An Attempt to Debunk Chemtrails For Good

reply to post by TruthTellist


Is that not a rather ignorant statement to make? You dismiss out of hand 60+ years of research because it doesn't accord with your world view. Obviously you are an omnipotent being to be able to take such a stance.

I can just imagine you as the Grand Inquisitor at Galileo's trial

I think Swingarm is implying that chemtrails may amplify the effects of HAARP and numerous other 'defense' systems. In any case, he is stating that they are related (in their use), though not the same.

Are we right Swingarm? Because LIDAR systems have also been shown to be enhance by heavy particulates being present in the atmosphere - at any level where the system is being used.

Background : I am 28yrs old and have always lived close to a flight path for either one or several airports of all sizes and types (international, national, military and small civilian).

Point #1

I've seen situations where multiple jets are in the same airspace at similar altitude and speeds BUT only one jet releases a chemtrail while the other do not. I've also seen chemtrails at VERY low altitudes (less than 10,000 ft or so).

Point #2

My girlfriend and I personally observed a jet laying a chemtrail TURN OFF ITS STREAM for appox ~ 3seconds and turn it back on. The result as you would suspect was a huge gap in the chemtrail. We observed this chemtrail for approx ~1 hr and this is what occurred :

- what seemed to be 1 stream was actually 2
- one of the streams was 'cloud colored', white, offwhite, etc
- the other stream had a bluish metalic thing going on
- both trails slowly spread into very large and thin clouds from say an initial estimated width of 5 to 15 feet to about at least 50yrs wide for each stream.

Now please note. No where in ANYONE'S imagination does jet vapor trail spread into two distinct streams only to form very large and thin cloud formations.

Point #3

Several people report a residue after chemtrails have been sprayed. Scientific analysis of this reside has confirmed that it contains heavy metals. I'm fairly sure heavy metals aren't a part of any of the jet fuel types.

[edit on 18-8-2008 by LoveKnowledge]

reply to post by LoveKnowledge


People in my Area have been complaining about the same things that you have just reported to us.

People can often deny the reality of this phenomenon to themselves, but when they take the time to watch the same plane laying town multiple parallel lines, turning the chemtrails on an off, and in such a way as to ensure the wind carries the fallout over populated areas - It is difficult for anyone to deny the reality then.

The evidence is on the side of the believers, one need only review the contents of this thread. Pay attention to the responses that occur immediately after someone at revealed an important piece of information/testimony vital to solving the chemtrail phenomenon.

Notice any patterns?

reply to post by Essan

Is that not a rather ignorant statement to make? You dismiss out of hand 60+ years of research because it doesn't accord with your world view. Obviously you are an omnipotent being to be able to take such a stance.

I can just imagine you as the Grand Inquisitor at Galileo's trial

Essan, I think you must concede that there is not complete consensus within the realm of meteorology and aviation circles as to the existence of chemtrails. Would you agree? That being said, I don't think it fair to say truthtellist thinks he's omnipotent
Your grand inquisitor analogy doesn't work either as we are raising flags about an emerging problem. Galileo was challenging the establishment that was operated through dogmatic control ( it much the same today) Science is extremely important. If you think the area of chemtrails has no scientific support , I'd have to say your in denial. There are many scientific people involved in the the study of this issue. The dogma of science is every bit as powerful as religious. It becomes known to many scientists that challenging the establishment is the end of their funding/research in any given area of research. Why would it be any different in this discussion. We are the free thinkers, I highly doubt a free thinker would have any trouble with Galileo.


Back In 1970, former National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in Between Two Ages, that:

'By the year 2018, technology will make available to the leaders of the major nations, a variety of techniques for conducting secret warfare, of which only a bare minimum of the security forces need be appraised. One nation may attack a competitor covertly by bacteriological means, thoroughly weakening the population (though with a minimum of fatalities) before taking over with its own armed forces. Alternatively, techniques of weather modification could be employed to produce prolonged periods of drought or storm..."
In this same book we also find this quote:

“The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.”

www.bariumblues.com...

I just went to re-read the OP.

Hard to believe, in less than two weeks, where this thread has been taken.

I don't think anyone has successfully refuted OzWeatherman's original point.

Some accuse me of deflecting, when instead ALL I try to do is impart my knowledge base into a discussion. You can disagree with me, I can disagree with you....but when it's civil, it stays within the rules.

We've all broken the rules, now and then....sometimes we get caught, sometimes not. Point is, if you reflect on it....you consider your own failings, when they occur, even if no one else noticed.

I happen to think the OP is a nice, thoughtful person, with a lot of experience to bring to this board.

What I've seen is the 'chemtrail' believers swarm in, and rudely interfere in the discussion, without noticing the FIRST POST, and what it says.

It's almost a 'tag-team' mentality.....then it gets emotional, and somebody's gotta go!

Well....the OP is here, it's his thread....I think he's enjoying the fireworks!

reply to post by weedwhacker


An Attempt to Debunk Chemtrails For Good did you think this would go unchallenged Swarming ? I'd prefer to say passionate participation.

We see less in Australia, due to lack of air traffic

Then you definately dont live in Sydney!

reply to post by Swingarm


AND still, you get a star.....within just a few hours!!

Can we all say it in unison....."Tag-Team!!"

Point made....end of story.

EDIT....look, we can all just try to get along....but first, bring your experience to the table....I will too.
I already have. Over 20,000 hours of flight experience, in multiple airplanes. Now, your turn......


[edit on 8/18/0808 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


I don't know how to say this without sounding rude. Your flight experience doesn't mean squat to me. I know in your eyes your more than qualified to dismiss chemtrails, but to me your just another untrained observer as you put it. Your ability as pilot is impressive, nobody is trying to take that from you.

edit, Just for the record stars don't really mean anything , do they? It means Someone agrees with me ? You said in the prior post the chemtrail believers come and disrupt the discussion. Don't you think that sounds a little ridiculous ?

[edit on 18-8-2008 by Swingarm]

[edit on 19-8-2008 by Swingarm]

reply to post by Swingarm


Please don't argue with me, discuss the topic with the OP.

I will not be baited, anymore. The OP deserves better. Done.

reply to post by weedwhacker


I was responding to you? You addressed me ? Weed you continually go around reminding everyone your qualified to comment and they're not. Your attempt remains just that.

reply to post by Swingarm


Please check the OTHER thread,

Thank you....

Originally posted by Swingarm

Essan, I think you must concede that there is not complete consensus within the realm of meteorology and aviation circles as to the existence of chemtrails. Would you agree?

I cannot comment on aviation circles, but there is complete consensus in meteorological circles that persistent contrails are simply persistent contrails. If any 'secret' chemical spraying is taking place it is not visible or otherwise apparent from ground observation.

Now, you may find a former TV weather presenter who disagrees But that doesn't the fact that there's complete consensus amongst meteorologists and climate scientists - many of whom are actively engaged in studying how and why such contrails form, their effects on weather and climate and how to prevent them forming.

On the other hand, there is also complete agreement that cloud seeding takes place - though less of a consensus on how effective it really is. And cloud seeding involves spraying chemicals into the sky. So on that basis I suppose you can say that 'chemtrails' are real. Albeit not visible from the ground. On a large scale - if it works - such cloud seeding could cause drought or flood. Personally I rather suspect the Chinese may have something to say on that issue! But cloud seeding does not produce lines in the sky. It does not turn the sky hazy. It is not what people usually mean when they talk of chemtrails.

There are also suggestions for spraying sulphates into the atmosphere to combat global warming. Although recent evidence suggests this may in fact have more detrimental effects, were such an activity to take place there is no reason to suppose it would be in any way visible from the ground (the dispersal of such sulphates would obviously need to be done in a manner which did not result in the creation of ice crystals since that would have the opposite to the intended effect - high level ice crystals (such as those that form contrails) have a net warming effect.)

reply to post by Essan




willthomas.net

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS CONCERNED OVER CHEMTRAILS by William Thomas

Vancouver, Canada Mar. 5, 2002…As continuing chemtrail activity culminated in massive aerial spraying over Vancouver Island and Washington state yesterday- and broadening plumes once again fanned out to haze clear blue skies - Air Traffic Controllers at major airports across the United States expressed concern over the emissions constantly showing up on their radar screens.

"Chemtrails” is the term widely used to describe the brilliant white ‘trails laid down by U.S. Air Force tanker planes photo-identified over North America and a dozen other allied nations in a process the U.S. Air Force calls “aerial obscuration”.

First confirmed by Airport Authority Terry Stewart at the Victoria International Airport on Dec. 8, 2000 as a “joint Canada-U.S. military operation” – and stridently denied by senior officers at Canadian Forces Base (where Stewart later told the Vancouver Courier he had received his information) – these multi-plane missions were verified in March, 2001 by the Air Traffic Control (ATC) manager for the northeastern seaboard of the United States.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by Swingarm]




Mod Edit: Large quote removed, external source tags added. Please see Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ** and New Site Tag For Quoting External Sources Thank you - Jak

[edit on 19/8/08 by JAK]

reply to post by Swingarm


Thank you for bringing that to light, Swingarm....and for emphasizing that it's a Military OP.....so we can at least, once and for all, bury the idea that commercial passenger jets do anything of the sort.

That, quite simply, has been MY point all along. I thought I made it clear.

Thanks, again.....

And we can now be 100% sure it doesn't happen in the UK because a) all persistent contrails seen here are known to be produced by commerical air traffic and b) no 'chemtrails' ever appear on radar

btw

According to NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, contrails can only form at temperatures below minus 76 degrees, and humidity levels of 70 percent or more. Even in ideal conditions, contrails rarely last more than 20 minutes.

Is completely wrong.

Contrails only form at very high altitudes (usually above 8 km) where the air is extremely cold (less than -40 degrees C).

asd-www.larc.nasa.gov...

Persistent contrails can last for hours to days

asd-www.larc.nasa.gov...

If William Thomas can't get the basic facts right, what else has he got wrong?

[Snip]




Mod Edit: Please remember if, for whatever reason, you find yourself unable to contribute in a constructive manner you are free to move on and engage in any of the numerous other discussions available on ATS. Thank you - Jak

[edit on 19/8/08 by JAK]