Painting the sky..(pics)

Originally posted by billybob
cool how the 'condensation' is coming out of the tail of this plain white jet, and not out of the engines on it's wings.

HAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! Another laugh!!!!


Dude...look at where the engines are in comparison to the "CONTRAILS"...the aircraft is flying, what we in the buisness call, "very fast"...the contrail forms behind the engine, not in it...you don't see it coming directly out of the engine....

no AR, i didn't make it up. link.

of course you're more interested in 'debunking' by going HAAAA!, than actually following a link and 'debunking' reams of evidence point for point.

Originally posted by billybob
no AR, i didn't make it up. link.

of course you're more interested in 'debunking' by going HAAAA!, than actually following a link and 'debunking' reams of evidence point for point.

No dude, I'm not debunking any evidence at all...you haven't shown one shread of evidence for me to debunk, just hearsay, rumor, and inuendo! you claim photos show one thing when they show something totally different! ...you show a web site that does exactly what YOU are doing...making claims without any verifyable evidence. you wouldn't try to prove that Charles Manson is an innocent man by sending people to www.charles-manson.com, would you?

and this?


[Edited on 15-12-2003 by billybob]

it's hearsay because people are being threatened. when will people realise the military/industrial/media complex is out of control?

Speaking on condition of strict anonymity as intense chemtrail activity continued overhead, this Deep Sky federal aviation source expressed concern over the classified nature of military operations repeatedly conducted at altitudes between 37,000 and 40,000 feet. While air traffic controllers normally ignore air traffic above 10,000 feet, the ATC manager said he was ordered to divert incoming European air traffic away from the military planes. When asked why, he said, "I was told there was a military exercise in the area. Of course, they wouldn't give me any of the particulars"

air traffic controller speaks.

pattern recognition
oh, but i'm sure they've mended their evil ways. HAHAHA!!!

highly detailed 'hearsay' by 'kooks'

Originally posted by billybob
highly detailed 'hearsay' by 'kooks'

Look, It's getting really tiresome trying to explain this to someone who just can't seem to understand the concept of "verifyable proof", but I'm going to try one more time...

In order to be taken seriously, you need to give REPUTABLE sources. One bogus conspiracy theory site does NOT validate another! All three of the links you gave are just that. As I said before, you would not go to www.charles-manson.com to prove that Chucky is innocent and should be released from prision...therefore, it goes that you don't look to www.aliens-are-killing-us-with-chemtrails.com to prove the existence of said phenomenon.

Reputable. Verifyable. Scientific. These are words that describe a source that would be accepted to prove a point. Not this clap trap....


This started out as a nice thread with a few people actually discussing and exchanging ideas, and has turned into something totally different. Please come up with something to contribute other that, "because I say it's true", and "the SKY is falling..." It's growing tiresome....

Originally posted by billybob
Speaking on condition of strict anonymity

That's when I quit listening/reading...it really means either,"there is no source...I made him up", or, "I'm lying through my teeth". If something is true, you blow the whistle....period....

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction
"Chaff, according to the Canadian Health Protection Branch. is also highly toxic to human lungs."

Do you even know what chaff is??? It's ALUMINIUM FOIL!!! It's in lengths from 1/2 inc to rolls of up to 50 yards...it's not freakin TOXIC!!! HA!!!

Chaff is a foil material that is ejected into the air to scramble radar. It's a military procedure. The people of Nevada/Utah criticized the procedure because it was being dispersed into the air. Harmful or not, they didn't want to become guinea pigs.

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction
"several residents had their homes and patios spattered with brown gunk spread by large aircraft overflying their property at treetop level."

Now the "chemtrails are sprayed at tree-top level? Come on, people....lets at least stick to one story...

People have reportedly found 'fallout' from chemtrails. Sometimes it's a brown gel substance and other times they've reported cobweb-like formations in their trees. In the areas where this fallout occurred, people reported being ill, and had problems with their pets becoming ill. If I ever found brown gel/cobweb like formations in my trees after a spraying, then I would be highly disturbed.

Originally posted by Bangin

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction
"Chaff, according to the Canadian Health Protection Branch. is also highly toxic to human lungs."

Do you even know what chaff is??? It's ALUMINIUM FOIL!!! It's in lengths from 1/2 inc to rolls of up to 50 yards...it's not freakin TOXIC!!! HA!!!

Chaff is a foil material that is ejected into the air to scramble radar. It's a military procedure. The people of Nevada/Utah criticized the procedure because it was being dispersed into the air. Harmful or not, they didn't want to become guinea pigs.

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction
"several residents had their homes and patios spattered with brown gunk spread by large aircraft overflying their property at treetop level."

Now the "chemtrails are sprayed at tree-top level? Come on, people....lets at least stick to one story...

People have reportedly found 'fallout' from chemtrails. Sometimes it's a brown gel substance and other times they've reported cobweb-like formations in their trees. In the areas where this fallout occurred, people reported being ill, and had problems with their pets becoming ill. If I ever found brown gel/cobweb like formations in my trees after a spraying, then I would be highly disturbed.

Look, I know EXACTLY what chaff is, what it's used for, and how it's employed. Does that tell you anything? It's not hazardous, and it's not deployed/employed anywhere NEAR population centers in Nevada, only in the Test Range, and at fairly low altitudes AGL, not high up where the airliners fly.


If I found brown gunk all over the place, I'd be a little miffed as well...hell, the damage to my paint job alone would P me O...but I wouldn't go off saying it was a government conspiracy! Where's the proof??? Show me the proof! I keep asking, and NOBODY SHOWS SQUAT!!!

Sorry, Bangin, I'm in no way upset with you, please don't take it that way. Just tired of certain posters (not you...you have at least been openminded and cohearant) who add nothing to the debate other than hearsay....

[Edited on 15-12-2003 by Affirmative Reaction]

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction
Look, I know EXACTLY what chaff is, what it's used for, and how it's employed. Does that tell you anything?

Yes, it sure does. I think it would have been helpful if you said you were in the USAF when you mentioned being a pilot. In my opinion, you being USAF creates a conflict of interest. No offense-I'm just sharing my thoughts.

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction
Sorry, Bangin, I'm in no way upset with you, please don't take it that way. Just tired of certain posters (not you...you have at least been openminded and cohearant) who add nothing to the debate other than hearsay....

Oh, I understand. No need to apologize. I think these debates are useless. No one has proof either way because it is nearly impossible for me or you to determine important information that would lead to a definite answer...IE. Altitude, temperature, relative humidity......etc. Taking those measurements while standing on the ground would result in unscientific inaccuracies.

[Edited on 12/15/2003 by Bangin]

Originally posted by Bangin

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction
Look, I know EXACTLY what chaff is, what it's used for, and how it's employed. Does that tell you anything?

Yes, it sure does. I think it would have been helpful if you said you were in the USAF when you mentioned being a pilot. In my opinion, you being USAF creates a conflict of interest. No offense-I'm just sharing my thoughts.

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction

[Edited on 12/15/2003 by Bangin]

WHOA!!! Hold yer horses there, big guy...how the hell does my being in the Air Force constitute a conflict of interest? That makes no sense at all.....explain, please....

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction
WHOA!!! Hold yer horses there, big guy...how the hell does my being in the Air Force constitute a conflict of interest? That makes no sense at all.....explain, please....

I'll hold my horses, but for future reference-I'm a little gal.

I'm not saying that if these operations were taking place that you would definitely know about them. I simply stated my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

You have contributed some great information to this thread, but it would have been helpful knowing that you were USAF.

I do have one question for you-If these operations were taking place, who do you think would be carrying them out?

Originally posted by Bangin

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction
WHOA!!! Hold yer horses there, big guy...how the hell does my being in the Air Force constitute a conflict of interest? That makes no sense at all.....explain, please....

I'll hold my horses, but for future reference-I'm a little gal.

I'm not saying that if these operations were taking place that you would definitely know about them. I simply stated my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

You have contributed some great information to this thread, but it would have been helpful knowing that you were USAF.

I do have one question for you-If these operations were taking place, who do you think would be carrying them out?

I apologise for the gender mistake...I can't see your face here...

However, I still do not see how knowledge of my Air Force association would in any way be helpful. Also, I have never hidden that fact, as is evidenced in previous threads I have commented on. By the way, "Aircrew" does not always mean "pilot"...and I don't in any way expect you to change your opinion, I have just given facts to back up my observations and knowledge...you will make up your own mind regardless, as it shoud be...

IF these ops were indeed taking place, and I highly doubt they are, and have stil not seen a shred of evidence to make me think different, I guess I would have to say that WHO was doing it would have to depend on WHY they were doing it...weather control? could be many agencies...NOAH, NASA, USDA, DOD, the list goes on...Some here have speculated it's to test desease strains..(cough cough) sorry CDC? Who knows. I really hate to speculate, because since I don't believe in this at all, my thoughts could possibly fuel more outragous threads... "An Air Force guy said the CIA was spraying chemtrails to disperse psychotropic drugs all over the us to controll out minds!!! I saw it on ATS, so it HAS to be TRUE!!! IT'S TRUE!!! IT'S TRUE!!! IT'S TRUE!!!"


See my point??????

Well what about this one? Just looked out of the window of my kitchen and there was a large cloud shining in all the colors of the rainbow like a giant oil slick. I sure have never seen anything like it ever, and everyone in the house went woooaaahhh! Something is diffinately going on, and it's not natural. On the other hand I saw a grey falcon outside my window and a bunch of doves. That isn't normal either.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

[Edited on 15-12-2003 by mikromarius]

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction
However, I still do not see how knowledge of my Air Force association would in any way be helpful. Also, I have never hidden that fact, as is evidenced in previous threads I have commented on. By the way, "Aircrew" does not always mean "pilot"...and I don't in any way expect you to change your opinion, I have just given facts to back up my observations and knowledge...you will make up your own mind regardless, as it shoud be...

I think your association with the USAF would, if nothing else, confirm your (possibly limited) knowledge of aviation. I apologize for assuming you to be a pilot. You did post that you were part of the 'aircrew'. Personally, I don't know much about aviation. The information that I post is of my observations and second hand knowledge.

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction
"An Air Force guy said the CIA was spraying chemtrails to disperse psychotropic drugs all over the us to controll out minds!!! I saw it on ATS, so it HAS to be TRUE!!! IT'S TRUE!!! IT'S TRUE!!! IT'S TRUE!!!"

First off, I think that's an absurd notion. ::crosses fingers hoping that it isn't possible:: "An Air Force guy" can say a lot of things, but that doesn't make it so. I understand your argument.

Edited to add: By the way, I found your post mentioning that you were USAF in another thread. I didn't think you were hiding anything-Just figured it would have been helpful in posting that info in my thread.

[Edited on 12/15/2003 by Bangin]

Originally posted by billybob
oh, and speaking of trolls, you've sucked me in. i was gonna let it rest.

I guess you could call me an "anti-troll". Kind of like a troll that goes trolling for trolls... or something like that...

i said i did well in physics. i didn't say i was an expert. certainly not a meteorologist.

Thank you for the admission. It's no shame to not be an expert in something. There are most certainly numerous fields where I am not an expert, in the least! And numerous more that I know just a little about. But I don't go around commenting on those, since I'd probably screw up, due to my ignorance of the subject. That's why you wont find me talking about deep sea fishing, or underwater basket weaving, or Wikan theology, or suchlike, since I don't know enough about any of those to be able to speak intelligently. Unlike chemmies, who love to go on and on about fields that they know little or nothing about, and pretending to be highly knowledgeable. At least you are honest enough to admit that you are not an expert, but that you do understand the basics of science. That is, indeed, refreshing. Most chemmies would never be as honest as you were. Most are incapable of ever admitting that they might not know as much as they would like about science, and therefore might be wrong.

i was trying to illustrate rampant unscientific disinfo and obfuscation from the converged orwellian ministry of truth media.

I hate to say this, but that sounds exactly like a diatribe against Carnicom's web site! Carnicom himself loves to be seen as the "ministry of chemtrail truth", and his followers love to place him in that position. But the rest of us know just what really happens at Eric Blair's "Ministry of Truth".

i noticed the spraying first, and THEN did a search, so the idea that i was sucked in by media doesn't fly.

Well, it could still fly. Maybe you only found one side of the research? Strangely enough, if you search for "chemtrails" you will get lots of hits for chemtrail promoting sites, and very few for chemtrail debunking sites. Since you didn't even know about the chemtrail debunking sites, then clearly your research was incomplete: You only got the wrong side of the story, not the right side.

perhaps meteorologist john day needed a new pair of shoes. his testimony is as worthless to me as mine is to you.

Pardon my ignorance, but who is John Day, and what do his shoes have to do with "chemtrails"?

the kooktrails website has no proof or disproof of anything. it is mean, though. is mean good science?

Perhaps not, but it sure does get the point across. And the other two are not nearly so mean, and have mountains of proof.

on that note, why is it up to me to prove they are chemtrails.

Because you are making the claim that they do exist, and are different from any known phenomena. In science, the scientist who decides to propose a new hypothesis is the one who must provide his supporting evidence, proof, etc. If he doesn't, and there is already a totally adequate theory that explains his observations perfectly well, then nobody is going to take him seriously. Why would they? For example, if a scientist came up with a new idea that the universe is actually not made up of atoms, but rather of micro-miniature elves and fairies, then of course nobody will even bother to listen to him for more than two seconds, unless he comes up with some pretty convincing evidence that observations of matter cannot be fully accounted for by using atomic theory, that matter is somehow different than what atomic theory allows for, and that therefore the only possible alternative explanation is that matter is actually made of Micro-Miniature Elves and Fairies (MMEF). Do you really think that any scientist is going to be even remotely interested in doing MMEF research, until there is at least SOME evidence that it might be right? Since all other scientists are doing the exact same observations as our MMEF proponent, and can explain everything they observe with standard atomic theory, why would you expect them to suddenly abandon standard atomic theory, that works so well and explains matter so perfectly, and instead accept MMEF theory, when there isn't even a shred of evidence?

I think the analogy is really, really close to "chemtrails" Everything that is being observed is already fully documented and explained by existing atmospheric physics. There is no need at all to invent "chemtrails" to explain observations. Therefore, anyone who claims that "chemtrails" exist is going to have to do the proving, since nobody trained in "traditional" science sees any need for a new theory, as all observations are perfectly well covered by existing theory.

you cannot prove they are not without doing the same research i would need to do to prove them.

Yes I can. There are many, many ways that I could use to disprove "chemtrails", and very few that you could use to "prove" them. In fact, I don't need to do ANYTHING at all to disprove chemtrails, since existing scientific theory explains the perfectly, with no gaps at all.

and once again, you do not see with my eyes, and i don't see with yours. you do not have my memory, i don't have yours.

Obviously! But once again, you are demonstrating a lack of understanding of science. Science has nothing at all to do with individual subjective experiences, and everything to do with objective facts. Science does not work BECAUSE of what a person believes, but rather DESPITE what he believes. Science is independent of individual beliefs and subjectivity. So it doesn't matter at all what YOU see or don?t see, or what YOU remember or don't remember. Rather, what matters is solely totally objective and repeatable data, facts, experiments, and results. Opinions don't matter. Hard evidence does.

i mentioned on another thread that the sun has changed from yellow to white.

It has? Strange, but all my old physics books, even the really ancient ones, refer to sunlight as being "white light", since it contains all possible wavelengths of visible light, in equal measure. It never was yellow. Sunlight has ALWAYS been white. If YOU don't remember it that way, then clearly the problem is with YOUR memory, because everyone one else agrees that sunlight has always been white. It only looks yellow at low angles in the sky, because most of the blue component has been removed by atmospheric scattering, but the sun hasn't changed color at all. It is still the same color as it has always been. In fact, the sun CANNOT change color, unless some extremely massive and extremely catastrophic event were to happen to it, such as it colliding with another star, or going supernova on us (which it cannot do, in any case).

Sorry.

once again, this is an observation, and a pile of obfuscating scientific mumbo jumbo won't convince me that something hasn't changed.

Then I feel very sorry for you. If you prefer to believe in your own subjective feelings and emotions, despite objective proof to the contrary, then I don't think there is much that can be done to help you. You'll probably just carry on believing in whatever you want to believe in, without ever worrying about understanding what you are actually seeing. What a terrible way to go through life.

you've gotta see this canadian television program called "talking to americans". ... where's USA today on these topics? where are you?

What does nay of that have to do with chemtrails? There is no link that I can see.

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

Originally posted by billybob
. . . . reputable = institutionally controlled. . . .

OK, I�ll tell you what. Here is what you do. All around the country there are commercial laboratories that analyze environmental and wastewater samples for a variety of clients. Typically these are either industries monitoring their discharges, property owners cleaning up a contaminated site, municipalities verifying compliance with clean water act regulations, or private individuals for any number of different reasons. Chances are there are one or two of these labs within an hours drive of you right now. Check out the internet or the local yellow pages for �environmental laboratory services� I guarantee you will find one around within a reasonable driving distance.

Call them up and ask for their price for analysis of a water sample for �total metals� per parameter (metal). There are three main analytical methods available:

Inductively coupled Plasma (ICP);
ICP with mass spec (ICP/MS);
and Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption (GFAA).

Try to find a good price for either of the latter two methods; the analytical detection limits (ADLs) are better. Typically you will find prices that range from around $15.00 for ICP, to $30.00 for ICP/MS or GFAA. These are per sample, per metal. Shop around if you can. It is a competitive business.

You can tell the lab that you are a small business, testing for discharge; or a consultant conducting confidential testing for a client involved in litigation, or best yet, don�t tell them anything, because THEY DON�T CARE.

Ask the lab to prepare a cooler with three sample containers with labels and chain of custody paperwork. In addition, ask them if they can provide you with a 1 gallon container of D.I. (deinionized) water.

Build your rainwater/ snowmelt collection device. You are on your own here, just be sure to document exactly what it is made of and how it is built.

Just prior to collecting your sample, clean your sampling device thoroughly and do a final rinse with the D.I. water. Collect some of the D.I. water in one of the containers and label it �field blank� this tells us if there is any cross contamination from the sample equipment itself.

(CAUTION, the sample containers will have a couple of ml of nitric acid in them as a preservative. Be careful handling the empty bottles as they can sometimes leak if the tops were not screwed down tightly after the lab added the acid.)

Collect your sample and be sure to fill put the sample ID, date and time on both the label and the chain of custody.

Don�t bother analyzing the field blank unless you have a positive result for your sample parameter.

Total cost for laboratory analysis: $60.00 or less.

Good luck and be sure to let us know what you find, good or bad.

Originally posted by billybob
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.

OK, just for the sake of argument,

Jet engine exhaust is made of water, carbon dioxide, and a trace amount of soot and unburned fuel, do you agree?

Contrails are �condensation trails� or water that has condensed out of the exhaust into ice crystals. (at 35,000 feet the outside temp is 40 degrees below 0 Fahrenheit).

Clouds are made of water and or ice crystals right?

Contrails are made of the same thing that clouds are made of: water (ice).

Therefore, contrails should exhibit the same behavior that clouds do. (i.e. persist for as long as the conditions allow them to persist, just like cirrus clouds do).

What part of this do you disagree with?