Chemtrails in Arizona this Week.

reply to post by dplum517


Also might want to have a read about anecdotal evidence. It's incredibly unreliable (and if being accepted as evidence, it's the lowest form), it isn't used as the only supporting evidence of something. There is nothing extant that only has anecdotal evidence for it's existence.

Something to think about.

**ATTENTION**

Please refrain from attacking each other. Please instead of replying to personal attacks or off-topic remarks, alert the staff via the Alert! feature or the complaint feature so it may be looked into.

Further disruption of this thread will result in a potential loss of posting privileges.

Thank You.

~Keeper
ATS Moderator

reply to post by adeclerk


I realize it can be ....but not always.

Witness testimony is a common form of evidence in law, and law has mechanisms to test witness evidence for reliability or credibility. Legal processes for the taking and assessment of evidence are formalized. Some witness testimony could be described as anecdotal evidence, such as individual stories of harassment as part of a class action lawsuit. However, witness testimony can be tested and assessed for reliability. Examples of approaches to testing and assessment include the use of questioning, evidence of corroborating witnesses, documents, video and forensic evidence. Where a court lacks suitable means to test and assess testimony of a particular witness, such as the absence of forms of corroboration or substantiation it may afford that testimony limited or no "weight" when making a decision on the facts.

See, I am a witness. And I have verified the reliability and credibility of my own eyes. I am not lying to myself or anyone else. So, if we were in a court of law, there would be ways to verify testimony far enough to at least get some more investigation done.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by waynos
Annee, if your still here, I understand that your feeling a bit bashed and your last few posts on the matter scream "defensive shell" at me.

Oh no - - I'm fine. I've been doing forums for a long time.

I just don't play "Ping Pong". I said what I had to say. There is nothing more for me to say.

. . . different people have said things like cloud seeding never happens when the there are no clouds to seed and the skies are blue, what is your reaction to that?

I've researched cloud seeding. I feel no reason to go into that - - because it is a known. We are discussing unknown.

Of course - - over 20 years in AZ I've seen cloud formations many would claim are Chemtrails. I don't know.

I'm speaking of one incident. That I watched through very good binoculars. 2 planes making a Tic-Tac-Toe type pattern - - - turning and crossing over each other's.

Like I said - - I KNOW what I saw. Do I know what it is? NO

I only suggest possible weather manipulation because these formations only seem to occur during times storms are in the vicinity (meaning hundreds of miles away). And yes I am aware how air/moisture changes affect contrails.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Annie, I think Aloysius' point is that he's not questioning what you saw, but your interpretation of what it was you saw.

OK. But there is no interpretation of what I saw.

There is no question that 2 planes were turning and crossing in a Tic-Tac-Toe pattern. They created a grid. Why? I don't know.

Its only a suggestion that it might be some kind of weather manipulation. But I don't know.

I only know - what I saw - is what I saw.

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by Off_The_Street

 

So you aren't apart of the Chemtrail program. Great.

The rest of your feel good stories about experience and history mean nothing. They prove nothing. They certainly don't prove chemtrails don't exist.

True. I can't prove that "chem-trails" don't exist, any more than you can't prove I'm not the Long-Lost King of France. If I were to make that claim, you'd probably expect me to come with at least some evidence for my assertion, wouldn't you? You're the one who is making a claim that persistent contrails are not what everyone else says they are; shouldn't you come up with some evidence for them?

You say you believe persistent contrails are really a part of a Huge Secret Plot by [we don't know who] who is spraying [we don't know what] in order to [we don't know what] so that [we don't know why].

I say that what we're seeing are tiny ice crystals caused by ingested water vapor exhausted froom the aircraft engines into the ambient air where it flash-freezes. I say that if the temperature is above minus 40 degrees and the relative humidity is less than 100%, the crystals will sublimate (because they don't melt at that temperature, any more than dry ice does at room temperature) into water vapor within 30 seconds or so and the contrail goes away. If the temperature is below minus 40 deg and the temperature is at 100% or higher (and yes, the relative humidity can be higher than 100%), then the contrail persists.

You have your explanation for your belief, which, I assume involves hundreds of thousands of people engaged in a secret plot for no discernable reason that you or your fellow believers can agree upon, and which seems to have more self-contradictions than a politician's speech.

I have my reasons for my belief, which includes experimental evidence of water vapor acting the way it does in countless demonstrations in junior college physics and meteorology labs, understanding how jet engines operate, and the fact that everyone of my colleagues -- primarily retired military aviators aerospace engineers, commercial pilots, -- with whom I've discussed "chem-trails" first stare at me as though I were crazy, then start to laugh.

Originally posted by dplum517 It's only a matter of time. Demanding proof every other post is rather silly.

I'm not asking for proof; I'm asking for evidence. Seeing lines in the sky and taking pictures of them is evidence that there are ... lines in the sky. What you haven't manage to convince people of is that your interpretation of those lines is correct.

Originally posted by dplum517 Proof WILL come ... could take many years.

Maybe then people will start to believe you ... could take many years.

First, my apologies if I engage in thread-drift here, and my apologies if the following hurts anyone's feelings. I first posted this here at ATS back in 2004; perhaps some of you will remember it. I tried to discuss "chem-trails" and abductions in the style of HP Lovecaft.

The basic story is absolutely true; my employer had me in the Land of the Almond-Eyed Ones for asix-month period in 2000/2001. My interpretation of those trips is somewhat ... well, follow the link, if you choose, and decide for yourself.

Looky!

reply to post by dw31243


It's all in your head. The photos provided are just contrails. Why does it always have to be conspiracy? Where are the independent air samples from various research facilities? There aren't any because it's just a jet contrail.

Nothing to see...Move on folks. This gets very tiring. You have no evidence.

Originally posted by dw31243
To put all the Internet Trolling to rest, let us take a look at the video again.

This is a video of Chemtrails over Coolidge, Arizona on October 28th, 2011. It is a time lapsed video of about 1 frame every 10 to 30 minutes [video is 1 frame every second which equals 10-30 minutes]. Notice how you can see the planes spray a chemical the lingers for several hours creating a hazy gray mist that blocks the blue sky and sun. The planes fly very high and do not land at the near by airport.

Does anyone else have videos or photos of Chemtrails [not contrails] over Arizona recently. Also, are Chemtrails being deployed as a weapon over the United states or as weather modification purposes?


This is the typical Chemtrail scenario.

edit on 31-10-2011 by dw31243 because: Tape recorder.

edit on 31-10-2011 by dw31243 because: Tape stuck.

edit on 31-10-2011 by dw31243 because: Location

I feel kind of wierd inviting you back to your own thread but I am very interested in your thoughts/speculation regarding chemtrails as a weapon and chemtrails as a weather related weapon. I followed the line of inquiry you suggested re exotic space weapons in the Kucinich failed bill and would like to hear more.

reply to post by luxordelphi


All you did, there, was to *mirror* the OP...who himself *mirrored" his own OP!!!!

Ever heard of the term "Self-Licking Ice Cream Cone"?

Pretty much describes this topic, to a 'T'................

self-licking ice cream cone n.

a process, department, institution, or other thing that offers few benefits and exists primarily to justify or perpetuate its own existence. Also in the form self-licking lollipop....

Ahhh yes, now as we get back to cooler weather, out come all the reports, photos and videos of contrails.

Every year without fail, since I have been posting on chemtrail sites (since 2000), every summer there are less visible contrails, and with the approach of fall, all the chemtrailers come out again and talk about all the spraying going on.

You would think after all this time, that at least one would have thought about colder air, being more favorable for more contrails.

reply to post by dw31243


cool video!

So hard to tell chemtrails from standard persistent contrails. This had a lot of things that looked like contrails but the overall sky eventually had a lot of cirrus clouds evolving which could easily mean the sky was just right for consistent cons....

reply to post by Cloudology


It wouldn't be hard if there was actually a chemical content to chemtrails, and somone actuially went and took the samples and showed what it is.

the usual claim is that ALL things that look like persistent contrails are actually chemtrails - but often the time limit between them differs - I have seen claims that anything that lasts longer than "a few seconds", "a few minutes", 10, 20, 30 and 40 minutes is a chemtrail.

But, as always, such claims are easy to debunk - how long do clouds last? Why wouldn't contrails last as long if the atmospheric conditions were right for them to do so?

Do clouds spread? If they do then why wouldn't contrails spread if the atmospheric conditions were right for them to do so?

Note that "debunking" is not saying "they are definitely not chemtrails" - it is pointing out that the criteria used to determine what is a "chemtrail" simply does not stack up with reality.

I agree - - from what I've researched on cloud seeding.

But - I've been doing this "conspiracy" thingy for 20 years. Stuff that's denied over and over - - - does seem to have a way of coming to the surface eventually.

I've lived in AZ for 20 years. I've seen thousands of contrails - - under varying conditions. I KNOW what I saw.

Well considering that there are no cloud seeding projects going on in AZ, then it it is not cloud seeding.

Its amazing all the chemtrail believers that while knowing what they see apparently, also can not identify cloud types, have no clue about kinds of airplanes, and know very little about the weather, or science.

Originally posted by firepilot

I agree - - from what I've researched on cloud seeding.

But - I've been doing this "conspiracy" thingy for 20 years. Stuff that's denied over and over - - - does seem to have a way of coming to the surface eventually.

I've lived in AZ for 20 years. I've seen thousands of contrails - - under varying conditions. I KNOW what I saw.

Well considering that there are no cloud seeding projects going on in AZ, then it it is not cloud seeding.

Its amazing all the chemtrail believers that while knowing what they see apparently, also can not identify cloud types, have no clue about kinds of airplanes, and know very little about the weather, or science.

I don't care. I KNOW what I saw. Just checked with my hubby - - who is not into any conspiracy stuff. He witnessed it too.

2 planes turning and crossing each others "trail" - - making a Tic-Tac-Toe (grid pattern).

It IS what it IS.

I KNOW what I saw. YOU figure it out.

Originally posted by Annee
[I don't care. I KNOW what I saw. Just checked with my hubby - - who is not into any conspiracy stuff. He witnessed it too.

2 planes turning and crossing each others "trail" - - making a Tic-Tac-Toe (grid pattern).

It IS what it IS.

I KNOW what I saw. YOU figure it out.

It is just a couple of a/c on crossing flight paths & the way it happens is not particularly strange - aircraft A flies along it's route generating a contrail, aircraft B flys along he same route 5 minutes later also generating a contrail - but in the meantime A's contrail has blown sideways if there is a wind - a 60mph wind might blow it's contrail 5 miles in 5 minutes. So now you have 2 parallel contrails some distance apart.

And if Aircraft 1 and Aircraft 2 are flying 5 minutes apart on a crossing flight path and also generating contrails, then their contrails will also be some distance apart.

Where the 2 flight paths cross you get a "#".

This page has a possibly better explaination - it is certainly more comprehensive & has some pics that might help explain it.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
It is just a couple of a/c on crossing flight paths & the way it happens is not particularly strange

BS - - it is exactly what I said it was.

reply to post by Annee


I asked these questions last page. They were overlooked (?):

Benefit of the doubt for you, just to get as much detail as you can relate in this forum.

Originally posted by Annee
There were 2 planes that clearly turned crossing each others path making a Tic-Tac-Toe pattern.

Firstly, do you know what a holding pattern is? (You can Google the term, or I can link to it....either way).

Second, once you look up holding patterns, you will notice that they are a sort of *racetrack* shape.....each end a 180° half-circle, and two straight sections in between. Is this similar? Did you see the ends -- the curved bits?

You had binocs.....so, what would say were the airplane types? Since you lived in LA, near enough to LAX (I grew up in LA, by the way.....and, back living here now..... PV, actually) ...since you had binocs, and due to being near LAX for long time, you may be somewhat familiar with different jets.

Are you good at estimating altitude? Doesn't have to be exact, that is very difficult (even for experienced pilots)...but, the difference between say, 15,000 feet and 30,000 feet is dead easy to judge. Just as 10,000 to 15,000 is a bit easier (depends a lot on experience, and knowing the type of airplane, because of relative size differences).

Also.....you may live at a fairly high elevation in AZ (you mentioned a 'mesa')....so all those altitudes I mentioned are referenced to above MSL, since that is the normal criteria. You have to account for that, by allowing for your actual elevation on land, above MSL. (Most places in AZ, only a few thousand feet....Phoenix is at roughly ~1,000 MSL for instance. Flagstaff elevation about 7,000 feet)......

Any more details of that nature?