Chemtrails 101

I said he was an FBI head and he was... he was the head of the L.A. FBI. Anyway, the government says chemtrails are a hoax and I get accused of not backing up my claims with science. So here you all go, science from the government admitting they are conducting aerosol spraying operations A.K.A. chemtrails.

You wanted the hard science, have fun going through it.

Aersol Spraying Properties

Originally posted by inmate2276
Anyway, the government says chemtrails are a hoax and I get accused of not backing up my claims with science. So here you all go, science from the government admitting they are conducting aerosol spraying operations A.K.A. chemtrails.

You wanted the hard science, have fun going through it.

Aersol Spraying Properties

Why not give it it's actual title??

Atmospheric Aerosol Properties and Climate Impacts

- nothing about spraying there at all.

I see also nothing at all in it about the Govt admitting they are conducting aerosol spraying operations. Why am I not surprised? Well that would be because this report isn't actually news - I've read it before.

The report is about measuring the impact of atmospheric aerosols on climate change - do you know what atmospheric aerosols are??

they are everything in the atmosphere that is not a gas - so that includes clouds, dust, ash from volcanic eruptions, the dust you kick up with your feet, salt spray from the oceans, dust blown by wind from deserts or from machinery that is mining or reaping or doing anything else that throws up dust, and, yes, contrails and soot from jet engines and internal combustion engines too, and all sorts of other stuff from many other sources.

But perhaps I missed it - so how about you tell us the bit where you think the Government is admitting it is spraying chemtrails in it?

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Because you can't make a report like this, without testing.
And there is a chapter on dispersing aerosols from aircraft maybe you missed it.

Originally posted by inmate2276
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Because you can't make a report like this, without testing.

This report is about measurement of aerosols. What "testing" do you think they undertook

And there is a chapter on dispersing aerosols from aircraft maybe you missed it.

I guess I did - which chapter is it?

There are only 4 chapters -
1 - Introduction;
2 - Remote Sensing and In Situ Measurements of Aerosol Properties, Burdens, and Radiative Forcing
3 - Modeling the Effects of Aerosols on Climate Forcing
4 - The Way Forward

Perhaps you meant it was a section smaller than a chapter but I don't see any of those about spraying - I was wondering if you were a bit confused by this section perhaps:

2 .2 .4. IN SITU AEROSOL PROFILING PROGRAMS
In addition to long-term ground based measurements, regular long-term aircraft in situ
measurements recently have been implemented at several locations. (etc)

But this is clearly about using aircraft for measuring aerosols sometimes, but mainly they use ground and satellites.

So yes please - where is the bit about spraying??

I found the section years ago that states that they spray this crap for their modelling purposes but I don't have time to go through the whole thing again. Anyway, if you really want proof that the skies have changed, look at a photo album from the 80's and try and find one "persistant contrail". Post here when you find one please and thank you.

reply to post by inmate2276


Surely you should simply be able to point out the section of the report that covers the spraying??

And certainly the skies have changed and there are a lot more contrails now - that is because there are a lot more aircraft, and the fuel-efficient engines of these days engines are more conducive to creating contrails than older ones.

There are many photos of persistent contrails from the 1980's and earlier - and this news report:



Photo of a persistent contrail from 1985 - www.flickr.com...

This thread is also about contrails before 1990 - www.abovetopsecret.com... you're not the same guy who started it are you??

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


If you still can't tell the differnce between a chemtrail and a contrail I can't help you. I have people to wake up.

reply to post by inmate2276


So no comment on my showing that your claim that there are no persistent contrails before 1990 is a load of rubbish? Are you going to recant it, or are you just going to keep repeating it hoping the next time no-one will bother to prove you wrong??

And still unable to tell me which bit in that report shows the authorities are spraying something? Again - why not just admit you are wrong?

According to Michael J Murphy, one of the makers of "What in the World are they Spraying", it is not possible to visually tell the difference between a chemtrail and a contrail at all - persistent contrails exist, and the only way to tell which is which is to test them chemically - which AFAIK no-one has done:



So perhaps you could sort it out with him just exactly what the difference is and come back and let us know.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


You keep misquoting me, I don't know when they started testing their aerosol spraying. All i'm saying is that you probably won't find one in you photo album from the 80's because they weren't doing it every day back then. (Even though they were flying everyday). But you keep twisting my words all you want, I'm done with people like you, I'm trying to save the intelligent from having aluminum filled lungs, not you.

Originally posted by inmate2276
Anyway, if you really want proof that the skies have changed, look at a photo album from the 80's and try and find one "persistant contrail". Post here when you find one please and thank you.

and:

Originally posted by inmate2276
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

You keep misquoting me, I don't know when they started testing their aerosol spraying. All i'm saying is that you probably won't find one in you photo album from the 80's because they weren't doing it every day back then.

How can I misquote you when I didn't actually quote you at all???

you claimed I wouldn't find a picture of a persistent contrail in an album from the 1980's and it took me only about 3-4 minutes to do so to prove you wrong - stop blaming me for your mistakes dude!

And when are you going to fess up that you were wrong to say that report has proof of a spraying programme??!!

The idea that the con-trails dissipate slowly and are similar to clouds makes good sense to me. But what is odd is that I don't remember the spreading and hovering like that until I moved to AZ a few years ago. I never saw that on the east coast. I remember con-trails when I was a kid. But I don't remember them behaving the way they do now.

Interesting as well, I work for an herbalist in town. Whenever there is a high amount of chem/con trails or whatever they are, the number of people coming to us with upper respiratory problems spikes a couple days later and it stays that way for 2 or 3 days.

Of course correlation is not causation, but it certainly is indicative of something not so healthy. Perhaps there is another explanation, but it appears that whatever is being sprayed/left behind/burned off physically irritates a lot of people.

reply to post by Nick101


Conditions for contrails are often the same as conditions for the cirrus clouds that can precede fronts - so perhaps it is the change in weather that is affecting people.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


It is SUCH a desecration to knowledge, and a BOON to ignorance when I see this sort of claim, made:

Conditions for contrails are often the same as conditions for the cirrus clouds that can precede fronts.....

When the person, or even the ATS "member", who write a sentence as the above ^ ^ ^ doesn't grasp the irony...



....Oh dear, oh dear...........

What is to come of society, if such ignorance is allowed to foster, unfettered??

I don't believe we have ever considered tracking weather because for long stretches of days and weeks....its just sunny and hot. 103 vs 105..... not a big difference. When we look at the sky and see the trails we make larger batches of certain formulas because we know people will need them. Its pretty interesting.

reply to post by Nick101


What on Earth does this mean, please?:

When we look at the sky and see the trails we make larger batches of certain formulas because we know people will need them.

reply to post by ProudBird


We're herbalists and we have a few formulas that support respiratory function. We make more of them when we see a lot of con/chem trails. Because we know that a couple days later, the number of people coming in for those formulas will increase. It happens every time.

reply to post by Nick101


It would be interesting to do a study on your clients in these circumstances - looking at the weather & other atmospheric conditions, frequency of individuals being affected, etc.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I agree. There are so many other issues we deal with it would be difficult. So I suppose for now my observation really only adds up to be anecdotal. Will post something here if I figure out how to get more specific empirical information one way or the other.

reply to post by Nick101


Ah, I see thank you.

Psycho-somatic hysterical reaction, then? I mean, if people (your 'clients') come to you for "herbal" concoctions (is this a form of 'Homeopathy'?)

Because if people fall for the lie that a contrail over their heads, roughly six to eight miles above, somehow can affect them? Well......they have bigger problems that cirrus clouds over their heads.

Sometimes a bit of education can dispel many of their "symptoms"....

reply to post by ProudBird


Interesting perspective. Makes sense. I think that is true for some people. But most of our clients are pretty highly educated and conservative. Many of them have never even heard of chem trails and would have an initial reaction to the idea that is more in line with yours. So I'm not sure that is the rule in this case.