Massive Chemtrail Attack: Midwest

Michigan was hammered last night 11/4/11 with chemtrails heading East to West as far as you could see North to South.

reply to post by jethroshotgun


Welcome to ATS, may I call you Jethro? The experts in aviation and meteorology will be right along to serve the truth to you on a silver platter.

I am sure they will but I have a picture of the sky last night.

Originally posted by Witness2008

Seems to me if you wanted to save all of us "chemtrailers" from our own lying eyes you would simply prove that the technologies available are in deed not being used. It doesn't work that way because you can't provide proof, just like I can not prove anything past the patents, numerous military statements, photos, and millions of witness observations.

No.

What we do is present proof that what you are seeing are contrails, as observed and studied for 80+ years.

That you refuse to accept this is your problem. Some people also refuse to accept that the Earth revolves around the Sun. They have a right to hold that belief and we should not mock them for doing so.

That there is proof technologies exist to do things which would NOT produce anything vaguely resembling a chemtrail is neither here nor there. In the same way that just because we can send a probe to Mars does not mean your neighbour's new car is a Martian probe.

If you think what you see are not contrails, as described and studied since long before you were born, and that tens of thousands of scientists are completely wrong, then produce evidence that what you see cannot be a contrail. A Nobel Prize and a lot of money await you. Simple?

Originally posted by gman1972
I have only been involved in a few of these threads and have yet to see someone who believes say, "hmmm you have a point there.", or "I didn't know that, thanks."

I've yet to see anything new in any of these threads. Sadly.

but to be fair I've been interested in the subject since long before I joined ATS.

Originally posted by jethroshotgun
Michigan was hammered last night 11/4/11 with chemtrails heading East to West as far as you could see North to South.

And why were they chemtrails and not contrails, in your opinion?

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by Witness2008

Seems to me if you wanted to save all of us "chemtrailers" from our own lying eyes you would simply prove that the technologies available are in deed not being used. It doesn't work that way because you can't provide proof, just like I can not prove anything past the patents, numerous military statements, photos, and millions of witness observations.

No.

What we do is present proof that what you are seeing are contrails, as observed and studied for 80+ years.

That you refuse to accept this is your problem. Some people also refuse to accept that the Earth revolves around the Sun. They have a right to hold that belief and we should not mock them for doing so.

That there is proof technologies exist to do things which would NOT produce anything vaguely resembling a chemtrail is neither here nor there. In the same way that just because we can send a probe to Mars does not mean your neighbour's new car is a Martian probe.

If you think what you see are not contrails, as described and studied since long before you were born, and that tens of thousands of scientists are completely wrong, then produce evidence that what you see cannot be a contrail. A Nobel Prize and a lot of money await you. Simple?

You have presented proof of contrails. Something all of us acknowledge. You have not presented evidence, much less proof that we are not seeing chemtrails. You nor anyone else, scientist or otherwise can not prove that the military complex has not utilized the patents and subsequent technologies that have been discussed all over this forum, certainly since I have been a member.

Again, the ridicule. You present a bit of atmospheric science to explain away much evidence, and you know what the evidence is, I have debated in many such threads as have you. Your arguments are mediocre at best.

I shall ask the same question of you as others in this thread. Why bother?

Originally posted by Witness2008

You have presented proof of contrails. Something all of us acknowledge. You have not presented evidence, much less proof that we are not seeing chemtrails. You nor anyone else, scientist or otherwise can not prove that the military complex has not utilized the patents and subsequent technologies that have been discussed all over this forum, certainly since I have been a member.

Since you've not show that the "chemtrails" differ in any way from contrails, then the only sensible conclusions are:

A) They are contrails
B) Chemtrails look and behave exactly like contrails.

If it's B, then how do you know they are chemtrails?

reply to post by Witness2008


See, this is at the crux of the problem, with these claims. The "demand" of "chemtrail" believers to prove a negative:

You nor anyone else, scientist or otherwise can not prove that the military complex has not utilized the patents and subsequent technologies that have been discussed all over this forum, certainly since I have been a member.

If you or anyone else is unaware of the problem in rational logic there, then they cannot be helped until they take the time to grasp the fundamentals of it.

Now.....again, this gets wrapped up, every time...because SO MANY people keep trying to claim it is the civilian commercial airliners making "chemtrails"...now, you came along with the open-ended assumption and "prove a negative" attempt by bringing in the "what if?" of the military complex. It is far, far too easy to just toss that out, and do so without ANY proof at all, on *your* side.

By the way....which "military complex"?? Contrails (mistakenly called "chemtrails") are a global phenomenon. So, again....which "military complex"?

Seeing the problem, yet?

Furthermore....hiding behind that facade of "It's The Military, So We Cannot Know" is also disingenuous.

With the hundreds of thousands of amateur airplane watchers and enthusiasts ... people whose hobby it is, and they take seriously ... someone, somewhere by now, would have seen something, anything!!!

And, I daresay....there are plenty, plenty of ex-military folk who would also have no compunction NOT to "spill the beans"...they could do so very anonymously, and being no longer in the military, would have little to no fear of repercussion.

reply to post by Uncinus


We will just have to call this one a draw. I don't need to get on that gerbil wheel, because frankly I don't care what you think.

Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by Uncinus

 

We will just have to call this one a draw. I don't need to get on that gerbil wheel, because frankly I don't care what you think.

No evidence for something is not a draw.

No evidence for something indicates it probably does not exist. (assuming it's existence would create evidence).

Originally posted by Witness2008
You have presented proof of contrails. Something all of us acknowledge. You have not presented evidence, much less proof that we are not seeing chemtrails.

The onus is on you to present evidence that what looks like and acts like a contrail is something else. And maybe to aert NASA that they are wasting millions of dollars.

Why bother?

Because I'm passionate about the weather. You may have seen some of my friends on Stormchasers or several other TV programmes. And I have an urge to educate the misinformed and misled.

Could a chemtrail believer, I'm not bothered which one, please answer the following questions:

1.What in your opinion is the difference between a contrail and a chemtrail when observing them from the ground?

2.Can you point me to one report, where air samples have been taken and analysed during a widespread "spraying event"

3.What do you think these chemicals you allege are being sprayed are doing to us?

4.Do you have any evidence of widespread illness, or particular symptoms you consider have been caused by spraying (obviously to multiple people)

5.Who do you think is doing the spraying?........and why?


Thanks in advance

reply to post by jethroshotgun


I'm still unsure of the motives behind plowing the skies with metal oxides, there may be many, saving our hides from global warming, military communications, I'm not into the whole population control theories. I'm leaning toward what this paper offered. www.chemtrails911.com...

reply to post by Witness2008


It is my belief that discussion around the subject covered in that (very interesting) link really should be hived off from chemtrails. Here we have a serious scientific proposal that may have its merits and will certainly have its detractors that is worth a proper discussion and that being shackled to Chemtrail discussions does no favours for, the same applies to cloud seeding which is in a similar vein.

Some Chemtrailers may well want to try to validate their pet conspiracy by tieing them together but that is surely only a consequence of the lack of evidence for chemtrails, while these other things are real.

It is an undeniable fact that the posts we always see containing pics and videos appear when they see long white lines in a generally clear sky left at high altitude by jets. It should be obvious by now that these are not the same as that at all.

reply to post by firepilot


I understand that you stand by the belief that chemtrails were 'invented' in the late 90's, but I will hold to my belief as well. Now, it may have been that the chemtrail conspiracy didn't gain legs with the masses until the mid-late 90's. but they were most definitely talked about before then - although the may have been known as different names, including chemical trails, they were most definitely being speculated upon.

As a side note, I am not aware of many things popping up out of nowhere, without previous thoughts or discussions preceding their popularity.

I will edit this and give you a source, or two, that explains the origins of chemtrails and what they may have been called in the early days of the 'Chemtrail Conspiracy'

SOURCE

In 1996, a chemtrail conspiracy theory began to circulate when the United States Air Force (USAF) was accused of "spraying the US population with mysterious substances" from aircraft "generating unusual contrail patterns."[4]

The above quote comes from wiki-pedia and references when 'chemtrials had a popularity rise.

Using simply this date alone, you can see that the popularity rise was, at a minimum, talked about 15 years ago, just a few years off what I claimed my brother and myself talked about the possibility of chemical being released in the contrails or other methods of release while in flight.

SOURCE

Although officials insist that these programs are only in the discussion phase, evidence is abundant that they have been underway since about 1990 -- and the effect has been devastating to crops, wildlife, and human health....

Synthetically manufactured chem-clouds desiccate the air and very effectively block the sun. The principles of this grotesque aerosol project are spelled out in a number of U.S. patents. In 1974, persons associated with National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) obtained patent US3813875 for using barium to create ion clouds in the upper atmosphere...

In 1991, Hughes Aircraft Company obtained patent US5003186, a method for seeding the greenhouse gas layer with tiny particles which include "oxides of metal , e.g., aluminum oxide." The patent states that one proposed solution to global warming was "to add the tiny particles to the fuel of jet airliners, so that the particles would be emitted from the jet engine exhaust while the airliner was at its cruising altitude (there was speculation around this time that oxides of metal and aluminum oxide were not the only thing being sprayed)...

Laminar microjet atomizer and method of aerial spraying of liquids
United States Patent / 4,412,654 Yates / November 1, 1983

A laminar microjet atomizer and method of aerial spraying involve the use of a streamlined body having a slot in the trailing edge thereof to afford a quiescent zone within the wing and into which liquid for spraying is introduced. The liquid flows from a source through a small diameter orifice having a discharge end disposed in the quiet zone well upstream of the trailing edge. The liquid released into the quiet zone in the slot forms drops characteristic of laminar flow. Those drops then flow from the slot at the trailing edge of the streamlined body and discharge into the slipstream for free distribution.

Available research traces the origin of Chemtrails back to Dr. Edward Teller's 1990 white paper contention...

As you can see, from the external site text above, chemtrails were most definitely being discussed prior to the late 1990's.

reply to post by esteay812


I'd be very interested to hear about anything resembling chemtrails from before 1997. The earliest mention of somthing similar seems to have come from Richard Finke, on the biowar-L mailing list. See:

goodsky.homestead.com...

reply to post by waynos


Why exclude the paper and scientific study and proposals from the discussion of chemtrails. If in use and they have indeed discovered a cheap way to disperse metal oxides into the skies for what ever reason, that would be a CHEMTRAIL.

.

reply to post by Witness2008


That is an interesting read, I don't think it's really applies to chemtrail dispersal via airliners though. It says that it would take only 1,000,000 tonnes of the particulate to have an effect and that the cost to transport it would be .30c a pound at 1997 prices. Math isn't my strong suit but doesn't that equal $600,000,000 (1,000,000 tonnes = 2,000,000,000 lbs x .30)? Who is paying that fee? 600 million bucks is a pretty high figure, add 13 years of inflation... ouch.

Not to mention that I just dispatched a 747 which at take off had about 100 pounds of spare weight after accounting for people, bags, gas ect. which is pretty standard. How long would it take to disperse 2,000,000,000 when you only have a spare 100 or so a flight?

I didn't get all the way through it, as I think with the above cost, not many airliners are willing to absorbe that cost.