Another Chemtrail Question

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

I am searching for information, but I ran into a bunch of guys who are telling me not to search. I haven't decided anything...I don't "believe" anything. Suspecting something is not the same as believing something. What's with you guys and your definitions? Projecting your convictions on me and putting words in my mouth is your only argument?

I say you have no reason not to be outraged over an illegal government quite possibly involved in clandestine operations, including but not limited to weather modification. I am a concerned citizen, that you aren't means nothing to me. Thanks for your pictures and for showing pilots have no more clue than the rest of us.

edit on 21-2-2011 by Yankee451 because: replaced "exlcuding" with " limiited to"

Oh come off it, no one has told you not to search. Its not like you are searching or investigating anything, you are just looking for agreement. You are making up some strawman argument, when you can not show any link to anyone telling you not to search.

You should actually include in your search such topics as aviation and meterology, not just chemtrail sites that are validating your already held conspiracy views. Do you actually "search" and seek out people with expertise and knowledge in these areas? No..you dont, and you dismiss evidence to the contrary

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by firepilot

 

I believe the DoD and the air force, not you. Tell your ten year old to take it up with them.

edit on 21-2-2011 by Yankee451 because: added "not you"

The DoD and USAF have not said anything that proves chemtrails. And chemtrailers cant even find this supposed secret fleet of planes, even since the chemmie conspiracy was started to be promoted by Will Thomas in 1998.

Actually the DoD and USAF have put out numerous times that they are not spraying anything, but this gets dismissed time and time again because its from the government.

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by Yankee451

 

I just checked in. I see you replied to a post of mine.
I used the wrong word, slander. My bad. Slander, libel. Was the point missed? Yes.
The point which was not addressed of course, was that anonymous posters that claim some level of expertise always reference the experts of THEIR choice, and ignore the others that don't agree with their viewpoint.
In fact, if anyone differs from their very narrow viewpoint, then there must be a reason for it that involves a profit motive. They will never "write" that any of them are trying to do some good...trying to determine what experiments are currently being perpetrated on an unwitting public for instance.
What is ironic, is the fact that the federal government responds TO the profit motive, not what is in the interests of the public. In other words, profits drive pretty much all real action...even by our own elected governments. At least, on the national level.
So, any site that firepilot or chemwacker brings HAS to rely on profits to survive, and any sources they bring rely on profits for their jobs. ATS relies on profits, I suppose so we can "debate" with morons...and others that are just looking for answers.
I see through the tactics of some of these posters...I have been around a while. The distinguishing factor, to me, that separates those that are looking for answers from these trolls is this. They pretend to have them.

Oh god, this is ironic.

Guess what? You have not do this day succeeded in finding any actual incorrect statements on any of those websites, you just keep alleging that they are, without any evidence. Your assertions are empty, and its time and time again.Dont you chemmies keep putting up links to youtube and conspiracy sites? Do not conspiracy sites need profits? Think chemtrail promoters arent trying to make money?

Oh btw, we have also linked to pics on airliners.net and flightaware too. And those chemtrail sites who like to make money, just steal pics from airliners.net and edit them to promote chemtrails

However, we can find MANY individual statements you make that are wrong. Would you like some of us to go back through your posts and mine them for everyone to see? Your stupid 600 new tankers post, or that contrails have nothing to do with cirrus? Any a whole bunch more...Find any statement I have made that is incorrect, will you. I have told you I dont know how many times, all you can do is just name call

Oh BTW, in bringing up money, shall we bring up that those who started the chemtrail hoax, all did it with making money in mind? Will Thomas, Len Horowitz, Don Croft, all were part of it in 1998-1999 in starting it, and EVERYONE ONE OF THEM HAS THINGS FOR SALE.

And speaking of narrow views, isnt it chemmies who claim that you cant have aluminum and barium in the ground, and that contrails cant persist? hmmmmmm now who is actually narrow?

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Fair enough, but I repeat, I am investigating a suspicion, you and the rest of the lads are claiming I have no reason to be suspicious, which I obviously do.

I say you're ignoring pertinent information that would shed doubt on your convictions.

reply to post by firepilot


I'll have to remind you to read...I'm trying to write with the layman in mind, trying to avoid the minutiae that tends to derail such subjects. None the less I have brought nothing to this conversation that isn't true, 'cept maybe my terminology...feel free to split that hair. I've added some recent links and I'll add more but currently we are focused on my having a reasonable suspicion (clearly I do).

I have provided ample reason to be suspicious and you and the lads have provided ample reason to doubt your sincerity. I say your conviction is clouding your reason, and digging in your heels only reinforces that impression.

reply to post by firepilot


How many times do I have to say I don't have to prove the existence of anything except the existence of what led me to suspect a covert operation. Photos are off the table because both sides admitted they don't show anything conclusive.

So prove the people with the means motive and opportunity didn't indicate a desire to militarize the weather.

Prove the technology isn't there and that the patents don't exist.

Prove the military doesn't have a history of testing new technology on unwary civilians.

Prove the government is trustworthy. I remind you this is the government that tells us a guy on dialysis in a cave trumped the multi-trillion dollar defense department.

Prove I don't have a valid suspicion.

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by firepilot

 

How many times do I have to say I don't have to prove the existence of anything except the existence of what led me to suspect a covert operation. Photos are off the table because both sides admitted they don't show anything conclusive.

So prove the people with the means motive and opportunity didn't indicate a desire to militarize the weather.

Prove the technology isn't there and that the patents don't exist.

Prove the military doesn't have a history of testing new technology on unwary civilians.

Prove the government is trustworthy. I remind you this is the government that tells us a guy on dialysis in a cave trumped the multi-trillion dollar defense department.

Prove I don't have a valid suspicion.

edit on 22-2-2011 by Yankee451 because: changed "to" to "do"

edit on 22-2-2011 by Yankee451 because: changed "lead" to "led"

So...basically what it comes down to, is not that you have evidence, or proof. You have suspicious, and someone has to disprove your conspiracy views in order for you to not believe in chemtrails, even though no one has actually proved chemtrails to you in the first place.

I could just as easily say that since 2005, the moon has looked like it has been made of salt, and that I dont remember it looking that way before. Disprove it that it is made of salt.

How many times has it to be said, patents are not proof of anything except an idea that is being trademarked. Its not proof that something is workable and produced. Why do you not have the same standard of proof of people that promote chemtrail?

People have taken great pains to explain to you that just because a chemtrail hoax site claims contrails must all look the same, that does not make it true. Just because a chemtrail site claims that contrails should not cross, that does not make it true. People have shown you pics from old books and magazines about contrails persisting, and you completely dismiss it.

Basically it comes down to a suspicions and phobias about contrails and clouds. Nothing is going to ever change that of you.

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

Fair enough, but I repeat, I am investigating a suspicion, you and the rest of the lads are claiming I have no reason to be suspicious, which I obviously do.

I say you're ignoring pertinent information that would shed doubt on your convictions.

The question is to what degree you are taking heed to those suspicions. It's fine to have suspicions, but in my opinion, once those suspicions are investigated, it seems less likely that chemtrails are a real large-scale problem.

I don't think I'm ignoring any pertinent information. As far as I know, I have successfully researched this subject. I'm just choosing to not believe that a large-scale systematic spraying effort is being done.

I understand that it is possible for spraying to occur, but nothing I see in the sky has indicated to me that this spraying is happening -- i.e., the trails I see can all be explained as normal contrails.

EDIT TO ADD:
Also, I see no good evidence of a clandestine spraying operation. Sure, it's possible large-scale spraying could be done in secret without us knowing, but lots of things are "possible" -- I don't necessarily believe that all "possible" things are happening. And if that spraying is happening, the trails we see in the sky are NOT evidence of that, since they have all the characteristics of normal contrails.

reply to post by firepilot


I am not the one claiming I have no valid reason to be suspicious...I do, there's really no need to debate it, can we all admit that and move on to perhaps collaborating on the topic? I like a good rumble as much as the next guy, but this is a serious topic for me...I am genuinely concerned.

Salty moon? Do elaborate. I haven't heard about the salty moon yet...better check the flat-earth society for that one.

Do you have good reason to suspect the moon is salt? Have you found any evidence to support what you think you saw? Have you searched to see if anyone else has reported such a thing?

Seriously though. We are both guilty of flicking the sh!te, but we don't need to continue to play games. This is a topic that everyone should take seriously. If crackpots are behind it, then they need to be exposed, but if the government is behind it, they need to be exposed too. I say its the government, and I say they're using planted hoax stories as one means to discount a very real and very dangerous operation.

I didn't want to do this you know, I tried not to notice something wasn't right, because by admitting it to myself it meant my life had to change.

I wanted to be a farmer and live a simple life. That there are people on this planet who think they are so godlike they can F___ with everyone's weather is why I'm here; to help raise awareness or prove to myself that nothing is amiss and go back to examining my navel. How dare they even consider it!

We should all be concerned about this and if any of you are genuinely interested, it would go a long way to research the topic with eyes accustomed to seeing things from opposite perspectives.

Otherwise we're just sparring...fun at first, but tiring after a while.

Originally posted by Yankee451
...I wanted to be a farmer and live a simple life. That there are people on this planet who think they are so godlike they can F___ with everyone's weather is why I'm here; to help raise awareness or prove to myself that nothing is amiss and go back to examining my navel. How dare they even consider it! ...

There can certainly be changes in the weather (at least the amount of sunlight) caused by excessive contrails, especially when those contrails produce cloud cover that would not normally be there.

However, that is not necessarily a "chemtrail" issue -- just a normal contrail issue. Farmers have been discussing this issue relating to contrail and cloud cover for several decades. This impact of issue has increased with historical increases in air traffic.

I have heard this argument several times...
"The increase in air traffic is responsible for all of these persistent contrails. There are simply more planes flying...."
So, I am looking for answers here. I want some historical flight data...number of commercial flights by year specifically.
My viewpoint? The economy has fallen off of a cliff, and I believe air travel has too. To a very large extent, I would bet.
So, let's look at the data. Surely, some expert here has it at their fingertips.

I have access to 2 Boeing documents as PDF's - but they are 30 pages long & only 1 of those pages in each has the data.

One of them is viewable at contrail science if you don't mind seeing it there - I sent them a rough scan and Uncinus there posted the picture - it is comment #16 at this page - comment #15 is mine.

1965: approximately 100-150,000 departures of large jets (MTOW 66,000lb or more) and about 200-300,000 flight hours, approximately 1500 such aircraft (figures are approximate because they're eye-balled from the bar chart)

2003: 16.9 million departures and 33.92 million flight hours, 17,991 aircraft (as stated on the chart)

I also have another document - the same one as above, but updated to 2008 -

2008: 21.8 million departures, 46.3 million hours flown, 20,407 aircraft flying (again figures as stated on the chart, which is page 15 of the document, titled Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents Worldwide Operations 1959 - 2008.

The post 9/11 dip is easy to see in it.

I have the 2008 one as an electronic document & would be happy to upload it anywhere - it's only 223kb.

another source is the US's NTSB website where various tables give the amount of activity in the USA for various aircraft sizes - Part 121 is 10 seats or more - www.ntsb.gov... is the basic stats home page.

Table 5 gives the amount of scheduled and unscheduled Part 121 flying from 1990 to 2009 in the USA - 12.15 milloin hours in 1990, 18 million in 2009 - which is down from about 19.6 million in 2007, and again the post 9/11 dip is evident.

Hope that helps.

reply to post by Stewie


Not only the numbers of flights, but as I have to keep repeating (because a few just choose to ignore it??) the engines and their technology is different as well.


Meaning, over the last decade and a half, the OLDER engines that belonged to the OLDER airplanes retired, went away, as the airplanes were retired. Many reasons: Simply from getting old (too many cycles). Companies retired older gas-guzzlers for newer more fuel-efficient. (There are other corporate business reasons too....book-keeping things, tax breaks, etc). Each new airplane that was built and delivered included the NEWER high-bypass designs, ever and ever more fuel efficient. And, overall, total number of jets DID increase.

A multitude of factors are at work, here.

As to needing an "expert" to find the information on airline traffic growth??? IN this age of "Google"???

Here, this is about a study of CO2 emissions, but has a good time span depicted:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b1dc7a5806b5.jpg[/atsimg]

www.newac.eu...


Another:



spectrum.ieee.org...


ETC....Google is your friend......

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Thanks, Gaul. I am really interested in post 2008 air traffic, as well as current air traffic.

Weed, your graph is meaningless as it projects bullsh*t, and I was not asking for projections from some googled source. Google is YOUR friend, not mine.

With a decrease in air traffic that is certainly going to be evident from any actual data on CURRENT air traffic, the skies should be clearing dramatically I would think.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by Yankee451
...I wanted to be a farmer and live a simple life. That there are people on this planet who think they are so godlike they can F___ with everyone's weather is why I'm here; to help raise awareness or prove to myself that nothing is amiss and go back to examining my navel. How dare they even consider it! ...

There can certainly be changes in the weather (at least the amount of sunlight) caused by excessive contrails, especially when those contrails produce cloud cover that would not normally be there.

However, that is not necessarily a "chemtrail" issue -- just a normal contrail issue. Farmers have been discussing this issue relating to contrail and cloud cover for several decades. This impact of issue has increased with historical increases in air traffic.

Yep - there is widespread awareness among the weather/global warming "community" that contrails migth affect weather - eg see www.wrh.noaa.gov..., and yuo can google for contrail efects on weather.

Ther aer 2 forces at play:

1/ contrails expanding to form cirrus clouds, thus increasing the reflection of sunlight, and
2/ pumping pollution into the upper atmosphere in hte form of jet exhaust - for all that modern engines are much more efficient than those from the '60's & 70's, they are still combusting hydrocarbons and emitting CO2, NOx and other pollutants - if you think the IPCC is an evil conspiracy out to hoax the world on behalf of the NWO and hide the existance of chemtrails then you will be confused by their report on the effects of aircraft exhaust pollution, since it identifies it as being a major problem

Originally posted by Stewie
[With a decrease in air traffic that is certainly going to be evident from any actual data on CURRENT air traffic, the skies should be clearing dramatically I would think.

the decrease from 2007-2009 is about 1.7 million flying hours - less than 10% of the total over 2 years - and that's probably about it - it's probably on the way back up by now.

I don't know how you can conclude that it will result in a dramatic clearing - without a proper survey any variation in contrail formation from that decrease will be much the same as "noise", and 18 million hours (NTSB figure for 2009) is about the 2003-2004 figure, so it won't be any less than there were back then.

my guess is that the decrease is over and done with - from 2010 on it will be back to more flying every year until the next 2-3 year dip.

reply to post by Stewie


LOL!!!!

Weed, your graph is meaningless as it projects bullsh*t, and I was not asking for projections from some googled source.

Then use Bing! Or....whatever else is out there as an Internet Search engine!! You wanted an example.....You can go to a library, and look up similar information that way. SO can I. BUT, if I want to put it into an ATS post, how would you suggest it, from the Library?? Scan it (I don't have one), try to convert it to image form, upload to ATS Media, provide a source to verify what it is, etc, etc, etc....Talk about moving goalposts.....

Guess you're a speed reader too, huh? Since it was about 16 minutes from my post to yours, and I had two web links with lots of text to stroll through.

Oh...and that graph has a BLACK line labeled "Air traffic"....with the date range on the bottom axis. About as simple as it gets.....YES, it includes a prediction, too. But, that is also a good point in its favor.

reply to post by weedwhacker

Your graph shows air traffic going through the roof. I have seen no data, and you have provided none, that substantiates this over the last ten years. Your graph shows a huge increase, and contradicts the data brought by your Soylent.
Quite ridiculous actually, and frankly, it calls into question the rest of your assertions.

reply to post by Stewie



you could always try looking it up yourself - see if yuo can find out how many more airliners the chinese are expected to order by 2015 or 2030 for example, or predictions for gro\wth in the USA by 2020 - it's easy to find - you should get answers in the 1st page of your google search..

chemtrail believers say they are searching for the truth, but I see bugger-all actual searching going on - instead you're bleating that you havent' been spoon fed information that you like. Well that's just tough - all the info WW & I have provided is actually verifiable information - it can be checked.

Where's anything remotely resembling that quality of information supporting the chemtrail claim??

so you don't like the graph - well the historical section of it is pretty much exactly what I posted too, and what the ntsb shows.

But I would hazard a guess that they're all part of the conspiracy so you can't trust them anyway??

Back to herding cats I see...get along little kitties, get along.

Thanks for holding down the fort Stewie.

What, I get no love from the Blue Max crowd for my conciliatory tone?

Fine, belligerence it is.

I'm under the impression at this point that you guys just like seeing your words in type, so it's time for all you kitties to get in the corral. Accusing others of the actions you are guilty of is called hypocrisy.

Spare us your graphs and your statistics...we all know about lies, damned lies and statistics. Remember we're addressing laypeople here, so please don't make me dizzy with graphs. It's enough to claim there's an increase in air traffic which can explain what I've described (which it doesn't). We can check your work if we doubt you, no need to clutter the thread.

I am repeating myself...below is a quote from one of my earlier ignored posts. Please address these observations. Try not to get distracted by balls of twine or birds...I swear when you see a bird and your little kitty jaws twitch, its almost impossible to get your attention.

"Now, lets get back to a couple more reasons why I have a valid suspicion and you're wrong not to. Lookie here...a chemtrail patent. Oops, force of habit, there's chemtrail again. I meant chemtrail.

Patent for Powder Contrail:

Light scattering powder particles, surface treated to minimize imparticle cohesive forces...blah, blah, blah...talk about minutiae...for the layman lets just say they're referring to whatever forces they're using in the patent to keep dust particles from clumping. To create a cloud, you'd need your particles of dust to spread...like a cloud

patft.uspto.gov...,899,144.PN.&OS=PN/3,8 99,144&RS=PN/3,899,144

I know you've heard of the Case Orange Symposium, and I've settled down to try to read the whole report, but It's a yawner and it'll take me a while, but there are some good reviews out there and I'm a mild fan of the global research site anyway, so I don't mind pitching their review:
www.globalresearch.ca...

There's a lot of good information above that should make any caring person raise an eyebrow. Of note on the above page is this account:

"Having heard enough conspiracy theories to last me a lifetime, I hesitated researching the subject of chemtrails, and maintained skepticism. That all changed in March when I personally observed two jets seeding clouds, along with about 30 other people in the parking lot at lunchtime. Someone took a picture from her cell phone: (picture not shown, see link)

The trails lasted for hours, and looked distinctly different from other clouds. Since then, I’ve been watching the skies and can now tell when they’ve been seeded. We often have a white haze instead of a deep blue sky, even when persistent contrails aren’t visible."

Something has changed and at this point your steadfast conviction smacks not just of dogma, but I'm starting to think that part of the powder contrail pilot's job after six hours in the air is to spend two hours online writing as much gibberish as they can to overpower chat boards. Not that you guys would do that.

I doubt your sincerity when you claim to have thoroughly researched this. What I see is you only went as far as confirming your already myopic view.

Please comment on the powdered contrail patent.

Please comment on the Global Research link.