices, why wouldn't they? To say chemtrails don't exist I want proof that every contrail does not contain some chemical that aides in cloud formation and or blocking out light from reaching the Earth. But when a farmer comes out and says, "Hey, in the past five years I have tested my soil and the metals aluminum and barium keep increasing in the top layer, how is that possible unless it is in the water," then what else is the cause if there are no factories near his farm and yet he has photographic evidence pointing to planes as being the main culprit? I'm sorry but a contrail should not bea able to sit in the air for hours and spread into a haze, that is not merely water exhaust.

I'd very much like to see these lab tests and historical comparisons if you have them handy

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Sometimes

originally posted by: nancyliedersdeaddog
a reply to: Sometimes

It seems like the experts aren't really experts at all.
Metabunk

How can someone prove something doesn't exist? Do you not find it strange that these experts on "chemtrails" don't realize how flawed their method was when collecting samples and all the holes people have been able to poke in their arguments?

If a government agency can legally use weather modification devices, why wouldn't they? To say chemtrails don't exist I want proof that every contrail does not contain some chemical that aides in cloud formation and or blocking out light from reaching the Earth. But when a farmer comes out and says, "Hey, in the past five years I have tested my soil and the metals aluminum and barium keep increasing in the top layer, how is that possible unless it is in the water," then what else is the cause if there are no factories near his farm and yet he has photographic evidence pointing to planes as being the main culprit? I'm sorry but a contrail should not bea able to sit in the air for hours and spread into a haze, that is not merely water exhaust.

I'd very much like to see these lab tests and historical comparisons if you have them handy

Here is a link GeoEngineering Watch to everything geoengineering with links to studies, news articles, etc. That is merely one that is available but there are quite a few. Here is a news video from that site I picked at random.

a reply to: Sometimes

Got something that doesn't come from a known shyster named Dane Wigington?

Geoengineering watch is the worst source to use for anything involving actual science and truth, as he doesn't know what the truth is even if someone slapped him in the face with it.

You seem to be new to this topic, as that site and that report have been debunked for years and there are threads doing that...might want to go through some so we don't keep rehashing old debunked sites such as geoengineering watch, and the bs he pushes there.

originally posted by: Sometimes

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Sometimes

originally posted by: nancyliedersdeaddog
a reply to: Sometimes

It seems like the experts aren't really experts at all.
Metabunk

How can someone prove something doesn't exist? Do you not find it strange that these experts on "chemtrails" don't realize how flawed their method was when collecting samples and all the holes people have been able to poke in their arguments?

If a government agency can legally use weather modification devices, why wouldn't they? To say chemtrails don't exist I want proof that every contrail does not contain some chemical that aides in cloud formation and or blocking out light from reaching the Earth. But when a farmer comes out and says, "Hey, in the past five years I have tested my soil and the metals aluminum and barium keep increasing in the top layer, how is that possible unless it is in the water," then what else is the cause if there are no factories near his farm and yet he has photographic evidence pointing to planes as being the main culprit? I'm sorry but a contrail should not bea able to sit in the air for hours and spread into a haze, that is not merely water exhaust.

I'd very much like to see these lab tests and historical comparisons if you have them handy

Here is a link GeoEngineering Watch to everything geoengineering with links to studies, news articles, etc. That is merely one that is available but there are quite a few. Here is a news video from that site I picked at random.

A few problems with that one you picked.

1. The reporter made a conversion mistake and claimed “The results: a high level of barium, 6.8 parts per million (ppm), more than three times the toxic level set by the EPA” but the lab report shows that it was actually 0.0688 parts per million or 68.8 parts per billion which is only 3.4% of the limit. Plus the level they are talking about is for drinking water not rain water



2. The samples were collected by leaving bowls out on the hood of his pickup for a month and would have also collected any amount of dust blowing around outside in Arkansas which is one of the richest sources of barium in the US

3. Your claim was about increasing levels in top soil and there is no historical comparison here

a reply to: Sometimes

If you believe what is on that site, you might as well get all your news and science reviews from Facebook.

Here's an idea. Try creating an account on that site and creating a post about how it's not chemtrails. Or going to the Facebook page and doing the same. Or doing the same on one of his YouTube videos. You know what will happen? It will be removed. He doesn't promote ANY type of alternate views other than "it's chemtrails!".

His brother has openly talked about him and how the guy is completely out there and is lying about even the simplest things (such as his work history).

Be very careful about who you believe.

a reply to: Sometimes

You didn't answer my question and shifted the goal post. Do you not find it strange that these experts on "chemtrails" don't realize how flawed their method was when collecting samples and all the holes people have been able to poke in their arguments (it looks like who ever made the video didn't even tell the full truth about these experts occupation)? Don't you believe a true experts should realize their testing methods were highly flawed? I have a great idea and it's been brought up before on this site, you and other chemtrail believers should organize/throw in money to go up and test what you believe is a chemtrail (other people on this site have even given tons of links/ideas on how to do it/companies who can help you out).

a reply to: Sometimes

how is that possible unless it is in the water," then what else is the cause if there are no factories near his farm and yet he has photographic evidence pointing to planes as being the main culprit?

It could be in the water, but have asked yourself this simple question.

Having a farm, would the only water source available be water from rain or would there be other water sources?

It could be from water but how is it proven that its not from water that comes out of a hose from an underground water source?

Here is a link GeoEngineering Watch to everything geoengineering with links to studies, news articles, etc. That is merely one that is available but there are quite a few. Here is a news video from that site I picked at random.

originally posted by: Sometimes


......... how is that possible unless it is in the water," then what else is the cause if there are no factories near his farm and yet he has photographic evidence pointing to planes as being the main culprit?

What is this photographic evidence? How is the photograph considered to be evidential? I'm struggling to visualise this as I've not seen the actual photos.

I'm sorry but a contrail should not bea able to sit in the air for hours and spread into a haze, that is not merely water exhaust.

Simple question. Why?