Chemtrails? Are they for real and what are they for?

a reply to: The GUT

Hang in there and reject the deniers. The truth is coming out (looks like this year, but may drag into 2018.)

And the same thing has been said since this topic started in the 90's yet nothing to back the claims...just saying it doesn't make it true. It's always fun to make claims but proof is where it's at and yet nobody in the 20 years this has been supposedly going on has been able to provide this proof.

Now for proof why hasn't anyone ever taken the time to actually fly up and test one in the sky right after it was sprayed as that would end the debate as to them being real or not, but that's something not one person pushing this claim has done...why is that?

One flight is what one would need to end the debate but instead they make claims and spend money but won't spend it where it would end their money train...see if you keep claiming cover up then you can speak at conferences and get paid if you show they are real you won't be able to claim it as a conspiracy and that money from those conferences ends. Just look at dane wigigngton he has made a lucrative career doing just that, getting paid to claim it's a conspiracy but when it is no longer some secret he has nothing left to get paid for.

Hi guys

First, I apologise for not directly linking to the quotes that I am about to reference. In my defence I am still relatively new to posting on this site rather than just pure rude.

I have a couple of questions that I see as being able to support me in making my mind up on this topic.

1. SOMEBODY (can't remember who) said that geoengineering exists but has nothing to do with chemtrails. Can that person please direct me towards evidence that details the said geoengineering.
2. SOMEBODY indicated that chemtrails aren't true and advocated checking with flight data when you see the trails. Fair enough. What I would like to know is can you direct me to evidence that military planes are NOT releasing chemicals into the air to back up the point of view? By definition, this may be difficult.
3. SOMEBODY claims to have seen enough verifiable evidence and together with his own background knowledge put this together to form a belief that chemtrails are real. I understand you said you 'didn't' have time to make a thread on it. BUT, seriously, for those of us who don't have the same background in aviation it is a lot more difficult to independently research this topic successfully. SO, if what you say is true come on and make a thread detailing your evidence, even if it only references certain things so that we can go away and do the full research if you don't have time to fully explain yourself. Make a thread and lead us to the evidence, please.

Thanks for any help.

originally posted by: mersaultdies
Hi guys

First, I apologise for not directly linking to the quotes that I am about to reference. In my defence I am still relatively new to posting on this site rather than just pure rude.

I have a couple of questions that I see as being able to support me in making my mind up on this topic.

1. SOMEBODY (can't remember who) said that geoengineering exists but has nothing to do with chemtrails. Can that person please direct me towards evidence that details the said geoengineering.
2. SOMEBODY indicated that chemtrails aren't true and advocated checking with flight data when you see the trails. Fair enough. What I would like to know is can you direct me to evidence that military planes are NOT releasing chemicals into the air to back up the point of view? By definition, this may be difficult.
3. SOMEBODY claims to have seen enough verifiable evidence and together with his own background knowledge put this together to form a belief that chemtrails are real. I understand you said you 'didn't' have time to make a thread on it. BUT, seriously, for those of us who don't have the same background in aviation it is a lot more difficult to independently research this topic successfully. SO, if what you say is true come on and make a thread detailing your evidence, even if it only references certain things so that we can go away and do the full research if you don't have time to fully explain yourself. Make a thread and lead us to the evidence, please.

Thanks for any help.

1. Any of the literature on stratospheric aerosols (often used as believers that geoengineering is underway). For example:

3.3 Aerosol distribution and burden We model geoengineering by injection of alumina particles for a number of parametric model scenarios to evaluate the effect of (1) injected particles size, (2) injection rate, and (3) the fractal geometry of sulfate-coated alumina particles. For all scenarios, injection occurs in a broad band from 30◦ S to 30◦ N and from 20 to 25 km in altitude. This is the same injection region used in Pierce et al. (2010) and was chosen to maximize the global distribution and residence time of geoengineered aerosols while minimizing localized injection overlaps.

From www.atmos-chem-phys.net...

2. No. You can't prove a negative (as I think you are aware)

3. Can't help you there.

How many of you have watched government programs expand in size and scope over a period of time ??
And as the decades pass they become so enormous and so many Federal dollars are flowing that it becomes nearly impossible to bring it to a stop ?
These types of programs take on a life of their own, to exist for the sake of existing and to keep the river Federal dollars moving into the MIC.
The mission objective was forgotten so long ago, I don't think anyone today even knows what it was when it was created back in the 70s.

P-40 Curtiss at the Evergreen Air Museum




Buck

a reply to: mersaultdies

I believe I can help you with your questions, but I really need to know what it is that you believe. As with The Gut, an abstract idea is impossible to describe, let alone argue against. If you tell me what it is you thing is going on, and how you came to that conclusion, I can point you to facts that will explain most things that exist. I've been in this discussion for a lot of years now and that coupled with my USAF experience and love of weather seems to have pointed me in a great position to discuss this from a science/reality point of view. I will back up everything I offer with links to verifiable sites, but you have to do your part and look at them and clarify if you understand them and or agree with them. Those who already have their minds made up can't be convinced, so for them, I laugh and go on my way these days. If you are truly interested, please offer some insight into your beliefs.

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: doubleE211

Yep they are real , mixture of oxgen hydrogen and a few other things . Here is a pic from WW2 .

Holy smokes! That's what Phoenix's skies look like ever other day it seems.

Thank you to mrthumpy for that starter information.

To network dude, I would like to read to read and absorb the information from the paper mrthumpy linked to but am about to go to work so don't have time at the moment. That obviously may change my currently very basic and fluid opinions. What I will do is go through it in detail at some point ove the next couple of days and then further reply to this thread. In the meantime, and with the disclaimer that I'm fairly ignorant on this subject...

...I became suspicious as to why there persistent contrails in the sky on some occasions but not others. I looked into it ia bit and found that some people suggested they were linked to geoengineering. I also found that lots of people said that was silly and suggested they were just contrails there due to atmospheric conditions. I then went about my daily life. More recently, I noticed contrails and was at a loose end so decided to check out what planes seemed to be creating them and the concurrent atmospheric conditions. I found that it 'seemed' as if planes flying at different altitudes, where the meterology site told me there were currently different weather conditions, both appeared to be creating persistent contrails. Added to this it 'seemed' as if there were a greater number of planes in the sky than there should have been. So, I thought, perhaps the phenomenom is worth further investigation before I commit to having firm opinions one way or another. Even more recently, I found this thread and though 'Ah, here's the place to look for direction on where I can improve my knowledge on the science around this and hopefully start to figure out the truth (or at the very least my own belief in what may be true)'.

Any direction you can offer at this stage would be appreciated.

originally posted by: mersaultdies
Thank you to mrthumpy for that starter information.

To network dude, I would like to read to read and absorb the information from the paper mrthumpy linked to but am about to go to work so don't have time at the moment. That obviously may change my currently very basic and fluid opinions. What I will do is go through it in detail at some point ove the next couple of days and then further reply to this thread. In the meantime, and with the disclaimer that I'm fairly ignorant on this subject...

...I became suspicious as to why there persistent contrails in the sky on some occasions but not others. I looked into it ia bit and found that some people suggested they were linked to geoengineering. I also found that lots of people said that was silly and suggested they were just contrails there due to atmospheric conditions. I then went about my daily life. More recently, I noticed contrails and was at a loose end so decided to check out what planes seemed to be creating them and the concurrent atmospheric conditions. I found that it 'seemed' as if planes flying at different altitudes, where the meterology site told me there were currently different weather conditions, both appeared to be creating persistent contrails. Added to this it 'seemed' as if there were a greater number of planes in the sky than there should have been. So, I thought, perhaps the phenomenom is worth further investigation before I commit to having firm opinions one way or another. Even more recently, I found this thread and though 'Ah, here's the place to look for direction on where I can improve my knowledge on the science around this and hopefully start to figure out the truth (or at the very least my own belief in what may be true)'.

Any direction you can offer at this stage would be appreciated.

The main problem with linking the trails with geoengineering is highlighted in the excerpt I posted above, particularly "from 20 to 25 km in altitude". The trails we see are typically at around 10km but all of the literature quotes figures of at least 20km

Can I ask where you are getting your information about flights and atmospheric conditions from?

a reply to: mersaultdies

You sound like you are going about this the right way. Please ask anything you like and if I can help, I'll be happy to.
For all things geo-engineering, look into David Keith. He is the top scientist in that field and has published many papers on the topic. Good luck.