Chemtrails Perfectly Revisited

reply to post by HypotheticalSituationist


I want to thank you for your thread and your information. It seems like a crime to talk about the possibility of Chem/Contrails recently. Be that as it may , thanks for your info and video etc. I have some information and such I am putting together and will post it soon. Remember, this isn't a court of law and your not on trial. Present your evidence as you find it and desire to. Thx again s/f

DEBUNK THESE!

MY ENTIRE CHEMTRAIL ALBUM OPEN FOR PUBLIC VIEWING

Originally posted by ProudBird
"Follow The Money".....is always a smart bit of advice.

Maybe you should learn from your words.
Ever heard of Bill Gates? As if there was no money in the long run for spraying.

Originally posted by jeichelberg
But NO, there is none...Time and again, throughout history, issues of poisons (heavy metals, adverse chemicals, etc.) introduced to the environment by any agency, corporate entity, or individual, have been reported and DEALT WITH APPROPRIATELY!!! Nobody gets away with it...

They've been dealt with so appropriately that those same companies actually won't stop polluting, they just go somewhere else. Anyway, lawyers and fines are just part of expenses for corporations unless you haven't noticed yet.

"Nobody gets away with it" : especially not victims of the poisons

Originally posted by HypotheticalSituationist
I am stunned to see the massive amount of repetitive trolling, disinformation agents and "prove it" wiseguys who have come snaking out of their holes to attempt to derails this thread.

Every single chemtrail thread is like that lol
And always the same ones and they respond so fast, efficiently and documented.

Real "professionals" if you know what i mean.

Originally posted by User8911

Originally posted by HypotheticalSituationist
I am stunned to see the massive amount of repetitive trolling, disinformation agents and "prove it" wiseguys who have come snaking out of their holes to attempt to derails this thread.

Every single chemtrail thread is like that lol
And always the same ones and they respond so fast, efficiently and documented.

Real "professionals" if you know what i mean.

Thanks for your support, let the "real professionals" dispute this.

I took these just the other day.

reply to post by HypotheticalSituationist


Contrails won't show up on Doppler radar, nor will your chemtrails.

Please at least try to keep things real instead of posting misinformation.

What I cant wrap my head around about the chemtrail theory is the effectiveness the spraying would have on us on the ground. To me it would be like spray painting the wall from the other side of the room. seems like it would be uneffective and unpractical.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Thank you for the mini doc. Obviously there are many ignorant and rude people that have commented but I believe in this stuff 100%. I have a friend and his father actually flew one of those planes for years before he couldn't do it anymore because of the research he did on it. Considering that I have been best friends with him and know his father very well, I believe in this stuff. People need to realize that the government is not our friend. I mean c'mon, just look at what they did to the world economy. There are many reasons why Cancer and other diseases have been rotting us.

Keep up the good work my friend!

reply to post by HypotheticalSituationist

Admission of Spraying

Did you not read the entire article? Because, just the title alone is insufficient. So, let's "discuss" it.......

HERE is the article, again

Note the details in that article. Here, I'll point some out. They bear no resemblance to what are called "chemtrails" today. Which are called that mistakenly, since they are perfectly ordinary, normal airplane contrails. Ice crystals. H2O. At altitudes well above 25,000 feet, were they remain. They never "fall" to Earth.

The pertinent text bits:

The tests, carried out by government scientists at Porton Down, were designed to help the MoD assess Britain's vulnerability if the Russians were to have released clouds of deadly germs over the country.

In most cases, the trials did not use biological weapons but alternatives which scientists believed would mimic germ warfare and which the MoD claimed were harmless. But families in certain areas of the country who have children with birth defects are demanding a public inquiry.

One chapter of the report, 'The Fluorescent Particle Trials', reveals how between 1955 and 1963 planes flew from north-east England to the tip of Cornwall along the south and west coasts, dropping huge amounts of zinc cadmium sulphide on the population.

"Aha!", you exclaim. But, no actually. Here, read from another SOURCE that breaks down the Guardian UK article:

This overview doesn't give us specific information on how high the planes flew, but if they wanted to see the effects on the population, they were probably spraying the bacteria close to the ground. And where does it say that these planes left behind chemical trails? It say that the particles were fluorescent and drifted inland but what does this have to do with the persistent contrail phenomenon?

Based on the story about these tests, conducted from 1955 to 1963, the dropping of the fluorescent material HAD to be done at low altitudes....just a few thousands of feet. Or less. Any higher would be worthless, as anything released would be diluted and would disperse in the very high winds at high altitude....ending up across the Channel in France!! And even then, likely still not fall to Earth, but just continue to drift, high above, until its effectiveness was virtually zero.


Back to the Guardian article:

.... In another trial using zinc cadmium sulphide, a generator was towed along a road near Frome in Somerset where it spewed the chemical for an hour.

WHAT?! "..towed along a road?!!?" What kind of "airplane" did that, hmmm? Oh, it wasn't an airplane.....was it??


Continuing:

In another chapter, 'Large Area Coverage Trials', the MoD describes how between 1961 and 1968 more than a million people along the south coast of England, from Torquay to the New Forest, were exposed to bacteria including e.coli and bacillus globigii , which mimics anthrax. These releases came from a military ship, the Icewhale, anchored off the Dorset coast, which sprayed the micro-organisms in a five to 10-mile radius.

Goodness me! Now, it's a ship. Does anyone see a pattern, yet? A lorry on the road, a ship at sea....don't you presume that any airplane drops would also be LOW to the ground?


So, again....despite all these years, nearly two decades since the myth and hoax of "chemtrails" was first conjured up (in order for a few con-artists to sell quack remedies to the gullible), as yet there exists no evidence....save for the incredible amount of truth-stretching needed in order to attempt to equate articles like this one in the Guardian to some fantasy of "chemtrais" from 30,000 - 40,000 feet....from passenger airliners.


As yet, the only tangential relevance that contrails have to this Forum ("Geoengineering") is very slight -- contrails are cirrus clouds, and yes "man-made" because of the airplanes. So, what long-term effects will they have on Earth's climate? However, the term "Geoengineering" really implies intentional acts. Contrails are UN-intentional.

reply to post by davereality

I have a friend and his father actually flew one of those planes for years before he couldn't do it anymore because of the research he did on it.

Tell us more about this?

Because, as I have said, so far there has been no shred of proof. If you have a verifiable true story, with details that can be checked out, then you and everyone else can "blow the lid" off of this!

I'd like to see any evidence. My experience of four decades in aviation tells me that "chemtrails" are total bunk. The research I've done confirms this.

But, if you (or someone) can find irrefutable solid evidence, then I can assess it and be able to formulate an opinion based on it.

SO, whatcha got??

reply to post by ProudBird

Based on the story about these tests, conducted from 1955 to 1963, the dropping of the fluorescent material HAD to be done at low altitudes....just a few thousands of feet.

Lower than that actually, less than 1,000 feet, quite a bit less.
Report 610
See Appendix I, on page 9.

reply to post by HypotheticalSituationist


I must (apologies to the Community) quote this in its entirety, since it is back a page:

You have no point - you are a blitherer who brings up irrelevancies. I dispose of them, not to convince a moron like you, but for the benefit of others not intractably stupid like you. You, a compulsive moron, have convincingly demonstrated that you will continue to bring up such inanities repeatedly, even after they have been utterly shot down, just as a dog will return to its vomit.

And now, having You have no point - you are a blitherer who brings up irrelevancies. I dispose of them, not to convince a moron like you, but for the benefit of others not intractably stupid like you. You, a compulsive moron, have convincingly demonstrated that you will continue to bring up such inanities repeatedly, even after they have been utterly shot down, just as a dog will return to its vomit.

And now, having disposed of all your idiotic points yet again, they and you are dismissed. (Although I know you will blither on nonetheless - it's a compulsive disorder you seem unable to overcome.) , they and you are dismissed. (Although I know you will blither on nonetheless - it's a compulsive disorder you seem unable to overcome.)

Ahem.

I have reviewed each of your posts in this thread so far. Twice.

Please refer me to the post in which you have (quote) "....disposed of all your idiotic points yet again....".

I cannot find that post. Can you show me where you specifically addressed the points I raised HERE.

You see, those points went to the heart and head of this thread....the video at the beginning. A video that is proven to be flawed, faulty and loaded with already discredited assertions and claims.

You have a chance to address my concerns, on every point. Has that been done? Did I miss it? Because, if you cannot refute the evidence I have brought, then I will tend to think that there is no real conviction in your stance, here.

reply to post by HypotheticalSituationist


I wasn't saying I hadn't heard of this before. I was saying thank you for your thread and contributions. I believe your right.

Originally posted by HypotheticalSituationist
DEBUNK THESE!

MY ENTIRE CHEMTRAIL ALBUM OPEN FOR PUBLIC VIEWING

Compare and contrast

Contrail Centrail on ATS

(some non contrail pics there as well)

Click here for more information.