Why the Chemtrail Conspiracy is Unplausible, and Meteorologically Innacurate

reply to post by defcon5


The criteria he asked for has been mentioned from the beginning. He said footage from a movie that is not a WWII movie and that has multiple contrails going through it much like the one that he posted earlier. Good reasoning since it was stated that it was quite abundant throughout movies... Contrails in movies that are about aircraft and the sky is like using a sonar ping in a movie about the sea to say that there was a real hit on the sonar because they showed it. Its all part of the movie folks and proves nothing... Just like TopGun footage... They want you to see the aircraft and follow it... what better way than to have a trail follow it...

Rgds

reply to post by C0bzz


Ho hum . do you really believe everything the techies tell you in those aviation mags . Its all puff and blow mate .

Your quoted dispositions are a total white wash and bear no relation to our true defence capabilities .

We only use those new f18s to train our pilots before putting them in our REAL AND STILL TOP SECRET front line fighters . Now there your talking serious kit . Mach 10 plus mate , blow the crap out of a raptor any freakin day of the week. Hell, ive seen the assembled fuses being taken by low loader down the coast road for final assembly on base . Cheeky buggers !

And dont tell me they dont exist mate because I have seen them fly right over my house .

I have seen the troop transports too. With our massive coastline we need super rapid deployement and these babies shift like you wont believe .

So look. Techno blab and quote all the official white wash blather you want but I know better .

reply to post by sensfan

What exactly are they spraying there Sens? Do you know? Does anyone really know except the PTB? Maybe, but rest assured the PTB have some type of antidote or are told to not drink the water because it would be contaminated etc... Do you honestly believe because you ask that question you have quashed the fact that they admit to doing this?

A true soldier will follow every command given by his leader. He will know the difference between a lawful and unlawful command. Knowing this and how some soldiers around the world would follow and disobey blatantly obvious unlawful orders given by their commanders during war, knowing they were committing war crimes, they continued to do this. Why? Fear of retribution... mostly within their own ranks...


the soldier is a sick puppy and the hierarchy hopes for this... that way they can make you do about anything...

Rgds

reply to post by AllTiedTogether


AllTied...you really are blind, aren't you???!!!???

I don't care anymore about dings....bad science...is, well BAD SCIENCE. In fact, calling it 'science; does it a disservice.

What a shame, the 'Flat-Earth Society' wishes to come along and spout their particular BS....it is a shame, because there are actual people who think that dispelling nonsense by using reason is a noble endeavor.

Well, superstition and just plain ignorance and paranoia seem to dominate lately. What a shame.....

reply to post by C0bzz


As regards your comments about 3g . I know a lot of high ranking military breathed a HUGE sigh of relief when Johnnie Howard was voted out of office . To quote one anonymously "he did a lot of damage to australia's interests" .

Thankfully , so far , kevin Rudd is proving to be a far more hounourable man . He's pushed to get our networks up to speed .He has openly declared ,and this is actually quite historic , australias intention to be a THIRD FORCE in international affairs.

He knows about our presence here , We have demonstrated the technology we have laid at the ADF's disposal and he genuinely cares about this country unlike Johnnie, who sold out to the yanks left right and centre . The US is on Notice now. Pine gap is getting closed down .


The third force is no big secret round here . Its been based here a long long time now .

And if you dont know what the third force is mate ,you really have been asleep at the wheel. No disrespect but really the cats already out of the bag over here .

Here is an interesting article I cam across tonight while looking into other movie bloopers:

Flight Lines
In John Ford’s last western, Cheyenne Autumn, long threads of white cross the sky over army tents in Monument Valley, along the Utah-Arizona border. In the 1993 film Gettysburg, a brilliant white sliver hovers in the clear sky above the head of a Union officer. In Zulu, a dramatized account of the 1879 assault by thousands of Zulu tribesmen on a small British garrison in Natal, South Africa, whitish bands sometimes hang in the sky beyond the hills.
…

It’s not only jets that make contrails; piston aircraft do too. So do rockets. So, apparently, do birds. “I have heard of wild geese leaving vapor trails high over the Canadian Rockies,” Guy Murchie wrote in his book Song of the Sky. A goose exhaling warm, moist air into –38-degree air could produce a contrail, Minnis allows, although “it would certainly be a small one.”
The first recorded sighting of a contrail likely occurred in southern Tirol in the Italian Alps in 1915 when somebody named Ettenreich spotted “the condensation of a cumulus stripe from the exhaust gases of an aircraft”; the stripe stayed around for a while. It wasn’t until World War II that anyone took interest. In a single combat area, hundreds of aircraft sometimes generated so many contrails that pilots couldn’t see to keep in formation or find a target. “We were, in effect, clouding the sky over Germany,” wrote 34th Bomb Group member Hal Province to Veritas News Service reporter Jay Reynolds in 1999. Contrails could be used as cover for an attack: “Four Me-262s came in hidden by the contrails and hit four of us,” Richrad Scroxton wrote in a 1983 account now posted on the 100th Bomb Group Web site. Even more troublesome, contrails gave away aircraft positions. “We were easy for them to spot, as our contrails were heavy that day,” another bomber crewman noted, “pointing like fingers in the sky toward our squadron,” Mike Banta wrote in 1997 in an account of his B-17’s last mission, now posted on the 91st Bomb Group Web site.

Some neat new info I had not heard before. Geese can make a contrail… Cool!
The first reported contrail was in Tirol in 1915, and it was persistent…

reply to post by weedwhacker

AllTied...you really are blind, aren't you???!!!???

I do believe you insulted me because I have a differing opinion than you mr Weedwacker.... I'd appreciated it if you wouldn't use comments like the one you have used.... I have a relative that's blind and he is very intelligent even with his lack of sight.


One does not have to have sight to see that my science on chemtrails is perfectly good science. It's been proven throughout this thread on each and every page. The fact that no one is able to provide a picture showing multiple planes leaving the same type of trails in the sky as we see after chemtrails began is proof right there. We have millions of pictures of these trails at all altitudes and dispersing into clouds etc... If we are so observant of it now because of its significance don't you think if this was seen back in the early days of aircraft we would have taken a hell of a lot more photos of the sky than we did? The reason people take pictures is because they are shocked at what is before them. That's why I took about fifty to sixty pictures in front of my place when I saw them dropping the streams one day and noticed lots of weird clouds forming.

The lack of photos from the day shows me that contrails probably didn't hang around for longer than the 30secs they talked about in all the science magazines etc that told you how contrails form... before the chemtrail coverup...

Rgds

reply to post by reconpilot


I was giving an example of what's actually available to the general public, you just gotta know where to look.

As for my avatar, what does it matter what I have a picture of? Is it really relevant to this conversation?

reply to post by weedwhacker
[mor


How old am I ? OLD BEYOND YOUR RECKONING . Old and tired of senseless wars fought to feed the ego and greed of humans .

My family has been intervening in your affiars for a long long painfull thankless time.

reply to post by defcon5


Did they get any pictures of the geese leaving a contrail? Did the geese leave a contrail that went from horizon to horizon and dripped goo from the sky after the 'contrail' fell to the ground? No one is doubting that 'contrails' can be left by anything that can heat vapor and thereby leave a trail. But the trail normally dissipates after 30secs at an altitude of approx 30,000ft, which is approx the height that contrails were normally seen. That is before chemtrails came along and then spoiled the science... so they adjusted the data to make the chemtrail data point to contrails...

Rgds

Pre 1998 persistent contrails? I don;t have the time nor inclimation to look through thousands of films and TV shows to get screen grabs, but there are plenty of photos

contrailscience.com...

See also:

Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget - Peter M. Kuhn 1970

(a paper I keep posting the link to and which chemtrail believers steadfastly refuse to look!)

Now I accept that for many decades hundreds of people may have been photoshopping pictures to put in weather books etc and to support their research into something which did not exist and I'm frankly amazed no-one noticed the hoaxes at the time

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
reply to post by defcon5

 

The criteria he asked for has been mentioned from the beginning. He said footage from a movie that is not a WWII movie and that has multiple contrails going through it much like the one that he posted earlier.

Oh RLY?

Where did he make these requirements that you claim…

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
How about JUST ONE film, TV program or commercial shot between 1921 and 1998?

That shouldn't be too hard, should it?

He said ONE FILM, MOVIE, or COMMERCIAL, he did not say what genera they had to be. He said he did not want bomber footage from WWII, he said nothing about it being a WWII movie that was shot 30 years after WWII. He also said nothing about there having to be Multiple contrails in the shot. What difference does the number of contrails make anyway if it’s one or one hundred? The point is they persisted then, and they persist now, you all are just trying to save your rapidly sinking ship here by changing the rules after the fact.

So much so I have to wonder what some folks have at stake that they continue to try and spread this rumor despite losing on all fronts? If I were losing that badly on a topic I would gracefully bow out and admit defeat, and I have done so when proven wrong in the past. For some reason though certain people persist on this despite defeat to a level that seems beyond just a normal interest, almost like they have something at stake if they are shown to be wrong. Hm…. I won’t say what is on my mind here, but it seems rather suspicious to me.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Good reasoning since it was stated that it was quite abundant throughout movies... Contrails in movies that are about aircraft and the sky is like using a sonar ping in a movie about the sea to say that there was a real hit on the sonar because they showed it. Its all part of the movie folks and proves nothing...

The difference is that the contrail in that shot has nothing to do with the scene itself, and presents nothing to the story. It has been admitted by the studio to have been a blooper and shows up as such on blooper sites, including IMDB.

Now, what about all the links to contrails I have linked to this page that talk about contrails in old westerns?

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
They want you to see the aircraft and follow it... what better way than to have a trail follow it...

Great except that scene in Patton had less then nothing whatsoever to do with an aircraft, neither did the scene before or after it. Point is that he got what he asked for, shot himself in the foot, and now he cannot handle that he did.

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
But the trail normally dissipates after 30secs at an altitude of approx 30,000ft, which is approx the height that contrails were normally seen.

Maybe you can explain why that contrail in Patton lasts more then 30 seconds then? It is a contrail after all, and it was not intentionally left, as it A) has nothing to do with the scene, and B) is admitted to being a movie blooper by the studio.

reply to post by defcon5


Can you prove that is a contrail and not part of the called for scene?

Does anyone have the book "Patton" by Martin Blumeson??? I bet that somewhere in that book when they describe the battle field and other areas of the war they would allude to seeing contrails across the sky indicating aircraft activity. While this may reference contrails, to create this realism on the 'set' of a movie they would either have fake horizon and sky scenes or they would get the aircraft to lay a smoke trail to simulate the book.... That's why any show or movie that needs a contrail to show aircraft traffic and patterns is probably using intentionally laid chemicals for the shows story line. These chemtrails in themselves are not what most of the population believe is the real reason they are dropping this on us. I mean we are part of one of the largest scale story productions of all time but the chemtrails are just a coverup.... Literally...

Rgds

reply to post by defcon5

Oh RLY? Where did he make these requirements that you claim…

Actually it was his third post and the line directly below what you quoted him as saying... within one inch of the text...

Fm GoldenFleece

I mean, besides the typical debunker photos of WW II piston-engine bombers belching massive amounts of particulate exhaust.

Would you like me to post them all for you? I really don't want to since its as easy as pushing the 'Thread" button on GoldenFleeces post and you can see them all.

He also stated the other criteria in his third post of fifteen as of now. And others also stated this as well as myself. Mentioning that the reasoning is because if this was so prevalent during those days they would have taken more pictures... It would be in your commercials in the 50s and 60s, showing multiple chemtrails like the one GoldenFleece has been asking for you to match. If contrails were as abundant as chemtrails then they would have lots of pictures of them.

**ADDed***

The point is they persisted then, and they persist now, you all are just trying to save your rapidly sinking ship here by changing the rules after the fact. So much so I have to wonder what some folks have at stake that they continue to try and spread this rumor despite losing on all fronts? If I were losing that badly on a topic I would gracefully bow out and admit defeat, and I have done so when proven wrong in the past. For some reason though certain people persist on this despite defeat to a level that seems beyond just a normal interest, almost like they have something at stake if they are shown to be wrong. Hm…. I won’t say what is on my mind here, but it seems rather suspicious to me.

The stakes that we fight for is the possibility to open peoples eyes to see the truth for what it is. We don't want people to believe that nothing is being done to them when they are in fact being poisoned and this is admitted to the public but not made known to the entire population due to the medias insistance on covering up certain facts for the government. You may believe that I am wrong in my statements but that is your choice. Should you choose to follow some of my links as well as the others that have shown proof of "Chemtrails' throughout this thread, you would have enough information to conclusively know that they are doing it. They are spraying chemicals that could harm the human being.

This is the easiest thing to prove since you have their admittance... What more do you need? Science of contrails is not going to show you why the "chemtrails" that are being sprayed from nato planes at altitudes well below the contrail height is being observed more than ever before. The proof is out there and that is why people will discuss it with such voracity.

As to your wondering what some "HAVE AT STAKE".... It's called life and it affects us all as well as our loved ones... that's what I have at stake... How about you? How about all of you? What have you got at stake with taking the idea that chemtrails are non existent? How do you win if people look up to the skies and are observant if they are spraying something? If they are spraying something, even if for some ridiculous reason as to stop global warming, they have an obligation to tell the population of the world what they are poisoning us with. There are laws that are being broken now by these governments that are spraying.... Not hard to find if you really look...

Rgds


[edit on 19-3-2009 by AllTiedTogether]

reply to post by AllTiedTogether


I’m done explaining this to you, go read here:

IMDB Goofs in Patton
· Anachronisms: Jet stream or plume above Patton and Bradley at the tank crossing in Francie - seen in several frames. There were no jets in this war.

reply to post by defcon5


Thank you but that doesn't answer my question that says, what's it say in the book for the scene... May not have a plane in the scene but they can have a backdrop showing previous air activity. Kinda like a scene from a movie about a hurricane and the skies were perfectly clear in all the scenes... You'd be asking who did the effects and such that would not indicate stormy wx.

In a war movie with various battle scenes I expect to see trails across the sky to indicate movement of military aircraft. I would also expect smoke on the ground to signify explosion and demolition... If I saw smoke on the ground I would believe it to signify some type of destruction that was caused by a military act if it was during a war film. I wouldn't assume they were bon fires on the beach with all those men in uniform charging to their death.... Only makes sense...

Thanks guys.... Interesting but I've got to get some sleep....

All the best and Peace and Love to you all

reply to post by AllTiedTogether


Ok…They are not in a battle in that scene, there are two tank columns that are going in different directions and they are having an argument at a crossroad. Patton drives to the front of the blockage and starts directing traffic like a cop at a stoplight. They did not bother to get the correct equipment for this movie, and used M48 Patton tanks as German Panzers, and M41 Bulldogs as Shermans, They also had aircraft and jeeps that were newer than WWII. Considering all of that, do you honestly think that they would spend the money to have an aircraft fly over a scene that had nothing to do with A)aircraft, b)bombing, C) combat in general, just to leave a contrail that has no bearing or effect on the movie or scene? Then admit that it is a blooper? PLEASE… Reality check here...

We are not talking about some ancient obscure verse in the bible, we are talking about a movie that was filmed in modern times. Many of the folks who worked on that movie are not only still alive, but most likely still in the industry. I think I will shoot of an email to the studio who made that movie today and see if I can get an official response on whether that is an intentional contrail or not. Though, to anyone with any common sense, the answer should already be obvious.

Additionally, I am going to make a stop off at blockbuster this morning to pick up a bunch of old westerns that I have found have contrails in them. So you all better start working on your NEW excuse for why PRE-1990 westerns have contrails in them, cause intentional is not going to cut it there for sure. Lets see, blockbuster opens at 10:00, its now 05:30, so you have about 4 and a half hours continue to believe in your chemtrail fantasy or find a new set of excuses.

Prediction: in 4.5 hours we will have a new set of rules and criteria that these photos have to comply with, and a new set of excuses as to why they exist.

reply to post by AllTiedTogether


So what you're saying is that in films where persistent contrails appear, these are actually stage props to replicate persistent contrails which actually did appear when the events portrayed occured?

Now, what about all those photos I posted links to? Photoshopped images to show people what persistent contrails would look like if persistent contrails existed?

What about the images in the 1970 paper? A fake picture to support to support the false assertion in the paper that persistent contrails exist in order to justify the research into the effects of (non existent) persistent contrails?

Your capacity for imagination knowns no bounds!

Originally posted by reconpilot
reply to post by C0bzz

 

Ho hum . do you really believe everything the techies tell you in those aviation mags . Its all puff and blow mate .

Your quoted dispositions are a total white wash and bear no relation to our true defence capabilities .

We only use those new f18s to train our pilots before putting them in our REAL AND STILL TOP SECRET front line fighters . Now there your talking serious kit . Mach 10 plus mate , blow the crap out of a raptor any freakin day of the week. Hell, ive seen the assembled fuses being taken by low loader down the coast road for final assembly on base . Cheeky buggers !

And dont tell me they dont exist mate because I have seen them fly right over my house .

I have seen the troop transports too. With our massive coastline we need super rapid deployement and these babies shift like you wont believe .

So look. Techno blab and quote all the official white wash blather you want but I know better .

I understand.

Seen UFO hover directly above me... very odd! Not sure if it was ours though. But maybe in a few years when I finish education and join the ADF I'll hopefully find out!

Thanks.

[edit on 19/3/2009 by C0bzz]