Its happend before, so why not now?

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker


It seems the majority of the chemtrail debate rages around unexplained trails not explained ones. I lump them togethar because, well, they are a trail of chemicals left by a aircraft.

So are emissions from aircraft
So are trails from airshow planes
So is the Phos-Chek and other retardants dropped from firefighting aircraft

Why not those too?

Your definition is different from those who invented the chemtrail hoax. If there was all this evidence, there would not be this conundrum where each person can tailor chemtrails to fit the limits of their imagination.

When I look at chemtrail sites, all I see are photos of random contrails..but not chemical releases from aircraft though.

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

It seems the majority of the chemtrail debate rages around unexplained trails not explained ones.

It seems to me that the majority (if not all) of the chemtrail debate rages around trails which appear to be identical in all respects to normal contrails and which faith alone says are not normal contrails.

I've yet to see a single picture of a trail that cannot be explained. But I've encountered many people who don't want to accept the explaination.

Whether any real chemtrail spraying takes place is another matter.

Originally posted by firepilot
So are emissions from aircraft
So are trails from airshow planes
So is the Phos-Chek and other retardants dropped from firefighting aircraft

Why not those too?

Your definition is different from those who invented the chemtrail hoax. If there was all this evidence, there would not be this conundrum where each person can tailor chemtrails to fit the limits of their imagination.

When I look at chemtrail sites, all I see are photos of random contrails..but not chemical releases from aircraft though.

Guess what? I believe 99.9% of those photo's are contrails!!

My point here is that the possibility exists that at least 0.01% may just be an actual chemtrail as descibed in the wiki desciption.

Originally posted by Essan
I've yet to see a single picture of a trail that cannot be explained. But I've encountered many people who don't want to accept the explaination.

Just as I have encountered people who will not accept the possibility chemtrails have ever existed contrary to the government admitting they do exist and have been used. Maybe not currently, that we know of, but they for sure exist.

One of my above post does state that high altitude dispersion will freeze the chemical just like a contrail. There is a very real possibility that chemtrails have been seen but were recognized as a contrail. Without samples or whislteblowers we will never really be sure.

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

Guess what? I believe 99.9% of those photo's are contrails!!

My point here is that the possibility exists that at least 0.01% may just be an actual chemtrail as descibed in the wiki desciption.

All possibilities exist, and it's wise never to totally discount everything. The question is what do you think is the probabilty?

In concrete terms, assuming the truth is going to be revealed unquestionably in 5 years. if you had to bet $100 on chemtrails being true, then what odds would you think would be fair, based on what you personally know of the current evidence? Even split? 10-1? 100-1? 1,000,000-1?

What are the best odds you'd feel comfortable bet $100 on?

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
Cloud seeding alone proves chemtrails exist.

So does crop dusting.

Neither are what people normally mean by chemtrails.

Please state where your goalposts are before building a straw man.

While I do have to say op, that you are keeping it civilized and are combating the situation better than most, I will have to pass on engaging in ths conversation with you. Please let me explain.

Your definition of a chemtrail is to varying and wide to narrow down a proper response to what you are trying to ask...It seems you are quick to call just about anything a chemtrail. This is fine with me, but it leaves no room for you to maybe even see(or consider) the other point of view.,

I have read the whole thread and even did some research on:

Cold War Chemical Tests Over American Cities

Were Far Below Dangerous Levels


WASHINGTON -- A series of secret tests conducted by the U.S. Army in the 1950s and 1960s did not expose residents of the United States and Canada to chemical levels considered harmful, according to a new report* from a committee of the National Research Council.

The U.S. Army released the chemical compound zinc cadmium sulfide from airplanes, rooftops, and moving vehicles in 33 urban and rural areas as part of a Cold War program to test the way biological weapons might disperse under different conditions. Zinc cadmium sulfide, a fine fluorescent powder, was chosen because its particles are similar in size to germs used in biological warfare, and because its fluorescence under ultraviolet light made it easy to trace. It is not a biological weapon, nor was it thought at the time to be toxic. But residents in affected cities -- including Minneapolis; St. Louis; Winnipeg, Manitoba; Corpus Christi, Texas; and Fort Wayne, Ind. -- became concerned about possible health effects after details of the tests became widely known in the 1990s.

"After an exhaustive, independent review requested by Congress we have found no evidence that exposure to zinc cadmium sulfide at these levels could cause people to become sick," said committee chair Rogene Henderson, senior scientist, Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute, Albuquerque, N.M. "Even when we assume the worst about how this chemical might behave in the lungs, we conclude that people would be at a higher risk simply from living in a typical urban, industrialized area for several days or, in some cases, for months."

www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=5739

I do also have to add that it is hard to find any material that is verifiable. Most of the subject matter comes from blogs and "other" studies that again are not verifiable

I wish you well in your quest for the truth.

Originally posted by Uncinus
All possibilities exist, and it's wise never to totally discount everything. The question is what do you think is the probabilty?

In concrete terms, assuming the truth is going to be revealed unquestionably in 5 years. if you had to bet $100 on chemtrails being true, then what odds would you think would be fair, based on what you personally know of the current evidence? Even split? 10-1? 100-1? 1,000,000-1?

What are the best odds you'd feel comfortable bet $100 on?

IMO the 50/50 range. I have a feeling there is much research going on up there. With increased solor storms they may trying to find a way to block harmful radiation from space from entering our atmosphere. They may be lacing the atmosphere with particles of some kind as a blocker. Maybe even something involved with HAARP. Who knows but I truly feel there is some truth to current chemtrail theory.

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
Even though this is discussing shooting down a chemicaly armed scud missile you can see that dispersion at high altitude will freeze the chemical untill it falls to a much lower altitude. It even states the particles themselves would be larger at a high altitude.

That would rule out Barium and Aluminum though. If there's a gap, then it implies a super-heated liquid, with similar properties to water, which narrows things down.

For example, your source was talking about VX, which has very different melting (-50C) and boiling (298C) points to water, and hence would have a very different looking trail, and require different conditions.

Other things to check are the refractive index, and crystal morphology, which would change the way sunlight is refracted through the trails.

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

Originally posted by Uncinus
All possibilities exist, and it's wise never to totally discount everything. The question is what do you think is the probabilty?

In concrete terms, assuming the truth is going to be revealed unquestionably in 5 years. if you had to bet $100 on chemtrails being true, then what odds would you think would be fair, based on what you personally know of the current evidence? Even split? 10-1? 100-1? 1,000,000-1?

What are the best odds you'd feel comfortable bet $100 on?

IMO the 50/50 range. I have a feeling there is much research going on up there. With increased solor storms they may trying to find a way to block harmful radiation from space from entering our atmosphere. They may be lacing the atmosphere with particles of some kind as a blocker. Maybe even something involved with HAARP. Who knows but I truly feel there is some truth to current chemtrail theory.

So you are 50% sure that the chemtrail theory is at least partly true. Do you feel this way about all fringe theories? Or are there some theories that you'd only give a 5% or less chance of being true? Maybe, say, the moon landings being faked? Or orgone cloudbusters working? Or would you say you are 50/50 on most theories?

Originally posted by liejunkie01
Your definition of a chemtrail is to varying and wide to narrow down a proper response to what you are trying to ask...It seems you are quick to call just about anything a chemtrail. This is fine with me, but it leaves no room for you to maybe even see(or consider) the other point of view.,

So what should we classify a trail of pesticide released from a crop duster? Does it not leave a trail of chemicals over a pre-determined area? Like I said, we have known chemtrails like cloud seeders and crop dusters and some believe there are unexplained trails of unknown compostion. If a plane is intentionally set up to disperse chemicals by air, then to me it leaves chemtrails as it was designed to do.

I do also have to add that it is hard to find any material that is verifiable. Most of the subject matter comes from blogs and "other" studies that again are not verifiable

I would consider a report form the U.S. National Research Council quite verifiable.

I wish you well in your quest for the truth.

Thank you and thanks for the civil reply.

Originally posted by Uncinus
So you are 50% sure that the chemtrail theory is at least partly true. Do you feel this way about all fringe theories? Or are there some theories that you'd only give a 5% or less chance of being true? Maybe, say, the moon landings being faked? Or orgone cloudbusters working? Or would you say you are 50/50 on most theories?

I never completely discount anything except reptilians and Lady Gaga is a illuminati agent.

reply to post by FreeSpeaker


But my point here is that there are degrees of belief besides 50/50. When you say "I never completely discount anything", does that then mean you automatically go to 50/50 belief on everything you can't discount?

The reason I ask is that 50/50 seems rather a strong belief for something for so little evidence. I get that you don't want to discount it. But don't you think 50% belief in it is a bit high?

Originally posted by Uncinus
For example, your source was talking about VX, which has very different melting (-50C) and boiling (298C) points to water, and hence would have a very different looking trail, and require different conditions.

Other things to check are the refractive index, and crystal morphology, which would change the way sunlight is refracted through the trails.

Its obvious your science here is ahead of mine but if we don't know the chemical composition of what supposedly is being sprayed we can't make any assumptions on its behaviour. How would the VX look differnet? If it melts at -58 °F and the air temp that high up is -70 ° F it would be just as frozen as water.

reply to post by Uncinus


You didn't ask me directly but I say 100% "they" - whomever- are spraying "something", which may or may not be in our best interests. My $100 is on the table.

The moon landings we all saw were faked IMHO, too many coincidences and clues and quirks to be totally believable. There's a lot that doesn't make sense, and considering the source of disinformation, I'd say something definitely is not right. Why believe half or 75% of what "they" tell us? I don't pick and choose, there are crazy people in power, period.

(Off topic, but on point about TPTB) - Like Chris Rock said.... "White people have gotten LESS crazy over time." --I use this example referring to their past secret tests on the public.
He also said, "to segregate an entire race for whatever reasons they thought were logical.... that is crazy, period. Black people didn't earn their rights all of a sudden.... white people in power just got less crazy."
It applies to racism and genocidal actions, ie: secret tests, atomic bombs on nations, illegal wars..... maybe they haven't got less crazy, maybe they just changed the names of actions.

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

Its obvious your science here is ahead of mine but if we don't know the chemical composition of what supposedly is being sprayed we can't make any assumptions on its behaviour. How would the VX look differnet? If it melts at -58 °F and the air temp that high up is -70 ° F it would be just as frozen as water.

-70F is actually much colder than where most planes fly. Contrails form at -40F, so for a start the plane would have to be a lot higher.

I would suspect that the different melting and boiling points, and other physical properties would make the trail look different. But I'm not sure exactly how. One key difference is that a contrail gets a lot of its mass from the water in the ambient air. A spray of VX would just be that alone, so would likely be a lot thinner.

It's quite possible that there's a trail that would look identical to a persistent contrail - however the only way that could happen would be if the air was ice-supersaturated. But then the jet would be forming a contrail anyway, so any spray would merge indistinguishably with that.

Originally posted by Uncinus
reply to post by FreeSpeaker

 

But my point here is that there are degrees of belief besides 50/50. When you say "I never completely discount anything", does that then mean you automatically go to 50/50 belief on everything you can't discount?

The reason I ask is that 50/50 seems rather a strong belief for something for so little evidence. I get that you don't want to discount it. But don't you think 50% belief in it is a bit high?

edit on 12-6-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)

The reason I'm 50/50 on chemtrails is because of my own observation. I've posted my experience on another thread so I won't go into great detail here. What I have witnessed is 99% most likely cloud seeding but to me that should be reported to the public. I go to my lake to get clean air away from the city and have no desire to breath in silver iodide while there.

Your right that i'm not always 50/50. Some things I might dismiss as much as 99% but I have been wrong too many times to make that percentage 100%. I actually like being wrong because nothing teaches better than making a mistake and making a fool out of yourself.

reply to post by FreeSpeaker


Did it look like this?

Because that is what cloud seeding looks like.

well, if we are going to define 'chemtrails' as vaguely as possible to provide a floating definition from 'those lines in the sky" (which ones?) to cloud seeding, to airplane exhaust, then SURE, chemtrails exist.

But if they are defined in the traditional way as being the majority of the lines we see in the sky, full of 'barium' and lead poisoning the population, causing diseases and common head colds, and geoengineering the planet, then I'm going to have to ask FOR SOME ACTUAL EVIDENCE!

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

What I have witnessed is 99% most likely cloud seeding but to me that should be reported to the public. I go to my lake to get clean air away from the city and have no desire to breath in silver iodide while there.

Where do you live (state?) And how often do you see this 'cloud seeding'?

Most people seem to define 'chemtrails' as the majority of the 'lines' we see behind planes in the sky.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

But if they are defined in the traditional way as being the majority of the lines we see in the sky, full of 'barium' and lead poisoning the population, causing diseases and common head colds, and geoengineering the planet, then I'm going to have to ask FOR SOME ACTUAL EVIDENCE!

I do not now or have I ever believed all those lines in the sky are chemtrails or that there is some worldwide plan to poison us all. Who would be left to pay taxes?

For that to be true, I aslo would need some evidence.

Nonetheless I still believe there is a project of some kind, smaller than the global scale, going on up there and it involves dispersing chemicals in the upper atmosphere.