Is ATS Supporting Ignorance Concerning Chemtrails? I think so.

reply to post by bekod

so you see there is real man made clouds

Sure is! Although cloud seeding is not making man made clouds, it's simply goading clouds that are capable of producing rain into producing rain.

You wanna see some man made clouds? Check this out.

Contrails=Manmade Clouds...They don't have jack on this! Space Shuttle Rocket Booster Test Makes Rain,



Now thats a man made cloud

reply to post by weedwhacker


I didn't say all persistent trails are chemtrails - though the huge quantity of these experiments make a comparison to a garage tinkering beyond fallacious. I take it you took absolutely no time to research the matter, even after being provided some great study links.

reply to post by ZombieJesus


Technically.....

....for all air traffic to fly below 26,000 feet. I don't think you would like that trade very much though, those engines can be rather loud, as thats one of the main reasons aircraft fly at the altitudes they do.

The "noise" difference from 26,000 to, say...36,000 ain't that big.

The MAIN thing about altitude is fuel burn....and thus, economy, and range. Also, the winds are a consideration...WHEN they are favorable for your direction...(tailwinds). Winds generally stronger, higher...but, varies greatly by place on Earth. For instance, over the Pacific? Not the North or South Pacific, but more equatorial, winds are almost always very light. Lots of time, from between the West Coast and Hawai'i, I barely have seen more than 30-40 knots....usually less, and often at an angle to the course.

So, for every weight and desired cruise speed, there is an "optimum" altitude/temperature combination. Too low, and you waste fuel. Too warm (above "standard"), and it burns excess fuel. Too high, and performance suffers, AND you waste fuel struggling to maintain the altitude...takes more power than necessary just a few thousand feet lower.

One more trade-off is for long flights (like cross-country Westbound) and VERY strong headwinds. Because they're (the jet-stream) happens to be right on your preferred course over the ground. (Ground track).

SO....I have often elected to cruise down at 28,000...even 26,000 in order to get clear of those winds! See, up at 36,000 and 160 knots of wind, you burn less fuel per hour, but you are there longer, to cover the same physical distance.

Dropping to FL 280 or FL 260, and losing about 100+ knots of headwind, you win in the long run.....and, this is something that every pilot will consider, for each flight. No two flights are ever the same. Even on the same routes....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SO, I distracted myself.....to avoid ALL contrails, and fly at, say....FL 240 at all times (impractical anyway, because there is too much traffic already)....it could, (in an alternate Universe), be made mandatory BUT at a HUGE increase in cost to the airline customer. Longer flight times, higher fuel burns (and expense)...potentially reduced range (or leaving payload behind). SO, more stops, or less profit (again)....and that would be made up in fare prices.......

so you think this stopaerialspraying.com... is not for the real chem trails well then you need to get what you get sick, never damage, sores DNA damage, respiratory problems, the list is long the problem is who is doing it and what they really use some of it classified, DOD and GOV doc.

Originally posted by bekod
this is one explanation www.sciencedaily.com... and this is an other addins.waow.com... so you see there is real man made clouds

edit on 25-2-2011 by bekod because: got link to up load, added info , word edit spelling, text update

and then lets see you debunk this stopaerialspraying.com... yes i challenge you to debunk it, do your best. and tell me again there is no chemtrails.

edit on 25-2-2011 by bekod because: editting

Thats not cloud making, thats cloud seeding. Cloud seeding requires existing rainstorms to seed, its not making clouds...

reply to post by bekod


Thank you for the information in the links. Very interesting stuff; unfortunately my current mathematical ability is entry-level university (as a supporting subject)... Translation=not much use for understanding the equations in those pages. However, I've decided to save copies of the pages for the sake of future understanding once I get my maths up to speed.

I would suggest that the people involved in HAARP studies would certainly be interested in the review and compilation of studies of that nature. In addition, those types of experimentation would probably be appreciated by anybody involved in atmospheric aerosol dispersion programs (chemtrailers).


I just want to add that at this time I'm simply an 'interested observer', watching both sides of the debate with a kind of zen detachment. I see many flaws with the believer stance - some of it is so ridiculous as to make me wonder whether 'CIA provocateurs' are waving the equivalent to the 'no planer' placards, seeking to encourage ridicule of the subject from otherwise well-intentioned skeptics. I see pseudo-skepticism at work in these threads; I see genuine skepticism, and I see people with real concerns who are looking for the truth of the matter, worried about the long-term effects of any possible aerosol dispersion programs.


******* ******* ******** *******


Regarding the content of the thread so far, I have some observations: I agree with Dimensional Detective's thoughts earlier on in the thread; 'fighting the good fight' is necessary.

SonnyI presented a list of 'biological/chemical weapons experimentation on unwitting citizens' in recent history (and those are the times we know about...) Star for the reminder.

I found it intriguing that NetworkDude basically conceded that chemtrail experimentation had taken place, suggesting that the crux of the argument - the whole of the reason for such loud protestation, is this: that it doesn't happen any more.

Is that it? Is that what incites such vitriol on the boards?

NB - The rhetorical question is intended to inspire instrospection


******* ****** ******** *******


I am not getting involved in the debate, other than to play devil's advocate and say 'It could be happening - if it is, how? Is there anything out there already that would count as evidence to anyone but a pseudo-skeptic?'

I will be looking for myself. Detached, independent observer - a pebble in the stream of vitriol.

That's my position for the time being, until I've had chance to research to my own satisfaction, I suggest that anyone with a genuine concern about the possible reality of the chemtrail phenomenon take a similar approach.

Don't get bogged down in the arguments; some of the 'believers' are quite probably on the same team as the worst of the 'pseudo-skeptics'.


******** ******** ******** ********


Oh - and one more thing. Thanks for the suggestion Weed; I might just approach Hollywood (obviously editing the whole concept to fit within the framework of an action thriller). A feature film could inspire interest amongst hundreds of thousands of people around the globe who might not otherwise know anything about the PTB's little experiments on their unwitting citizens (historic and current)

And as for your suggestion that it is 'fanciful rubbish'..? Imagination is the foundation of ideas, and the foundation of science. Unimaginative people don't know how to think outside the box, and as a result, when they take up scientific careers they usually end up 'debunking' instead of providing novel avenues of research for the betterment of humanity.

In fact, you could refer to 'imagination' as the cloud-seeding of the brain's thought processes...

NB - With the proceeds from the sale of the screenplay, I could get some proper research commissioned...

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by ZombieJesus

 

the thing is they still leave a trial and with the spraying of chems, is that not a chem trail?, and the look at the new link i put in stopaerialspraying.com... and there is no chem trails ?? ya and the sun does not shine it burns.

No, they don't. Cloud seeding is done by releasing silver iodide flares while traveling through the inflow of a cloud.

Please take a look at this thread here.

What "Chemtrails" aren't.

As for the link, the first section deals with pesticides and cloud seeding, nothing to do with "chemtrails".

The next part deals with a military paper talking about the feasability of weather manipulation, not actually enforcing it.

Also, the overview is extremely biased, please take a look at a lot of the sources cited

reply to post by FlyInTheOintment


Ummmmmm....in your reply to bekod, and that post?:

Thank you for the information in the links. Very interesting stuff...

I believe you may wish to take another look. bekod posed the question of whether those papers had anything to do with HAARP....well....ummmm.....did you read the whole thing?

The whole essay was related to astronomy. Distant galaxies. Nebulae....in space.

SO, no.....HAARP has nothing at all to do with it.....NOR with local weather, here on Earth.

HAARP affect the ionosphere. This layer of our "atmosphere" doesn't even begin until about 40-50 kilometers above the surface!! How high do commercial airliners fly, again?

reply to post by FlyInTheOintment

well here is the paper on what is in chem trails the health risk, it makes me sick

unlike normal condensation trails, these trails do not dissipate after ten minutes or so. Instead, they expand outwards, remaining as huge cloud like projections, often the length of the sky, floating there for hours after their release. Some observers of this issue claim that these chemtrails can consist of laboratory created RNA, aluminum oxide, ethylene dibromide, barium, and other yucky things. Some chemtrails include polymer fibers. If so, they hold a plethora of risk for the humans below, including neurological disturbances, heart problems, breathing problems, etc.

here is the link
www.bariumblues.com...

reply to post by weedwhacker


Noted.

Thanks for the clarification weed

reply to post by bekod


From your quote from your source:

Some observers of this issue claim that these chemtrails can consist of laboratory created RNA, aluminum oxide, ethylene dibromide, barium, and other yucky things.

Merely conjecture. How did these "observers" conclude these chemicals are present?

well it seems that people do not read what is in front of them so this www.globalresearch.ca... part of the above link "We continually witness bizarre meteorological occurrences as powerful electromagnetic devices manipulate both the jet stream and individual storm fronts to create artificial weather and climatic conditions. Black operations projects embedded within these aerosol missions are documented to sicken and disorient select populations with biological test agents and psychotronic mind/mood control technologies"

you need to go back and see all of my post in this thread for it to make sense how one post link leads to another post ink, that leads to the truth we are being poisoned, not just by one group but many. if you do not believe that is fine but i do. there is nothing i can do for you that deny it but you that know, well we to do something i just hope it is not to late. some of the findings are to seen on the web no copy can be made of the links or the page, it could be just me, but go back the key terms and words are there it is a lot of work yes but this might just bring back clear blue skies not gray. let us hope.

reply to post by bekod


LOL!!!

Those people who wrote that have NO IDEA what they are talking about!!!

Pseudo-scientific claptrap!! They are either imbeciles, or just so paranoid that they've lost their marbles....really, there isn't any validity to what they say, in that section you isolated and posted!

reply to post by weedwhacker
think what you want for i know as well as others what is what and yes some day all will know till then think what you want, the sun does not shine it burns the rain is not acid and the snow is safe.

Yes the bias against this topic is quite glaring. Especially in light of the many other topics like prophecies and predictions, UFO's, etc. The ignorance of Chemtrails evidence is one thing but the bias by the ATS mods and staff against the topic itself is ridiculous IMO.

reply to post by weedwhacker




ETA - Redacted bulk of post...

However, I still believe that this topic - toxic 'chemtrail doping' of land and atmosphere, land-locked bodies of water - merits serious consideration and investigations. Even the skeptics admit that it happened in the past. They only argue against it happening now.

In itself, it strikes me that there is no logical justification for the aggressively intoned posts, the ridicule heaped upon 'chemtrail believers', and the basic 'pseudo-skeptic protocol' of muddying the waters, lumping all 'believers' into one category, ad hominems, ignoring most of what is written by 'believers' (picking up on one minor detail to find fault) etc, etc, etc.

The fact that I have redacted material here does not in any way indicate that I have taken a final position on the matter.

****** ****** ******

Remainder of original post:


When you take a step back from this topic and view it from a position of emotional detachment (in the knowledge of how the world works), it's quite clear to see what's happening.

"Feign weakness, when you are strong."

This tactic has been employed as a means of hustling/ trapping people into making stupid statements, as a tool of the trade. And that's just one aspect of what's going on here. I'm confident that there's a collaborative effort to get this subject classified as a hoax. Until I can better understand the dynamics of the arguments on both sides of the fence, the science behind the experimentation, and the history of experimentation/ current thinking on the nature of the 'conspiracy', I won't be commenting further.

Those 'no planer' placards are waving, and the cyber-warfare teams are out in force. It's actually quite worrying.


Ciao.

reply to post by FlyInTheOintment

thank you for getting it, there is a lot of unknown classified research going on, but if you are up too it, piece by piece you can see what is going on. The trick is having the proof, knowing what it is called the pat used the authors that come up with the research papers, the funding for it and who is doing what. can you remember the first time you had seen a X in the sky? this might explain it www.bariumblues.com...

The other possibility is that as part of the HAARP mission, a particulate grid must be created to allow for the operation of an "over-the horizon" radar system.

HAARP itself is located halfway between Anchorage and Fairbanks Alaska. Its first phase was completed in 1995, and it employed a 3 by 6 grid of 18 antennas. There are three towers designed to transmit extremely low frequency (ELF) waves. When these towers signal such beams on up through the atmosphere, into the ionosphere, they affect the electrojet (the high altitude jetstream, with ultra-high speed winds, that have a good deal to do with the weather patterns on earth below) in a controlled manner. The main strategy consists of beaming these ELF waves in such a way as to hit at right angles to the electrojet. This causes the river of electro-magnetic energy to spread sideways.

From the link, just a taste, does it leave a bad taste in your mouth? It doe sin mine knowing this is what is going on, mind you this is just one of many reasons you will see an X a chem trial or trials.

reply to post by bekod


Actually I'm a bit concerned that I've jumped into defending what you posted without fully checking the details.

Without depth of understanding of the maths involved I just scanned over the page and made several major assumptions. Excruciatingly bad research on my part.

To confirm, I am no longer in support of the material that was posted from the following source, in the context with which it was posted.

Caltech - PHOTOIONIZATION MODELS FOR ISOLATED CLOUDS

Despite my downright frustration, it can't be denied that I made some whopping errors and assumptions in my ultra-quick, once-only review of highly technical material. Teaches me for playing devil's advocate. I await smug retribution from a certain gardening implement.

The fact that I've walked right over the edge of a bear pit doesn't negate the main focus of my concerns, and I'll still be looking into all sides of the chemtrail issue.

Incidentally, part of what I wrote in response to Weedwhacker's comment still stands and has nothing to do with the material linked by Bekod.

Taken from redacted material in post by FlyInTheOintment

Anyone using HAARP to manipulate the ionosphere would be interested in studies relating to the dispersion of particulates in the atmosphere.

Here's a little quote, from a fairly 'regular' site, which chucks a spanner in the works of your argument (inferred as: 'The ionosphere is too high for aerosol dispersion in the troposhere to have any effect....')

A Complex System

The Earth's atmosphere is far more complex than a simple onion-layered picture would suggest. These layers exchange gas and energy all the way out into the depths of the invisible magnetosphere, and deep into the atmosphere. One of the most interesting of these atmospheric layers is the ionosphere: a layer of charged particles surrounding the Earth at an altitude of about 100 kilometers.

Regents of the University of California - educational materials - "Living With A Star"

And now, I'll bow out for the time being - until I get my facts straightened up. There is something going on with this whole chemtrail fiasco, and I can't let it go until I'm satisfied with the conclusions I reach...

reply to post by bekod


Just a quick note to clarify - I don't actually mean to sound like I'm completely shunning your posts or efforts to bring the subject to the fore. I will look into everything you've posted while I research the topic more fully. I do think there's something fishy going on with regards to the actual phenomenon of chemtrails, and with regards to the 'public' response to the issue.