If you don’t believe in chemtrails why are you here?

reply to post by dplum517


I'll respond once as we'll take this off topic too much:

If you can't handle reading 10 patents that are atleast a few pages each then I can't help you understand. Refusing to accept patents as "possibilities for proof" then your logic is flawed.

Feel free to read any of those threads again, you'll see me in them. Patents for technology to not equal technology. Most of the patents you guys point to deal with weather modification not areosol spraying of deadly chemicals (that's why it's called chemtrails). Again, feel free to actually read what you are responding to, as I've clearly stated here, and in most chemtrail threads, that yes those patents exist.

but this doesn't matter as you yourself are willing to ignore decades of science about contrails to continue to believe your theory.

Persistent contrails happen all the time as long as the conditions are right. And this is the lynch pin. Chemtrailers say contrails can't do that. They can, do, and science is there to prove it.

Are they possible? Of course, I wouldn't bother reading about this if I didn't see the possibility. the fact is, nothing your side has provided has proven anything, and most of it requires me to ignore science.

go ask your local weather man about contrails. go ask your high school science teacher about contrails.

reply to post by dplum517

Nor is this the thread to debate whether they exist.

It sure is heck is:

If you don’t believe in chemtrails why are you here?

That's the thread title. I'm here because I believe in the possibility and would like to prove it one way or the other. The problem with that is, it's impossible to do for the reasons I posted in my other posts.

How can I explain my reason for entering these threads without relating that?

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by killemall

 

That truth being, there are no chemtrails.

How about you answer my question? :

If you believe in chemtrails, why can't you spend 15 minutes of time learning actual science behind CONTRAILS so you can better determine if your suspect trails are indeed "chemtrails".

Well technically.... contrails ARE chemtrails in that they contain within them chemicals of exhaust as well as others to which I do not consider to be useful for my health in a positive manner...and then leave a visible 'trail' which then rains down on us all....

So to me, a 'CONTRAIL' in itself is a solid definition of a 'CHEMTRAIL'

Just a thought....


ThatGuy45

reply to post by Uncinus

One could also ask "if you DO believe in chemtrails, then why are you here". If your mind is already made up, then what is there to discuss?

Ahh you've stumbled on the reason for maybe 25% of the users here. They want to be special and to have discovered this, and to be "in the know" before the rest of the sheeple.

And that's what it's all about, no hokey pokey, it's about feeling better than the "sheeple" which is why they are usually so rude and childish, because they are rude children.

the people honestly interesting in chemtrails are easy to spot and their posts are usually well put together, even if you don't agree with it, it usually forms a decent discussion.

It's the same as me finding a site dedicated to saying chemtrails aren't real. Why bother? What stimulating conversation can that produce?

If you are at ATS you are here to deny ignorance, if you want to prove your theory, you've got to listen to the skeptics and debunkers as to what they see wrong with the theory. don't listen to the outright trolls, who exist on both sides, but take the criticism like an adult and adapt.

Originally posted by SurrealisticPillow
Any normal person that thought chemtrails were bogus, would state their views and get bored after a while. Not these clowns, the hand around daily for years. Then, a new user shows up with the exact same posting style. Never a gap.
Paid.

Ignoring the facts that:

A) That's not an effective way to maintain the conspiracy.
B) People argue over and over again all the time about everything. See politics, religion, and all other topics. The repetitive arguments about evolution don't occur because the government pays people to argue on ATS.
C) You can find the same repetitive structure if you look at believers' arguments - chemtrails and other topics.

Can you find one or more really good examples of what you're talking about and identify them to us? I, at least, would be interested if what you're saying is true. How can I see it for myself without just digging through the chemtrail board aimlessly? If it's like you say, show us.

reply to post by ThatGuy45


Actually a contrail is condensation produced by warm air mixing with cool air. you can't see jet exhaust from the ground, what you are seeing is water vapour.

And yes, water is technically a chemical, so you win.

I guess

Originally posted by killemall
It seems very strange to me that almost every chemtrail thread here on ATS has the same unbelievers posting almost altogether each time

I honestly believe they all know the truth and are hell bound

bent on trying to keep the truth suppressed.

Why would they be so hell bound

bent on being involved in threads they don’t believe in.

It is like Bart Simpson going for the cup cake that Lisa attached an electrical current to;

Bart just kept on trying to touch it even though he was zapped every time

It is very obvious they have something to hide.

I am here to read the ridiculous ideas people come up with, see if it's based on fact or just beliefs and research accordingly.
Just because someone says "this is how it is" does not make it so. Researching information you receive and coming to a logical conclusion that is based on fact is what this site is about.

This site is not random conspiracy writings we all must support. Too often are people posting nonsense for me to believe half of it "out-of-the-box".
Disagreeing with someones half-baked assumptions turns into a flame war, something this site is against but all too often is subjected too. Unfortunately it makes it one of the most polluted places in the world for fake and real conspiracies.

Due to that I take everything this site says with a grain of salt. ATS has done nothing good for conspiracy theories, it has only further diluted them and misled many more then these theories could of on their own.

GOOD JOB ATS!!! lol

reply to post by phishyblankwaters

Most of the patents you guys point to deal with weather modification not areosol spraying of deadly chemicals (that's why it's called chemtrails)

Are you kidding? Yes they do. And yes a patent most certainly means that technology exists... otherwise you are being naive.

Also ....decades of research on Contrails should be a BIG indication that us Humans want to create contrails ourselves and understand them more.

After research on contrails there is an invention for a Powder Contrail Generator in 1975.....

And this is obviously the patent here that people are talking mostly about.... #5003186

What is claimed is: 1. A method of reducing atmospheric warming due to the greenhouse effect resulting from a layer of gases in the atmosphere which absorb strongly near infrared wavelength radiation, comprising the step of dispersing tiny particles of a material within the gases' layer, the particle material characterized by wavelength-dependent emissivity or reflectivity, in that said material has high emissivities with respect to radiation in the visible and far infrared wavelength spectra, and low emissivity in the near infrared wavelength spectrum, whereby said tiny particles provide a means for converting infrared heat energy into far infrared radiation which is radiated into space. 2. The method of claim wherein said material comprises one or more of the oxides of metals. 3. The method of claim 1 wherein said material comprises aluminum oxide. 4. The method of claim 1 wherein said material comprises thorium oxide. 5. The method of claim 1 wherein said particles are dispersed by seeding the stratosphere with a quantity of said particles at altitudes in the range of seven to thirteen kilometers above the earth's surface. 6. The method of claim 1 wherein the size of said particles is in the range of ten to one hundred microns. 7. The method of claim wherein said material comprises a refractory material. 8. The method of claim 1 wherein said material is a Welsbach material. 9. The method of claim 1 wherein the number of said dispersed particles per unit area in the particle layer is greater than or equal to 1/.sigma..sub.abs 1, where 1 is the thickness of the particle layer and .sigma..sub.abs is the absorption coefficient of the particles at the far infrared wavelengths. 10. A method for reducing atmospheric warming due to the greenhouse effect resulting from a greenhouse gases layer, comprising the following step: seeding the greenhouse gases' layer with a quantity of tiny particles of a material characterized by wavelength-dependent emissivity or reflectivity, in that said materials have high emissivities in the visible and far infrared wavelength spectra and low emissivity in the near infrared wavelength spectrum, whereby said particles are suspended within said gases' layer and provide a means for converting radiative energy at near infrared wavelengths into radiation at the far infrared wavelengths, permitting some of the converted radiation to escape into space. 11. The method of claim 10 wherein said material comprises one or more of the oxides of metals. 12. The method of claim 10 wherein said material comprises aluminum oxide. 13. The method of claim 10 wherein said material is thorium oxide. 14. The method of claim 10 wherein said seeding is performed at altitudes in the range of seven to thirteen kilometers above the earth's surface. 15. The method of claim 10 wherein said material comprises a refractory material. 16. The method of claim 10 wherein said particle size is in range of ten to one hundred microns. 17. The method of claim 10 wherein said material is a Welsbach material. 18. The method of claim 10 wherein the number of said dispersed particles per unit area in the particle layer is greater than or equal to 1/.sigma..sub.abs 1, where 1 is the thickness of the particle layer and .sigma..sub.abs is the absorption coefficient of the particles at the far infrared wavelengths.

see what method 5 says there......

7 to 13 kilometers .......that's STARTING at only about 23,000 ft

reply to post by phishyblankwaters

From Strategies against Climate Change, available here:

Why they spray, and why they deny.

As for what happens in any chemtrail forum?

The ‘invisibility’ of geoengineering is perpetuated through official denial. The US Air Force, whose KC-135R and KC-10 tanker planes have become a familiar sight in many different parts of the world as they engage in the daily particulate scattering operations of the ‘sunscreen’ programme, on its official site describes eyewitness accounts of these operations as ‘a hoax that has been around since 1996.’ ‘The Air Force’, it says ‘is not conducting any weather modification experiments or programs and has no plans to do so in the future.’ The ‘hoax’ accusation is energetically echoed by the seemingly large numbers of ‘debunkers’ frequenting chemtrail/geoengineering discussion forums, generating considerable confusion, as well as resentment at their characterisation as ‘chemmies’ (a variant on ‘commies’) those who wish to draw attention to the mysterious lines in the sky. Moreover, all elected politicians in the world above the municipal level, if they have heard at all of geoengineering, believe, or profess to believe, the official story that the sunscreen climate mitigation programme is ‘a hoax’.

Those agencies tasked with solving "global warming", discussed various ways, and implemented some. BUT, could never get the support of the "greens" to ENDORSE aerosol spraying. So, the greens, and all of the rest of the governmental and NGO agencies involved pretend it isn't happening.

Geoengineering included land, sea and air-based components. Some of the remedies it was proposing, like large-scale planting of trees, appeared uncontroversial and in fact worthy of support. Others, such as the ‘Geritol’ cure of sowing iron filings into the oceans to stimulate the growth of carbon-consuming phytoplankton, seemed more problematic. Others again, such as the ‘sunscreen’ proposal of scattering millions of tons of metallic particles in the atmosphere to reflect sunlight back into space before it could be emitted in heat radiation and then absorbed by carbon dioxide, were probably judged by most geoengineering theorists to be virtually impossible to sell to the public.

Teller proposed deliberate, large-scale introduction of reflective particles into the upper atmosphere, a task he claimed could be achieved for less than $1 billion a year, between 0.1 and 1.0 percent of the $100 billion he estimated it would cost to bring fossil fuel usage in the United States back down to 1990 levels, as required by the Treaty of Kyoto.

The truth is, they feel they HAVE to keep this secret.

One reason for the successful conspiracy of silence may well be the still unresolved status of geoengineering under international law. This is an issue that was being investigated, again in the mid-nineties, by the environmental lawyer Bodansky. Among the questions he raised were: who should make geoengineering decisions? Should all countries be able to participate in decision-making? (since all will be affected and there will be both positive and negative impacts). How should liability and compensation for damages be handled? From the legal viewpoint, schemes to inject particles into the atmosphere are purportedly among the most problematic of all geoengineering proposals because the atmosphere above any country is part of its airspace. Nations lay claim to their airspace and may act on the claims, for example, by shooting down aircraft. Geoengineering activity in the atmosphere could be viewed as infringements of national sovereignty. Obviously, the simplest way of dealing with legal problems of this kind, pending negotiation of the necessary adjustments to international law, is to deny that any such activity is occurring.

The tactic, to debunk my link, will fall on certain debunkers here, as we will soon see. They will scoff at the writer, but not really address much else of real substance. Others focus on the contrail science aspect because they know how contrails work, there are very few scientists here, and they love to expose the layman as being ignorant of "the science", as if their science explains everything we see.
So, the debunkers ask for PROOF, or EVIDENCE, knowing we cannot provide OFFICIAL proof. As for evidence, barium, aluminum, etc, they will bring anything in the world as possible causes for these materials to show up OTHER THAN aerosol spraying. AS IF they know. That is the key to the tactics of the trolls.

Like many other conspiracies, it will be out in the open soon enough.

The Holmestead. The truth.

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by ThatGuy45

 

Actually a contrail is condensation produced by warm air mixing with cool air. you can't see jet exhaust from the ground, what you are seeing is water vapour.

And yes, water is technically a chemical, so you win.

I guess

Haha, I wasn't looking to win anything - just posting an observation/thought of my own.

And yes, the 'contrail' is condensation....but mixed with the resulting fumes/exhaust from the jet engine. Most often the exhaust from your car is not visible - but go breath deep close at the end of the pipe whilst the engine is running.... I bet it will not be pleasant!

Just because you cant 'see' it, doesnt mean it doesnt exist...
or further more; a part of something else...

reply to post by ThatGuy45


Just because you can't see it does not mean it exists either.

It works both ways, however, neither proves the theory.

Originally posted by EspyderMan
reply to post by ThatGuy45

 

Just because you can't see it does not mean it exists either.

It works both ways, however, neither proves the theory.

Very true, my friend. All is a matter of perspective. Its interesting to see how many 'minds' perceive a situation with varying results.


ThatGuy45

reply to post by OnceReturned

I have addressed your post.
Feel free to comment.

Originally posted by SurrealisticPillow
The tactic, to debunk my link, will fall on certain debunkers here, as we will soon see. They will scoff at the writer, but not really address much else of real substance. Others focus on the contrail science aspect because they know how contrails work, there are very few scientists here, and they love to expose the layman as being ignorant of "the science", as if their science explains everything we see.
So, the debunkers ask for PROOF, or EVIDENCE, knowing we cannot provide OFFICIAL proof. As for evidence, barium, aluminum, etc, they will bring anything in the world as possible causes for these materials to show up OTHER THAN aerosol spraying. AS IF they know. That is the key to the tactics of the trolls.

I'm reading Holmstead and the paper by Teller right now. A couple things: You're providing a compelling argument that this stuff has been thought about and discussed significantly at fairly high levels within the government, and you can certainly make the case that it's technically possible. All of that is certainly necessary for the conspiracy theory to be true, but the most important part is that this kind of chemtrail spraying is actually occuring. You have evidence that reports have been written advocating it, and I'm convinced that a lot of the secondary things like technical feasibility and motive are totally consistent with the conspiracy theory being true, but the core of the theory - that chemtrail spray is actually happening - is not really addressed in the material that you've provided. Holmstead talks about an anonymous source called Deep Shield, but that's not the sort of thing that could end the debate.

I know you don't have "official" proof, but asking for evidence is not unreasonable. Evidence is synonymous with "reason to believe." If you don't have any evidence for chemtrails, you don't have any reason to believe in them... Shouldn't there be evidence? If the atmosphere is more reflective that is was 15 years ago, shouldn't countless astronomers have objective evidence of this? People study the atmosphere and the climate and sunlight in very sophisticated ways all the time. How could they not find indications that this is going on?

The only thing your link provides that could be evidence is the testimony of the unidentified informant called Deep Shield, and it's hard to imagine weaker evidence than the claim that someone somewhere says they're in the know and chemtrails are real. Is that what convinced you? Reading that an unidentified person said that the conspiracy is true? What is the most compelling part of the pro-chemtrail argument for you?

reply to post by Uncinus

Why would you want to participate in a forum where everyone agreed exactly with you?

Because when a ridiculous theory has no basis in fact, and crumbles under the tiniest amount of scrutiny, then a forum where everyone agreed with you would be the only "safe" place to prop up your delusions.

For the mainstream media, our nightmarish chemical skies don't seem to exist. Looking up brings questions - what is that? and why is that? Turning to the worldwideweb, it is discovered that many seek answers to these same questions.

This link:

saive.com...

has a couple of interesting charts showing the growing interest in chemical skies and the tomblike silence of the mainstream media on this phenomenon.

In 2004, there were 791,000 hits for chemtrails on google.
In 2010, there were 1,260,000 hits for chemtrails on google.

In 2004, there were 5 news items on chemtrails.
In 2010, there were 22 news items on chemtrails.

On a conspiracy website like ATS, where people go to dialogue on chemtrails, it would make sense for governments to contract propaganda gangs in order to spread the fantasy that chemical skies are normal and have always been so. The initial sort of pounce attack also puts a lot of people off to reading further because too much contention is not entertaining.

Still...this venue is one where a person can go and see pictures of chemical skies from all over the world submitted by people actually there and actually looking up. It's not a crime to be undecided and it's not a crime to have only just today looked up. Contract propaganda groups are unpleasant to deal with but there are far more people who have just never looked up than there are dedicated, paid disinformation contractors.

reply to post by OnceReturned

Over the years, continuing today, many people have taken rainwater samples in and found exceptionally high levels of aluminum, barium and other elements and even unknown compositions. Clifford Carnicom has been at it for a while and has done some serious research.
Carnicom Institute has been studying samples collected for years under a high powered microscope.

It is at this point that we begin to gain valuable new insight into a long standing problem. Above is a spectral analysis graph of an important and unique filament structure. The filament sample above is the same airborne environmental filament sample type that was sent to the United States Environmental Protection Agency. It was requested that the agency identify the nature of this filament structure on behalf of the public welfare and health interest. The agency refused to conduct this analysis and disclosure and stated that it was not their policy to do so. This filament structure has been described in detail on this site as it has been subjected to extensive microscopic analysis; please see the many reports in this site on this matter.

Carnicom Institute

Originally posted by jtap66
reply to post by Uncinus

 

Why would you want to participate in a forum where everyone agreed exactly with you?

Because when a ridiculous theory has no basis in fact, and crumbles under the tiniest amount of scrutiny, then a forum where everyone agreed with you would be the only "safe" place to prop up your delusions.

I've noticed though that really not that many chemtrail believers post here. Perhaps because ATS is a (relatively) sensible discussion forum, and ideas such as chemtrails do come under some scientific scrutiny.

Most of the active chemtrail discussion seems to be on Facebook, where people (in the various groups) are unlikely to question anything.

New evidence has arrived proving contrails are just a hoax and chemtrails really have been around from the beginning of fuel powered flight.
I put it to anyone to prove a contrail from a plane ever really did exist and is not a chemical trail.
Hoax contrails are created and consist of hot exhaust fuel vapours mixed with cool air.
So there we have the evidence finally to put these silly contrail myths away for good and refer to the correct term chemical trail, contrails debunked

Just one more thing I have to point out in the Patent for reduction of global warming (#5003186)

The greenhouse gases are typically in the earth's stratosphere at an altitude of seven to thirteen kilometers. This suggests that the particle seeding should be done at an altitude on the order of 10 kilometers. The particles may be seeded by dispersal from seeding aircraft; one exemplary technique may be via the jet fuel as suggested by prior work regarding the metallic particles. Once the tiny particles have been dispersed into the atmosphere, the particles may remain in suspension for up to one year.

JET FUEL.