Reguarding the history of chemtrails

reply to post by djcarlosa


But again, this is just extending the definition to "chemtrails" to any kind of aerial spraying, thus basically rendering the term useless.

We all know that there has been aerial applications of defoliants. More recently it's been used in Columbia on Coca fields:

www.glifocidio.org...

But it's not chemtrails, as most people use the term to refer to things like this as being somehow unusual:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c25769332b61.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Uncinus
reply to post by FreeSpeaker

 

See this news archive search, quite a bit of coverage, but peaked around 1994.

Still, the 1981 story was picked up by the AP, so ran in several papers.

Thank you again. I didn't know about the google archives. What a great tool!! Obviously the info had been out there for some time so I'm surprised it took until '99 for this topic to flare up.

Originally posted by djcarlosa
I would like to bring the agent orange program used by the united states during Vietnam is such a chemtrail program that has been proven and admitted and as this is a thread on a history of chemtrails i thought it should be posted here.

edit on 27-6-2011 by djcarlosa because: (no reason given)

link:en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 27-6-2011 by djcarlosa because: (no reason given)

Agent oragne is a good example although I'm not sure if it was kept secret during its use. I'm one of the people who believes any chemical intentionally sprayed from a aircraft is a chemtrail. Not the definition of the consiracy chemtrail but simply a trail of chemicals realsed from a plane, barring exhaust. Some have suggested I should simply call it aerial spraying but chemtrail sounds soo much better.

A side note about agent orange. The Canadian government used agent orange to clear foliage beside its highways and they even used volunteer students to hold up marker flags for the pilots doing the spraying.

reply to post by FreeSpeaker

Agent Orange contained 2,4-D which was contaminated with dioxin. 2,4-D is a commonly used herbicide, found in many consumer weed control products.

If your concern is with the spraying of insecticides and herbicides you should not refer to them a "chemtrails". The term "chemtrail" is specific to persistent, high altitude trails. There seems to be a movement of sorts the expand the use of the term to include any sort of aerial spraying (spraying which does require permits in most states). The effort seems to be because, after many years of digging, there is no evidence to be found for the true "chemtrails" being anything but frozen water vapor.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FreeSpeaker

 

Agent Orange contained 2,4-D which was contaminated with dioxin. 2,4-D is a commonly used herbicide, found in many consumer weed control products.

If your concern is with the spraying of insecticides and herbicides you should not refer to them a "chemtrails".

Please don't pretend agent orange is just a simple herbicide. The effects on the vietnamese are quite telling and horrific. It may be classified as a herbicide but can also be used as a weapon.

The Vietnam Red Cross reported as many as 3 million Vietnamese people have been affected by Agent Orange, including at least 150,000 children born with birth defects.[35] According to Vietnamese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 4.8 million Vietnamese people were exposed to Agent Orange, resulting in 400,000 people being killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects.[1]

Children in the areas where Agent Orange was used have been affected and have multiple health problems, including cleft palate, mental disabilities, hernias, and extra fingers and toes.[36] In the 1970s, high levels of dioxin were found in the breast milk of South Vietnamese women, and in the blood of U.S. soldiers who had served in Vietnam.[37] The most affected zones are the mountainous area along Truong Son (Long Mountains) and the border between Vietnam and Cambodia. The affected residents are living in substandard conditions with many genetic diseases.[38]

Wiki

Originally posted by Phage
The term "chemtrail" is specific to persistent, high altitude trails. There seems to be a movement of sorts the expand the use of the term to include any sort of aerial spraying (spraying which does require permits in most states). The effort seems to be because, after many years of digging, there is no evidence to be found for the true "chemtrails" being anything but frozen water vapor.

edit on 6/27/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

The reason I believe chemtrails do need to be redefined is becuase a plane does not need to be at high altitude to produce a contrail. I've argued this before, just becuase some "proponents" of chemtrails believe they must be at high altitude and that chemtrails last longer than contrails does not mean everyone who believe's in them has the same opinion. If contrails can be formed at ground level then there's no reason a chemtrail couldn't be either. As for contrails, i'm on the debunkers side. They can last minutes and hours, all depending on atmospheric conditions, and any claims otherwise are just bogus and worth ignoring.

reply to post by FreeSpeaker

A weapon perhaps. A strategic weapon. But not a very good weapon when it affects your friends and your own troops. It was used as a defoliant. As I said, Agent Orange was contaminated with dioxin. The 2,4-D used domestically is not.

Contrails can form at ground level only when temperatures a very low and humidity is high. Pretty rare conditions. Again, the term "chemtrail" has a specific meaning. Broadening the term to include known programs is disingenuous and only serves to lend credence to those who claim that contrails are "chemtrails". There is no need to redefine, the terms are already there and are more accurate; crop dusting, cloud seeding, fire fighting.

Originally posted by Phage
Contrails can form at ground level only when temperatures a very low and humidity is high. Pretty rare conditions. Again, the term "chemtrail" has a specific meaning. Broadening the term to include known programs is disingenuous and only serves to lend credence to those who claim that contrails are "chemtrails". There is no need to redefine, the terms are already there and are more accurate; crop dusting, cloud seeding, fire fighting.

edit on 6/27/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Not very rare on the Canadian prairies in the winter. -35c is just a normal december day.

The only problem I see in redefining the term is you debunkers will have to form new arguements. You know yourself many of the proponents of chemtrails fixated on high altitude becuase that is where contrails are most likely to form.

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
Not very rare on the Canadian prairies in the winter. -35c is just a normal december day.

The only problem I see in redefining the term is you debunkers will have to form new arguements. You know yourself many of the proponents of chemtrails fixated on high altitude becuase that is where contrails are most likely to form.

That's not the issue, the issue is that the established definition makes 'chemtrails' completely bunk. Sure aerial spraying has occured, but 'chemtrailing' (widespread, high altitude spraying of chemicals for [insert reason] by [insert organization]) is completely fantasy. Well, high altitude spraying in and of itself is fallacious.

reply to post by FreeSpeaker

Not very rare on the Canadian prairies in the winter. -35c is just a normal december day

With relative humidity above 90% ?

Proponents of "chemtrails" are fixated because the only evidence they have is what they see with their own eyes, that contrails can persist. Unless you believe otherwise you need to use another term, one of the ones that already exist.

Originally posted by adeclerk
That's not the issue, the issue is that the established definition makes 'chemtrails' completely bunk. Sure aerial spraying has occured, but 'chemtrailing' (widespread, high altitude spraying of chemicals for [insert reason] by [insert organization]) is completely fantasy. Well, high altitude spraying in and of itself is fallacious.

edit on 6/27/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)

I agree the definition is bunk. Thats why I would like it redefined to include the possibility of lower altitude chemtrails.

Originally posted by Phage
With relative humidity above 90% ?

Often enough that ice fog is a problem in Canada.

Originally posted by Phage
Proponents of "chemtrails" are fixated because the only evidence they have is what they see with their own eyes, that contrails can persist. Unless you believe otherwise you need to use another term, one of the ones that already exist.

Oh, I believe contrails do persist but I'm too fond of the term chemtrail to stop using it.

So would locust spraying missions over Africa fall into "chemtrails"? Or mosquito spraying missions too?
Firefighting? Because we sure dropped a lot of chemical and right onto the ground too.
Thats the problem with this conspiracy, there is no single definition and anyone can make up their own personal variety based on the beliefs and imagination.

And once you start bringing in things that are not conspiratorial but normal, as evidence of the conspiracy, then you no longer even have a conspiracy. The people who invented the chemtrail hoax, did not do it from a massing of evidence (even so they claimed), but from trying to amass money. They made claims of contrails where they should not be, or that contrails can only last a few seconds, even though that is bunk.

You know what the answer to chemtrails is?

The answer is $16.95
willthomasonline.net...

Originally posted by firepilot
So would locust spraying missions over Africa fall into "chemtrails"? Or mosquito spraying missions too?
Firefighting? Because we sure dropped a lot of chemical and right onto the ground too.

Nope. I don't considered admitted chemical spraying a "chemtrail". If they kept it a secret I would though.

Originally posted by firepilot
Thats the problem with this conspiracy, there is no single definition and anyone can make up their own personal variety based on the beliefs and imagination.

I couldn't agree more. The definition sucks.

Originally posted by firepilot
And once you start bringing in things that are not conspiratorial but normal, as evidence of the conspiracy, then you no longer even have a conspiracy. The people who invented the chemtrail hoax, did not do it from a massing of evidence (even so they claimed), but from trying to amass money. They made claims of contrails where they should not be, or that contrails can only last a few seconds, even though that is bunk.

I only use such examples as reasoning for the possibility chemtrails could exist. We have the know how and the ability to do so based on such examples.

Originally posted by firepilot
You know what the answer to chemtrails is?

The answer is $16.95
willthomasonline.net...

edit on 27-6-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)

Is it a good read? You recommend?

Just kidding of coarse.