Painting the sky..(pics)

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction
The problem with the "creating clouds" thing is that I have never seen it take place. I have never seen a contrail, or group of contrails, form a solid cloud bank as you describe. I would have to see video proof, not stills, as it is too easy to manipulate as far as time and space goes, still photos.

I can assure you that I have not manipulated any of my photos, nor have I falsified my observations. I understand where you're coming from, though, as there are too many pricks out there attempting (and many times succeeding) to deceive us. I am very interested in ghosts, so I've come across my share of 'fake' photos. Besides, I can barely get these photos posted, much less 'doctored'.

Regardless, these trails do form a cloud cover unlike anything that I've ever seen before. As I previously stated, it would be best if people observed these events on their own. Don't take my word for it. I'd much rather people come to their own conclusions after witnessing the event for themselves. I'm just looking for answers, like nearly everyone else on this site.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on conspiracy theories. I have to agree with the points that you made.

Originally posted by jra
"Look up at the sky"
Sorry to go off on a rant, but i felt it needed to be said.
[Edited on 13-12-2003 by jra]

i don't need to prove anything. the proof is in the skies. besides, what constitutes proof? there are literally thousands of pictures of chemtrails on the web. many links have been given in this thread. chemtrails are a fact. i have watched the skies for more than thirty years. chemtrails are not contrails. believe what you like.
jra, i add you to my list of potential gmen disinfo speciaslists. this is not a court case.

Originally posted by billybob
i don't need to prove anything.

Sure you do. You are the one making the claim. It is up to you to provide the proof to back up your claim.

the proof is in the skies.

please be a little more specific.

besides, what constitutes proof?

Well there are actually a large number of things that I would accept as proof.

How about an article from a peer reviewed scientific journal that specifically refers to chemtrails?

How about some actual laboratory data, I warn you, however, I am very picky about sample collection protocols and quality control.

I would also be willing to accept first hand testimony from a pilot or mechanic that has worked on a "Spray plane." Here again, the veracity of any claims must be supported and independently verifiable (i.e. no anonymous, or "friend of a friend" reports please).

there are literally thousands of pictures of chemtrails on the web.

No, there are hundreds of pictures of contrails on the web.

To see how silly this argument is imagine if I was to claim that rainbows are actually caused by alien space ships. I would say, there are hundreds of pictures of "spacebows" on the web. If you don�t believe me go out and look for yourself. I don�t have to prove anything to you. In fact if you try to bring up some twisted scientific mumbo jumbo about refraction, then you are a disinfo agent who works for the government and you are specifically trying to attack and destroy me.

many links have been given in this thread.

Yet not one of them contains anything remotely resembling the standards of proof that I posted above.

chemtrails are a fact.

No they are not. Chemtrails are a hoax. A dying hoax as it is.

i have watched the skies for more than thirty years. chemtrails are not contrails. believe what you like.
jra, i add you to my list of potential gmen disinfo speciaslists. this is not a court case.

Why is it that anyone who tries to point out just how absurd the chemtrail hoax is automatically a "Spook," or a "gmen disinfo speciaslist?" Can�t you just accept that you are in the minority and that fewer and fewer people are falling for this nonsense?

As I stated in an earlier post, I find the chemtrail hoax to be an especially silly example of what I like to call "willful ignorance."

If you believe in chemtrails so much, why don�t you study meteorology, or atmospheric science. Maybe with your insight into this dastardly plot, you can find the key that blows the lid off of it. Think of how famous you will become. Think of the publicity, the book deals, the movie rights. Why you might even get to pick which Hollywood actor will play you in the movie.

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by jra
"Look up at the sky"
Sorry to go off on a rant, but i felt it needed to be said.
[Edited on 13-12-2003 by jra]

i don't need to prove anything. the proof is in the skies. besides, what constitutes proof? there are literally thousands of pictures of chemtrails on the web. many links have been given in this thread. chemtrails are a fact. i have watched the skies for more than thirty years. chemtrails are not contrails. believe what you like.
jra, i add you to my list of potential gmen disinfo speciaslists. this is not a court case.

Sorry, fella, I have to agree with HR again...you DO need to prove something. just because there are sites on the net about "chemtrails" doesn't mean they exist. you say there are thousands of pictures of "chemtrails" on the web...I say they are pictures of "contrails". I have scientific proof of contrails...you have NONE of chemtrails. Chemtrails are not a fact, they are a THEORY...Facts are provable...chemtrails are not a proven fact, therefore they are theory....period. Until, as HR states, you have VERIFYABLE PROOF that they exist, they will remain just that. You have the right to believe anything you want to, and nobody is saying differently. However, Just SAYING that something is fact without offering any REAL PROOF doesn't make it so, and gives you absolutly no credibility....

Contrails are not chemtrails.....believe what you like...


It's a good thing this is NOT a court case...as you have absolutly no evidence, you would loose in a heart beat...

Originally posted by billybob

jra, i add you to my list of potential gmen disinfo speciaslists. this is not a court case.

Well, then I guess I'm about to get added to your list, too! I've always found it strange how chemmies always resort to the "You must be a government disinfo agent because you don't agree with me!" as soon as someone comes along with real science to refute their outrageous claims....

i don't need to prove anything. the proof is in the skies.

Of course you need to prove it! You made the claim for the existence of something that was not previously known to exist, so it is up to YOU to provide the proof of your claim! if you don't, then clearly the rest of the world will be perfectly justified in just dismissing your claim out of hand, as yet another kook conspiracy theory, a hoax, a scam, or an outright lie.

besides, what constitutes proof?

Well, that one is easy to answer! Proof would be as simple as a series of independently verified samples taken directly from several "chemtrails", anayzed in reputable indepedant labs, and shown to contain anything besides the normal components of jet exhaust. That would be "proof", in the scientific sense. Anything less is not proof.

Do you disagree?

Did you say you had proof? Or did you say it was just a belief on your part, based on a lack of scienitific knowledge? Big difference! If it is just somethign that you desperately want to believe, despite the lack of even the skimpiest of evidence, then go ahead and believe it. Nobody else will care. But if you continue to make the claim that there is such a thing as a "chemtrail", exsiting in the real world, not in the esoteric realm of belief, then you will have to provide solid, sound, irrefutable proof if you want anyone else to accept your claim. No proof = no chemtrails. Plain and simple.

there are literally thousands of pictures of chemtrails on the web.

Not true. there are probably tens of thousands of pictures of CONTRAILS on the web, but not a single one of "chemtrails". You cannot take a photo of something that does not exist.

many links have been given in this thread. chemtrails are a fact.

No, chemtrails are a hoax. A very well documented hoax at that. The original perpetrators are completely identified, and so are their motives. The history of the hoax has been carefully unravelled, and recorded. The proof of this is easily available on several websites. And it really is proof. Several people have taken the trouble to trace the origins of the "chemtrail" hoax right back to the handfull of scam artists that started it. Those scammers got lucky, and several paranoid conspiray theorists picked up the ball and ran with it, spreading fear and lies. Fortunately, the hoax is dyng, and there aren't that many "true believers" left. There is also a bunch of folks, like me and a few others here, that have made it their business to expose the scam for what it is, and bring the truth to those poor folks who have fallen for the trap, and been sucked into the scam without even realizing it. It is painfull for someone to recognize that they have been taken for a sucker, but those who do manage to overcome the initial feelings of shame recover rapidly, and are very, very unlikely to fall for the next scam that comes along. Maybe it is your turn, now?

i have watched the skies for more than thirty years.

I'm sure you have, but did you ever take a course in meteorology? Did you ever become a pilot? Did you ever learn about atmospheric physics? Do you even understnad the basics of how the atmosphere behaves?

It is VERY easy to look at something, not understand what you are seeing, and draw totally incorrect conclusions simply becuase you didn't have the background knowledge to figure out what you were REALLY seeing. This very phenomena is the source of so many of today's conspiracy theories. If only people would take the trouble to LEARN about what they are looking at before they jump to erroneous conclusions, there would be an awful lot less paranoid people out there!

chemtrails are not contrails.

How do you tell the difference? What paramater can you point to, when you look up at the sky and observe a trail, that clearly shows it to be a "chemtrail" rather than a normal contrail? Since contrails do spread, persist, thicken, etc. and generally act in the way that chemmies claim "chemtrails" do, I'd love to know just what kind of behaviour you see in "chemtrails" that is different from the normal, documented, and well understood behaviours of contrails?

believe what you like.

LIke I said, if you wnat to believe in it as a belief, then go ahead. But if you want the rest of us to accept what you say, then you are going to have to provide solid proof. If not, then it is just your personal belief, against the entire world full of solid science. Nobody denies you the right to believe in whatever you want to believe in. But if you want to claim that your beleif is actual fact, then you will have to prove it to be so.

well done, boys. you have pummeled me into submission.
'contrails' can now stay in the sky for upwards of four hours. they can slowly spread out to become strange wispy clouds. everyone who has noticed them, taken pictures, started petitions and become upset, is a paranoid delusional. all hail the leader. the leader is good. ignorance is strength. war is peace.
in the seventies and eighties, contrails would dissipate within a half hour on a good day. they never formed wispy unnatural clouds. now they do. i blame MTV.

atlas shrugged, howard.

i just did a google search, "chemtrails".
42,400 hits. not bad for something that doesn't exist.

carnicom, these guys are serious about 'contrail' research.

Originally posted by billybob
i just did a google search, "chemtrails".
42,400 hits. not bad for something that doesn't exist.

Santa Claus gets 2,090,000 hits.


Loch Ness Monster gets 93,100

Sasquatch gets 154,000








Yackity Yaak, don't look back.

Originally posted by billybob
carnicom, these guys are serious about 'contrail' research.

Thank you so much for posting that.




Carnicom does more damage to the Chemtrail theory then a 1,000 debunkers.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by billybob
carnicom, these guys are serious about 'contrail' research.

Thank you so much for posting that.

Carnicom does more damage to the Chemtrail theory then a 1,000 debunkers.

when law enforcement is looking for suspects, the first thing they look for is motive.

might you suggest how and why these people would BOTHER to make such an elaborate and expensive site? why they would BOTHER to do expensive (you asked for it) sampling and lab tests. what motivates them to spend thousands of precious hours

you asked for serious research. you were guided. you ignore and do an "ad hominem" attack on the site. why would you, after asking for these things, respond with cartoons?
cartoons are not an argument.
billybob the sleuth asks, what motivates you? very telling.

p.s. commercial jets do not fly perfect parallel paths for extended periods of time. they leave the airport at different times to prevent accidents. only military jets fly in these formations. commercial airliners do not make near perfect grids of 'contrails', turning a clear blue sky day into an overcast one. this is an obvious conscientious effort by some unknown group.
contrails do not last for hours. they dissipate within a half hour under ideal conditions.
i could go back through this thread and point out that all the really telling evidence has NOT been "debunked", but rather obfuscated or ignored.
here's some though:
UNMARKED jets.
the exotic WEAPONS bill
grid patterns
dissipation rate and pattern
petitions
government stonewalling
naked eye testimony from ME! you can't convince me there is no sun or moon. i can see them.

and now your precious "scientific" testing has been waved of with a smiley face.

it has even been reported in mainstream media(for those of you who still need to suckle at big brothers infotit).
it is all you rebunkers who have no arguement. however, i don't think you need to work so hard at it, because joe sheep is happy in his shell.

freedom is slavery.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by billybob
i just did a google search, "chemtrails".
42,400 hits. not bad for something that doesn't exist.

Santa Claus gets 2,090,000 hits.


Loch Ness Monster gets 93,100

Sasquatch gets 154,000

Yackity Yaak, don't look back.

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

Originally posted by billybob


p.s. commercial jets do not fly perfect parallel paths for extended periods of time. they leave the airport at different times to prevent accidents. only military jets fly in these formations. commercial airliners do not make near perfect grids of 'contrails', turning a clear blue sky day into an overcast one. this is an obvious conscientious effort by some unknown group.
contrails do not last for hours. they dissipate within a half hour under ideal conditions.
i could go back through this thread and point out that all the really telling evidence has NOT been "debunked", but rather obfuscated or ignored.
here's some though:
UNMARKED jets.
the exotic WEAPONS bill
grid patterns
dissipation rate and pattern
petitions
government stonewalling
naked eye testimony from ME! you can't convince me there is no sun or moon. i can see them.

and now your precious "scientific" testing has been waved of with a smiley face.

it has even been reported in mainstream media(for those of you who still need to suckle at big brothers infotit).
it is all you rebunkers who have no arguement. however, i don't think you need to work so hard at it, because joe sheep is happy in his shell.

freedom is slavery.

Absolutely, positively, unequivocally FALSE, Bucko!!!!

Airliners fly what are called �Airways�, ie, station to station, from one ground beacon (VOR, NDB�) to the next. They are deconflicted by time (two minutes between takeoffs, ie, IFR Release) and altitude, normally 1000 feet, but FAA regs only require 500 feet. Therefore, they DO fly parallel routs, all over the world. Period, end of story, that makes your statement false. Provable, yes. Talk to any aircrew (gee, guess what I do for a living) or Air Traffic Controller.


Now�Unmarked Jets�show me pictures�what? You don�t have any? I�m so surprised.

the exotic WEAPONS bill�not passed, even voted on, and �chemtrails� reference removed. Hmmmm�.
grid patterns�again, airways�.they criss-cross all over the place�.take a look at a high chart sometime and see�..



dissipation rate and pattern�the previous link discusses this�.

Petitions�because someone starts one it means something exists? If I start a petition about the Easter Bunny, will I find hard boiled eggs in my yard?

government stonewalling�no proof on this either. Show me something verifiable that says they WON�T talk about it, as apposed to ignoring it because they don�t want to waste time on something that is a non-issue.

naked eye testimony from ME! you can't convince me there is no sun or moon. i can see them�.use your naked eye to look through a camera or vid recorder to attempt to PROVE some of what you claim�and oh, are there now chemtrails on the sun and moon???? Sorry, I�ll say it again, just because you say it�s so doesn�t make it so�.�Santa Clause EXISTS!!!� there�I said it�.

I still don�t think a fat man in red is coming down my chimney in 10 days�.

Originally posted by StuartAllsop

Well, then I guess I'm about to get added to your list, too! I've always found it strange how chemmies always resort to the "You must be a government disinfo agent because you don't agree with me!" as soon as someone comes along with real science to refute their outrageous claims....

real science is not the ignoring of phenomena. it is the study of it. yes, you're on my list now. especially when you have a special name to denegrate people of good conscience.

Of course you need to prove it! You made the claim for the existence of something that was not previously known to exist, so it is up to YOU to provide the proof of your claim! if you don't, then clearly the rest of the world will be perfectly justified in just dismissing your claim out of hand, as yet another kook conspiracy theory, a hoax, a scam, or an outright lie.

i'm not the only one making the claim. the 'rest of the world' doesn't agree on anything. kook, eh? mmmmm, ....ad hominemy.

Well, that one is easy to answer! Proof would be as simple as a series of independently verified samples taken directly from several "chemtrails", anayzed in reputable indepedant labs, and shown to contain anything besides the normal components of jet exhaust. That would be "proof", in the scientific sense. Anything less is not proof.

reputable = institutionally controlled. like your mind. (it was my turn to hurl something, no offense)

Do you disagree?

i don't disagree. actually, my question was rhetorical. any true proof is dismissed out of hand as kooky by disinfo specialists.

Or did you say it was just a belief on your part, based on a lack of scienitific knowledge? Big difference! If it is just somethign that you desperately want to believe, despite the lack of even the skimpiest of evidence, then go ahead and believe it. Nobody else will care. But if you continue to make the claim that there is such a thing as a "chemtrail", exsiting in the real world, not in the esoteric realm of belief, then you will have to provide solid, sound, irrefutable proof if you want anyone else to accept your claim. No proof = no chemtrails. Plain and simple.

man, these tactics are tired. what i don't have is the new scientific mind, which allows jet fuel burning in an oxygen deprived atmosphere to melt steel and collapse skyscrapers. the new science which allows the debris from said towers to shoot ten times as far as it should if it were just collapsing and not exploding. the new science and excellent media coverage which allows a nearby untouched building to fall perfectly straight down, like it was imploded, and not even be mentioned in the news. the new science which allows an investigation into the physics and cause of the collapse to be carried out in the absence of the steel from said explosion. the new science which allows for a pool of molten steel to remain molten seven stories down underneath all the debris for months as a result of collapse. the new science which ignores empirical evidence like seismographs which spike in sync with these collapsing towers. the new science which allows contrails to behave differently now, than they did for the first 90% of the century. i guess they amended the laws of physics. you have no idea how scientific or unscientific my mind is. you have no idea what i have seen or experienced. precocious of you.

Not true. there are probably tens of thousands of pictures of CONTRAILS on the web, but not a single one of "chemtrails". You cannot take a photo of something that does not exist.

why, pray tell, did people not rush out by the thousands with their cameras to photograph contrails since the invention of jets, then? what is the motive of all these kooks?

No, chemtrails are a hoax. A very well documented hoax at that. The original perpetrators are completely identified, and so are their motives. The history of the hoax has been carefully unravelled, and recorded. The proof of this is easily available on several websites. And it really is proof. Several people have taken the trouble to trace the origins of the "chemtrail" hoax right back to the handfull of scam artists that started it. Those scammers got lucky, and several paranoid conspiray theorists picked up the ball and ran with it, spreading fear and lies. Fortunately, the hoax is dyng, and there aren't that many "true believers" left. There is also a bunch of folks, like me and a few others here, that have made it their business to expose the scam for what it is, and bring the truth to those poor folks who have fallen for the trap, and been sucked into the scam without even realizing it. It is painfull for someone to recognize that they have been taken for a sucker, but those who do manage to overcome the initial feelings of shame recover rapidly, and are very, very unlikely to fall for the next scam that comes along. Maybe it is your turn, now?

nice heresay. how about a link to this airtight info?

I'm sure you have, but did you ever take a course in meteorology? Did you ever become a pilot? Did you ever learn about atmospheric physics? Do you even understnad the basics of how the atmosphere behaves?

like i said. i have eyes and a memory. i don't need a degree in memory and eyesight, do i? i got 95% in all my physics courses, so blow.

It is VERY easy to look at something, not understand what you are seeing, and draw totally incorrect conclusions simply becuase you didn't have the background knowledge to figure out what you were REALLY seeing. This very phenomena is the source of so many of today's conspiracy theories. If only people would take the trouble to LEARN about what they are looking at before they jump to erroneous conclusions, there would be an awful lot less paranoid people out there!

you'd be out of a job if there were any less paranoid people out there. i know beyond a shadow of a doubt what i'm seeing. i don't know motive or what it is, but i do know what it is not. it is not contrails. i have seen them side by side. the contrail goes away, the chemtrail stays.

How do you tell the difference? What paramater can you point to, when you look up at the sky and observe a trail, that clearly shows it to be a "chemtrail" rather than a normal contrail? Since contrails do spread, persist, thicken, etc. and generally act in the way that chemmies claim "chemtrails" do, I'd love to know just what kind of behaviour you see in "chemtrails" that is different from the normal, documented, and well understood behaviours of contrails?

contrails do not spread and thicken for HOURS, forming CLOUDS. now you're just straight out lying. this is where my eyes and memory will suffice as proof enough for my own taste.

LIke I said, if you wnat to believe in it as a belief, then go ahead. But if you want the rest of us to accept what you say, then you are going to have to provide solid proof. If not, then it is just your personal belief, against the entire world full of solid science. Nobody denies you the right to believe in whatever you want to believe in. But if you want to claim that your beleif is actual fact, then you will have to prove it to be so.

and like i said, i don't need to prove anything. i'm here for fun. everybody will believe what they believe based on their own evidence and cognisance, not desire. (except the ostriches and turtles, that is).

"When they call you a conspiracy theorist, it means you are closer to the truth than they want you to be." �Craig Hulet.

107th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 2977
To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

October 2, 2001
[snip]
[snip]
(2)(A) The terms `weapon' and `weapons system' mean a device capable of any of the following:

(i) Damaging or destroying an object (whether in outer space, in the atmosphere, or on earth) by--

(I) firing one or more projectiles to collide with that object;

(II) detonating one or more explosive devices in close proximity to that object;

(III) directing a source of energy (including molecular or atomic energy, subatomic particle beams, electromagnetic radiation, plasma, or
extremely low frequency (ELF) or ultra low frequency (ULF) energy radiation) against that object; or

(IV) any other unacknowledged or as yet undeveloped means.

(ii) Inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying, a person (or the biological life, bodily health, mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person)--

(I) through the use of any of the means described in clause (i) or subparagraph (B);

(II) through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations; or

(III) by expelling chemical or biological agents in the vicinity of a person.

(B) Such terms include exotic weapons systems such as--

(i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons;

(ii) chemtrails;

(iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems;

(iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons;

(v) laser weapons systems;

(vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and

(vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons.

(C) The term `exotic weapons systems' includes weapons designed to damage space or natural ecosystems (such as the ionosphere and upper atmosphere) or climate, weather, and tectonic systems with the purpose of inducing damage or destruction upon a target population or region on earth or in space.

Originally posted by billybob
"When they call you a conspiracy theorist, it means you are closer to the truth than they want you to be." �Craig Hulet.

107th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 2977
To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Snip snip again�..

You really need to get a grip. You seem to think that you are the only one who has a right to your opinion. You seem to also believe that you are the only one who does not have to prove anything. The reason for that is that you can't prove anything. If you could, you�d be all over it. This constant back and forth with, "It's true because I saw it and I say I saw it and you'll just have to take my word for it because I can never be wrong" is just a load of horse hockey. Very tiring. Here's my challenge to you....put up, or shut up. Give us SOME proof...ONE VERIFYABLE SCIENTIFIC FACT...NOTHING you have posted so far even remotely points to anything real. Again, the House proposal you posted (and it's the SECOND time it's been posted in this thread) has never been brought to a vote, and has had the reference to chemtrails removed from it since it was first ill-conceived. Why? My opinion (see? I said opinion because I don't have any FACT to back me up on this particular point...you can do it too...I have faith!) is because the dufus who drafted it figured out they don't exist, and he wanted to run for President some day without looking like an idiot. Too bad it didn't help, but that's another thread....As far as observations, as I have said, I have been an aviation professional for 19 years, and have over 5000 flight hours in both prop and jet aircraft, and I have seen NO change in CONTRAILS (because that is what they are, IMHO) in that time. They are the same now as I always remember them, as far back as when I was a child looking up and saying, "I want to fly those someday".


The "disinformation" tag you place on those who disagree with you is getting old as well...get a clue, there aren't 2500 CIA agents in here trying to steer you off everything...

bills aren't drafted by dufuses. it reeks of an intimidation and cover-up. and, no, they are not 2500 agents. there are three or four.

Originally posted by billybob
well done, boys. you have pummeled me into submission./quote]Glad to hear it! Common sense has some place after all, it would appear

'contrails' can now stay in the sky for upwards of four hours.

OH, easily four hours! Even 2 days is not uncommon, sometimes even more.

they can slowly spread out to become strange wispy clouds.

... which are commonly called "cirrus" clouds, and have been for centuries. Contrails and cirrus form exactly the same way. In fact, contrails are more correctly known as "cirrus aviaticus", since they are really a subset of the more general, broader category of cirrus clouds. But they all form the same way, in the same conditions. Wherever cirrus clouds can form, so can contrails. Basic atmospheric physics.

everyone who has noticed them, taken pictures, started petitions and become upset, is a paranoid delusional.

Well, I wouldn't go THAT far! Most of them are just ignorant of atmospheric physics and meteorology, and a handful are plain old con men, but I'd agree with you that at least a few are probably paranoid delusional. This kind of hoax certainly attracts that kind of personality disorder.

all hail the leader. the leader is good. ignorance is strength. war is peace.

.... and by that reasoning, contrails are "chemtrails", right?

in the seventies and eighties, contrails would dissipate within a half hour on a good day.

In the seventies and early eighties virtually all airliners used pure jet engines, whereas today virtually all airliners use much more efficient high-bypass turbo-fan engines, which tend to produce better contrails. Back then aircraft generally flew lower altitudes that were better for pure jet engines, but high-bypass turbo fans are more efficient at higher altitudes, where contrails form more easily, and spread better.

they never formed wispy unnatural clouds. now they do.

Yes they did. Just because you never noticed does not mean that it didn't happen. Besides, those "unnatural" wispy clouds are called "cirrus", and have been around for as long as Man has looked up and classified clouds. To prove this to yourself, all you need to do is go to your public library, and find a book on meteorology that was published a long, long time ago. Find the oldest one you can, then look up "cirrus" in the index, and see what it says.

i blame MTV.

I blame ignorance, lack of basic science skills, and the flat refusal by chemmies to ever get any formal training in atmospheric physics. Perhaps MTV is a part of that. Wouldn't surprise me.

you, stuart, have my respect. you have not changed my view, but at least your arguments are sound, and you have given me pause. i like the turbo thingy.
i am aware of what a cirrus cloud looks like. there is a difference, but i really think we should all agree to disagree at this juncture.
i will do some research into what you wrote, stuart. thank you.

Originally posted by billybob
might you suggest how and why these people would BOTHER to make such an elaborate and expensive site?

That's easy to answer. Cliffie is a kook. He's been at it for years, now, and has slowly managed to build that delightful little pit of pseudo-science that he calls a web site.

why they would BOTHER to do expensive (you asked for it) sampling and lab tests.

What "expensive" sampling are you talking about" What lab tests? Cliffie doesn't have ANY background or experience in real science at all, and loves to play "boy scientist" in his kitchen, but in reality doesn't have a clue what he's doing. For example, he took a sample from his HEPA filter, soaked it in distilled water for 20 minutes, looked at it under a microscope, and came to the conclusion that chemtrails are made of red blood cells, because he claimed to see red blood cells in his sample. Except that he didn't even know that if you put red blood cells in distilled water, then swell up and explode in a matter of seconds, since they cannot survive outside of a saline environment... A real scientist would NEVER make such a basic, stupid, mistake. But what do you think he did when people started pointing this out to him? Did he retract his claim, and tell everyone he was wrong? Nope! Instead, he just banned those who exposed his ignorance from ever posting on his web site....

Get the picture of what kind of person he is?

what motivates them to spend thousands of precious hours

That's easy! One word: EGO! They love the power trip it gives them to have a troop of adoring followers that now even less than they do (which is saying something!), hanging on every word they say, and treating them like they were a god or something. They thrive on that kind of attention.

you asked for serious research.

YEs, that's right. But the active word there was "serious". Nobody in their right mind considers Cliffie?s research to be "serious"!

you were guided. you ignore and do an "ad hominem" attack on the site.

That's a contradiction in terms! If the attack was on the site, then it cannot be "ad hominem". If it was "ad hominem" then it cannot have been against the site. "Ad hominem" is Latin, and means "to the man". It does not mean ?to the website?.

p.s. commercial jets do not fly perfect parallel paths for extended periods of time.

Yes they do. You need to call up your local ATC center, and go visit them, so you can learn something about how airways work.

Besides, you don't need to have parallel airways to get parallel contrails. All you need is ONE SINGLE airway, with several planes flying along it, separated by a few minutes. The wind does the rest. Think about it: By the time the second plane comes along the same airway as the first, the wind has moved the first trail off to the side. When the third plane comes along, both of the first two trails are now moved, and are still parallel. Each additional plane that follows the same route will leave an additional trail, parallel to all the others.

Simple geometry.

they leave the airport at different times to prevent accidents.

What does that have to do with it? Besides, many airports have multiple parallel runways these days, with traffic moving on all of them at the same time, in parallel, with the aircraft separated by only a minute or so on each runway. You really should look onto how aircraft operate before you make claims that are not true. It just makes you look foolish when you do that.

commercial airliners do not make near perfect grids of 'contrails', turning a clear blue sky day into an overcast one.

Of course they do! To get a grid pattern, all you need is two intersecting airways, and a few planes flying along each. The wind does the rest. Think about it. Try drawing it out on apiece of paper.

contrails do not last for hours.

Of course they do! Normal clouds last for hours, don't they? Contrails are just clouds that were made by aircraft, so why should they be any different? If a normal cloud can last for hours, or days, then contrails can most certainly do the same! Why on earth would you expect similar clouds to behave differently?

they dissipate within a half hour under ideal conditions.

No, just like normal clouds, than can last for hours, or even days, under ideal conditions.

i could go back through this thread and point out that all the really telling evidence has NOT been "debunked", but rather obfuscated or ignored.

Go ahead. I'd love to see it. Every time that any "evidence" has been posted, it has immediately been debunked, clearly and decisively.

Live with it.

here's some though:
UNMARKED jets.

You really think you can see markings a few inches high from 6 MILES away? I don't think so! And since when do airliners carry their color UNDERNEATH? Why would they spend money on painting markings on the BOTTOM of their planes, where they will never be seen? Tell me, did you bother to paint the bottom of your car?

Also, you might want to check the FAR's, to find out what markings are REALLY required on aircraft, instead of just assuming that you know....

the exotic WEAPONS bill

... Kucinic dropped that one real quick, like a hot potato, just as soon as he realized how stupid he looked! Did you ever read his comments about it? He never did find out which of his staff sneaked that into his bill! He felt pretty dumb, I think. (But that's probably the way he normally feels....)

grid patterns

See above. A normal consequence of as few as two airways, and a handful of planes.

dissipation rate and pattern

What about them? They are the same today as they have always been.

petitions

What petitions?

government stonewalling

Nobody is "stonewalling"! What would you do if someone kept on insisting that you were doing something that you really were not doing? How would your reaction be any different than the government's reaction?

naked eye testimony from ME! you can't convince me there is no sun or moon. i can see them.

And your point is? Nobody is saying that there are no trails! Just that there are only contrails. Of course you can see trails, but they are all contrails.

and now your precious "scientific" testing has been waved of with a smiley face.

What scientific testing? There hasn't been any! Unless you've found something new, in which case we'd love to see it!

it has even been reported in mainstream media(for those of you who still need to suckle at big brothers infotit).

Yep. And you believe everything you see on mainstream media, I suppose?

it is all you rebunkers who have no arguement.

Hmmmm.... I think I just presented a whole bunch of them. You mean you still need more?

however, i don't think you need to work so hard at it, because joe sheep is happy in his shell.

Well, we are trying to wake him up and show him the truth, but he refuses to even look, and insists on continuing to believe in his "chemtrails", despite the total lack of evidence....

freedom is slavery.

No, ignorance is slavery. The strange thing is, ignorance does not force the slave to stay a slave. Even the most ignorant person can do something about it, by getting educated. Only those who actually want to remain in their state of ignorance of science actually need to do so. It?s a personal choice. You can stay where you are for the test of your life, or you can learn some science, meteorology, and aviation theory, then you'll be able to understand contrails, and laugh at the idea that you ever believed in the chemtrail hoax!