I was in Palmdale and the Chem-trail pollution was off the charts

These 'new' clouds....


On a day that began without clouds, that never had clouds...

Planes flew above, the same day, and left 'trails' above, in the clear blue sky.

These 'trails' never left. They spread out, and covered the skies above, and everywhere else I looked, too!


When I watched the morning news, the weatherman showed satellite images, it confirmed the clear skies, ahead ...

In fact, we never saw a single cloud all day.... the entire day.

So, when the same weatherman came on the 5, and 6 pm news, what do you think he said?

He said that 'high-altitude clouds' came in, at around 1 pm, and these 'clouds' have covered our blue skies, ever since!



This confirmed beyond a doubt it is taboo subject within the mainstream media.

It was clear blue skies above us on that day. Not one cloud, all day long.


All of a sudden, we find there are 12 'new' clouds....simply amazing!

Follow my point ...

This weatherman knows that these were not clouds, they were trails made by planes, which spread out over the skies, remained all afternoon, evening, into darkness of night.


If it's perfectly normal for contrails to cover clear blue skies, then why didn't he talk about it?

Why does he say they are 'high-altitude clouds', instead of normal 'contrails' that have spread out, covering our clear blue skies?

Normal contrails won't be called 'high-altitude clouds'. They are not clouds, they are trails left by planes, which spread over the skies. It cannot be contrails, or he'd have mentioned it is contrails.


Nothing to hide!

originally posted by: turbonium1

You think it's impossible for planes to have extra tank(s), with chemicals?

I can't imagine a tank being large enough to hold enough chemicals to be able to spray a chemtrail for hundreds of miles long (because a contrail could be hundreds of miles long).

originally posted by: turbonium1
You need to prove the two planes in the clip are actually commercial flights, which one person on your side first claimed!!

Using flight tracking software, it has already been shown to you that two planes (Delta Flight 275 and Delta Flight 295, one a little behind and beneath the other) flew in the same area that the OP's video was filming.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: turbonium1

You think it's impossible for planes to have extra tank(s), with chemicals?

I can't imagine a tank being large enough to hold enough chemicals to be able to spray a chemtrail for hundreds of miles long (because a contrail could be hundreds of miles long).

originally posted by: turbonium1
You need to prove the two planes in the clip are actually commercial flights, which one person on your side first claimed!!

Using flight tracking software, it has already been shown to you that two planes (Delta Flight 275 and Delta Flight 295, one a little behind and beneath the other) flew in the same area that the OP's video was filming.

The trails don't need to be hundreds of miles long... much shorter. It sprays over a populated area, like a city, and not much more.

A tank would easily hold sufficient material for it.


These are microscopic size particles, which allows spraying over large areas.


No problem


The data proves it, nothing else. Show me the actual data, to support your claims.

And if you can't show me the data, admit it.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: turbonium1

You think it's impossible for planes to have extra tank(s), with chemicals?

I can't imagine a tank being large enough to hold enough chemicals to be able to spray a chemtrail for hundreds of miles long (because a contrail could be hundreds of miles long).

originally posted by: turbonium1
You need to prove the two planes in the clip are actually commercial flights, which one person on your side first claimed!!

Using flight tracking software, it has already been shown to you that two planes (Delta Flight 275 and Delta Flight 295, one a little behind and beneath the other) flew in the same area that the OP's video was filming.

The trails don't need to be hundreds of miles long... much shorter. It sprays over a populated area, like a city, and not much more.

A tank would easily hold sufficient material for it.

Then I'm confused. I thought people say that the way you can tell that a trail is a CHEMtrail is if it lasts for a long enough time to stretch from horizon to horizon, because (allegedly) CONtrails cannot last that long.

So if a trail that stretches beyond the horizons and could be a hundred miles long (and longer) isn't a chemtrail, then what is it?

The data proves it, nothing else. Show me the actual data, to support your claims.

And if you can't show me the data, admit it.

The data provided for flight Delta 275 and flight Delta 295 is flight radar data that indicates WHERE those planes were and WHEN they were there, plus gives us the data telling us WHAT those planes are.

I don't understand what other data you mean besides the data that tells us what, where, and when?

The flight data I provided was from "Flight Radar 24". There is also one called "Flight Tracker" that gives the position in Lat. and Longitude (along with a visual mapping of the lat. and long.) plus heading, speed, altitude, and plane information, such as Plane registration number and flight number (if commercial).

However, the free version of Flight Tracker does not allow you to go back more than a month or so of flight history, so you can't get the actual latitude and longitude for free of those flights from 2014.

However, "Flight Radar 24" does allow yo to go back two years (and longer), and the latitude and longitude are projected as a mapped position (i.e., the mapping software uses the lat. and long. data), but does not given as actual numbers.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People


Then I'm confused. I thought people say that the way you can tell that a trail is a CHEMtrail is if it lasts for a long enough time to stretch from horizon to horizon, because (allegedly) CONtrails cannot last that long.

So if a trail that stretches beyond the horizons and could be a hundred miles long (and longer) isn't a chemtrail, then what is it?

Which trails have you seen are 100 miles long? Where were they, and cite a source, if you can.

You re confused length of a chemtrail with WIDTH of the chemtrail. The chemtrail is first sprayed out as a thin line, perhaps just a few feet in width. It expands to 2, 3, or 10 x the original width, within 1-2 hours. I've seen a few trails expand to several miles in width, alone!

This isn't possible with a normal contrail, which is only a trail of vaporized water. That's why most contrails dissipate so quickly after they are sprayed out - they are nothing but vaporized water.

That's not what we see with chemtrails. These trails have to be very condensed, thick lines, because they spread out over the sky, 100's of feet wide, and they are still dense enough to blanket the sky, and block out the sun.

The data proves it, nothing else. Show me the actual data, to support your claims.

And if you can't show me the data, admit it.

The data provided for flight Delta 275 and flight Delta 295 is flight radar data that indicates WHERE those planes were and WHEN they were there, plus gives us the data telling us WHAT those planes are.

I don't understand what other data you mean besides the data that tells us what, where, and when?

The flight data I provided was from "Flight Radar 24". There is also one called "Flight Tracker" that gives the position in Lat. and Longitude (along with a visual mapping of the lat. and long.) plus heading, speed, altitude, and plane information, such as Plane registration number and flight number (if commercial).

However, the free version of Flight Tracker does not allow you to go back more than a month or so of flight history, so you can't get the actual latitude and longitude for free of those flights from 2014.

However, "Flight Radar 24" does allow yo to go back two years (and longer), and the latitude and longitude are projected as a mapped position (i.e., the mapping software uses the lat. and long. data), but does not given as actual numbers.



Finally, you admit that you have no actual data!

In case you still don't know why you need actual proof, from actual data...

That video shows two planes which are claimed to be these two commercial flights. The only way you can PROVE that claim is to show the actual data, to corroborate their actual positions at the time of the two planes in the video.

Saying they were near to Vancouver, or Richmond, does not prove they are the planes in the video, which were actually OVER Richmond at the time, not just 'near it', or 'a few miles away'.

If you cannot prove these are normal commercial planes, which is what you and tommyjo intended to do by showing the video, and showing the flight tracker simulation, then you need to purchase the actual data, online, or find it elsewhere, because it IS available online.

I'm perfectly willing to admit I'm proven wrong with the actual data, if it is found to match up with the two planes.

I would expect you would have enough courage to admit you've been proven wrong, if it does NOT match up, in the same way....right?

So could you please get the actual data, to support your claim?

a reply to: turbonium1

So much wrong in one post. Where to begin? How about the small matter of two planes beings spotted and access to ALL of the data relating to the only two aircraft in the same area flying in the same direction at the same time being provided and it somehow still isn't enough? That's a special kind of pig headedness. I was going to address the puerile statements about contrails only being vapourised water and therefore unable to spread, but that last part of the post illustrates the futility of trying to debate with you. Where is your data that these were NOT the actual aircraft in question. Not even proof, but data that even suggests these were not the planes? If you are unable to interpret data, that is your problem. Nobody else's.

I guess the small matter of it only being possible for water vapour-based contrails to spread across the sky due to the fact that water vapour is present in varying amounts throughout the sky, while visible chemtrails would be unable to do the same because, if it were sprayed in a thin line THATS ALL THERE IS, escapes a mind as brilliant as yours. It's lucky I find you funny, otherwise you'd just be annoying.

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: turbonium1

So much wrong in one post. Where to begin? How about the small matter of two planes beings spotted and access to ALL of the data relating to the only two aircraft in the same area flying in the same direction at the same time being provided and it somehow still isn't enough? That's a special kind of pig headedness..

No, it's called actual proof. Being pig-headed is when you expect me to accept it without actual proof.

Soylent green admitted there is no actual data, which means there is no actual proof. He seems to think it's 'close enough', just like you do.

Your side should have provided the actual data for these two planes in the first place. Your side still has not shown the actual data to support your claim.

I've asked and asked, ad nauseum, for your side to show the data, or admit that you don't have the data. It was finally admitted that you have no actual data. Which means you have no proof.

If you think I'm being pig-headed to ask for you to prove your own claim, because it's 'close enough', too bad.

a reply to: turbonium1

So, if not these two aircraft, and there were no other aircraft in the vicinity, then what?

Your refusal to accept the data, does not invalidate the data. If there are two aircraft shown, and the time and location are correct, and two aircraft were seen, what is your explanation? How can they NOT be the same ones?

If they aren't the same aircraft, why weren't FOUR aircraft seen? The two on the data and the two different ones you seem sure about? The horizon to horizon view covers over 400 miles of sky. There comes a point where you have to realise that you are just being facile.

In addition to this, you seem very insistent on demanding an unrealistic level of PROOF before you will even consider that the data is correct, and yet you post this;

This ( persistence and spreading) isn't possible with a normal contrail, which is only a trail of vaporized water. That's why most contrails dissipate so quickly after they are sprayed out - they are nothing but vaporized water.

For which there is no proof on earth, due to it being completely wrong. And yet you absolutely believe it. Your stance makes no logical sense.

originally posted by: turbonium1

You re confused length of a chemtrail with WIDTH of the chemtrail. The chemtrail is first sprayed out as a thin line, perhaps just a few feet in width. It expands to 2, 3, or 10 x the original width, within 1-2 hours. I've seen a few trails expand to several miles in width, alone!

This isn't possible with a normal contrail, which is only a trail of vaporized water. That's why most contrails dissipate so quickly after they are sprayed out - they are nothing but vaporized water.

First of all, you need to learn some of the physics of gaseous water vapor.

A contrail is not vaporized water. Vaporized water is invisible; a contrail is formed when the invisible vapor condenses into frozen ice crystals or liquid water droplets.

That's why a contrail is visible -- because it is NOT water in vapor form, but water in liquid or frozen form.

In that respect, it is the same as a cloud. A cloud is also NOT water vapor -- because a cloud is visible while water vapor is invisible. depending on the cloud (and depending mostly on the altitude of the cloud), a cloud is either liquid water droplets or frozen ice crystals. There is vaporized water throughout the entire atmosphere; when we see clear blue sky between the clouds, we are still looking at that clear sky through water vapor.

Therefore, since contrails and clouds are made of the same stuff, and since clouds can spread out and last for hours, then so can a contrail.

a reply to: turbonium1

The trails don't need to be hundreds of miles long... much shorter. It sprays over a populated area, like a city, and not much more.

And yet many cities and their metropolitan area extend for many miles.

A tank would easily hold sufficient material for it.

Really?

anything like simple logic to back this?

I possibly couldn't see how you would have anything to back such an ridiculous statement.

These are microscopic size particles, which allows spraying over large areas.

So do the microscopic particles grow?

How do the trails cover the sky at times, going from 1 side of the sky to the other?

How does a plane hold so much?

The chemtrail is first sprayed out as a thin line, perhaps just a few feet in width. It expands to 2, 3, or 10 x the original width, within 1-2 hours. I've seen a few trails expand to several miles in width, alone! This isn't possible with a normal contrail, which is only a trail of vaporized water. That's why most contrails dissipate so quickly after they are sprayed out - they are nothing but vaporized water.

JUST NO.


contrails are nothing but vaporized water?

OK

a reply to: turbonium1

So, if they spray over cities, and you can see the spray in the sky for a persistent amount of time. How can the spray both hang in the air, and also descend upon the city and poison the ground/people?

a reply to: turbonium1

The contrails ARE clouds. That's what contrails are. High altitude cirrus clouds created by aircraft. Chemtrail believers are constantly telling us that that can't happen, but it does happen, increasingly much as air traffic increases. In some places (including where I live) days with high RH at flight level are pretty much guaranteed to have contrail cirrus because of the sheer volume of air traffic.

And yet on days with low RH at flight level it magically disappears even though all those flights are still going on. Do you imagine they just decide to stop spraying on those days?


And once again, contrails are NOT "vaporised water". Vaporised water is invisible. They are condensed (and frozen) water, which is what clouds are made of. That is why you can see them, and that is why they linger in the sky like clouds do. Because they ARE clouds. Planes make clouds. No nefarious spraying is necessary, just simple chemistry and physics.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
Planefinder.net offers playback several years into the past, free of charge. I find it easier to use than FR24, too.

a reply to: Rob48


I really would not bother trying to use science and logic with this poster. You are banging your heads against a brick wall as he will ignore all this and shift the goalposts and move on to some other nonsense which will be for you to prove it's wrong, of course.

You are dealing with an extreme example of confirmation bias. As displayed in many of the various moon hoax threads on here.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Rob48


I really would not bother trying to use science and logic with this poster. You are banging your heads against a brick wall as he will ignore all this and shift the goalposts and move on to some other nonsense which will be for you to prove it's wrong, of course.

You are dealing with an extreme example of confirmation bias. As displayed in many of the various moon hoax threads on here.

Quite true.

Form these two links that have already been provided to him...

Delta Flight 275 on 2014-26-02
Delta Flight 295 on 2014-26-02

He can gather the following data about the two planes that ATS member 'tommyjo' found that matches the two planes seen in the video:

- Tail number (aircraft's registration)
- ADSHEX number (additional registration information)
- Flight number
- Origination airport for that specific flight
- Destination airport for that specific flight
- Time at take-off
- Estimated time of arrival
- Directional heading for any point during that flight
- Air speed for any point during that flight
- Altitude for any point during that flight
- Visual representation of the plane's position for any point during that flight
- Aircraft squawk numbers (transponder code) for any point during that flight
- Satellite navigation source (ADS-B)
- Quantity of seats on the plane
- Age of the plane
- When the plane was delivered to the airline
- Type ("make and model") of aircraft
- Aircraft production information (Construction number and line number)

...However, even with this data provide to him, Turbonium still says "I need the data on those planes". I'm not sure what data it is that he still needs that was not already given. Whatever data it is, it will probably be a goal-post mover, knowing his track record.

Maybe the data he needs is "what did the passenger seated in 3B have for breakfast?"

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People


Maybe the data he needs is "what did the passenger seated in 3B have for breakfast?"

Yes, but he would then demand that you prove what he had for breakfast and any proof that you came up with would not be good enough for him.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Rob48


I really would not bother trying to use science and logic with this poster. You are banging your heads against a brick wall as he will ignore all this and shift the goalposts and move on to some other nonsense which will be for you to prove it's wrong, of course.

You are dealing with an extreme example of confirmation bias. As displayed in many of the various moon hoax threads on here.

Quite true.

Form these two links that have already been provided to him...

Delta Flight 275 on 2014-26-02
Delta Flight 295 on 2014-26-02

He can gather the following data about the two planes that ATS member 'tommyjo' found that matches the two planes seen in the video:

- Tail number (aircraft's registration)
- ADSHEX number (additional registration information)
- Flight number
- Origination airport for that specific flight
- Destination airport for that specific flight
- Time at take-off
- Estimated time of arrival
- Directional heading for any point during that flight
- Air speed for any point during that flight
- Altitude for any point during that flight
- Visual representation of the plane's position for any point during that flight
- Aircraft squawk numbers (transponder code) for any point during that flight
- Satellite navigation source (ADS-B)
- Quantity of seats on the plane
- Age of the plane
- When the plane was delivered to the airline
- Type ("make and model") of aircraft
- Aircraft production information (Construction number and line number)

...However, even with this data provide to him, Turbonium still says "I need the data on those planes". I'm not sure what data it is that he still needs that was not already given. Whatever data it is, it will probably be a goal-post mover, knowing his track record.

Maybe the data he needs is "what did the passenger seated in 3B have for breakfast?"

What is the source of this 'data'?

The original source of this data shows the actual position of each plane, along route.

Where is the actual position of each plane, based on the actual data?


You need the actual data to know that, but you don't have ANY actual data of it's position, along route.


Why not?

Your argument is BASED on the actual position of each plane, and you don't have it, so you don't know it... somehow, it's not a bit relevant to your argument??

Your idea is that a software program has a simulation of each flight, based on the actual data?

It doesn't show the exact position of each plane, in fact.

A line approximates the position of each plane, right?

What is the big problem, then?

It's obvious enough..

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People


You were right - here he goes again.....

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People


You were right - here he goes again.....

Perhaps it would help if he stamped his foot a bit and held his breath till he was blue