The Chemtrail Hoax

Also, what about the "cloud umbrella" theory? I have heard statements that the earth is receiving 20% less sunlight due to cloud conditions exacerbated by persistent contrails. I have heard the theory that persistent contrail cloud cover is intentionally used to offset the effects of atmospheric warming that are caused by the greenhouse gas emissions.

This theory would assert that the global energy cartel are being allowed to temporarily and covertly mask the effects of global warming in order to make billions of dollars peddling fossil fuels, thus the preponderance of intentionally persistent contrails on bright, sunny, cloudless, windless days.

This to me seemed the most plausible explanation for the noticeable persistent contrail / cloud cover and the huge amount of misleading chemtrail conspiracies. Seems to me the easiest way to hide an intentionally persistent contrail program would be to poo-poo it behind an easily debunkable chemtrail conspiracy.

Seems to me like both sides of the debate are correct on this issue - there are a lot of seemingly intentional persistent contrails that merge and form into cirrus cloud cover, and there is a lot of lame chemtrail conspiracies .

Originally posted by bunkbuster
Also, what about the "cloud umbrella" theory? I have heard statements that the earth is receiving 20% less sunlight due to cloud conditions exacerbated by persistent contrails.

Do you realize just how much cloud cover there would have to be over the planet's surface in order eliminate 20% of the sunlight reaching the ground? 20% of the entire surface of the earth would have to be in pitch black shadows from clouds. The very idea that those thin non-permananent ribbons of mist are having any affect on the solar radiation absorbed by the ground is ridiculous, and even if it could reduce the heat absorbed by the ground, there's still heat absorbed by the air.

Bunkbuster says:

�As a follower of the chem/contrail discussion, I wanted to add something about a front page Wall Street Journal article that I saw a few weeks ago regarding commercial airliners being modified with spraying apparatuses in order to have them on hand to help fight brushfires in the southwest. �

I looked through the archives of the WSJ and did not see anything, either.

The problem started back in 2002, when two tanker crashes and a fatal helicopter accident � all in six weeks � led the USFS to appoint a panel to see what was the best way to keep the pilots from getting killed (www.aviationnow.com...). The USFS subsequently cancelled Tanker contracts, which removed 33 large tankers from service -- based on the perceived danger of catastrophic structural failure during fire-fighting duty (www.Airtanker.com... gives the tanker pilots� side of this controversial decision).

Meanwhile, there is already a ready made jet aircraft which can haul 11,000 gallons of liquid to a fire, nearly four times the carrying capacity of the C-130 Hercules, the largest tanker used by the Forest Service. It is the Ilyushin-76TD, nicknamed the "Waterbomber".

The reason I�m bringing this up is that it simply doesn�t make any sense for the USFS to take existing aircraft out of service, convert them to water-bombers at an obviously high cost, when there are other aircraft available, designed to do the job, at a much lower cost.

�I have heard the theory that persistent contrail cloud cover is intentionally used to offset the effects of atmospheric warming that are caused by the greenhouse gas emissions.�

The problem with that is that persistent cloud cover does not offset the effects of greenhouse warming, because persistent cloud cover does not necessarily result in a net decrease of temperature.

When the days are cloudy, UV rays are blocked, and fewer of them reach the ground. But�. those same clouds at night block the IR on the Earth from radiating back out to space, so the days are cooler and the nights are warmer.

What cloud cover does is to lower the �diurnal temperature delta�, which is engineering-ese for saying that the difference between the hottest and coldest part of the 24-hour period is not as great.

And, although cloud cover from persistent contrails are a possible threat to climate, the amount is quite a bit less thatn 20 percent; it is more like 2 percent by 2050, according to my esteemed colleague Dr. Pat Minnis. Pat and I have corresponded for about the past three or four years, and he tries to keep me in the loop regarding contrails, since he knows of my interest.

Here is his blurb from the 11th Conference on Atmospheric Radiation back in 2002: ams.confex.com...

[edit on 12-10-2004 by Off_The_Street]

Originally posted by Off_The_Street

I looked through the archives of the WSJ and did not see anything, either.

Wacky. My wife remembers me commenting about the article, so I know it wasn't a dream or something, but she's not sure which paper I was reading, so it might not have been the journal, but I think it was.

The problem with that is that persistent cloud cover does not offset the effects of greenhouse warming, because persistent cloud cover does not necessarily result in a net decrease of temperature.

When the days are cloudy, UV rays are blocked, and fewer of them reach the ground. But�. those same clouds at night block the IR on the Earth from radiating back out to space, so the days are cooler and the nights are warmer.

What cloud cover does is to lower the �diurnal temperature delta�, which is engineering-ese for saying that the difference between the hottest and coldest part of the 24-hour period is not as great.

And, although cloud cover from persistent contrails are a possible threat to climate, the amount is quite a bit less thatn 20 percent; it is more like 2 percent by 2050, according to my esteemed colleague Dr. Pat Minnis. Pat and I have corresponded for about the past three or four years, and he tries to keep me in the loop regarding contrails, since he knows of my interest.

Good info, thanks. Whether intentional or not, and regardless of environmental impact, the causal link between increased air traffic and increased cloud cover has been established, though, correct?

There is more air traffic today than ever before, therefore there are more persistent contrails in the skies, contributing to more cloud cover than normal.

Would you agree that this much at least is true?

"There is more air traffic today than ever before, therefore there are more persistent contrails in the skies, contributing to more cloud cover than normal."

Absolutely.

And it's not just that there's more air traffic, but almost all of the old propjet commuters have been replaced by modern Brazilian and Canadian jets which fly higher and thus are more prone to form persistent contrails.

Although the envirnomental impact from increased cloud cover is nowhere as great (I hope) than the danger of pollutants like CFCs to a thinning ozone layer, it will be a noticeable thing within a short while, if not already noticeable now.

Any change to the temperature -- even a change to the delta without a net temperature increase or decrease -- is a bad thing, because such occurences at a minimum, will provide stressors for plant and animal life which has evolved succesfully for the existing temperature delta.

During the late 1990's I recall reading an article about aluminum chaff (spelling?) being sprayed (released from) military aircraft in the Denver area. Something about concerns regarding health issues. I wonder if this could have evolved into the "chemtrail" stories. Many of these type of stories seem to emanate from events in the Denver area? The Jeff Rense show seems to be one of the starting points for these stories that appear to have no substance. One of my co-workers is from Denver and no one will ever convince him chemtrails are not real because his beliefs are constantly being reinforced by his friends from that area. He never listens to the weird radio shows and does not own a computer, so his information seems to come entirely from friends in the Denver area.

chemtrails ARE REAL!

to Mr. Chemtrails Debunker

if you have some blue skies for days, then on spray day you have hundreds of chemical trails that eventually (after a few hours) form a milky-white goo -- what would you call those?
millions of people have seen the chemtrails and most of them know by now that it is IMPOSSIBLE to produce contrails at the lower altitudes and air higher air temperature at what chemtrails appear.
period.
IMPOSSIBLE!
Therefore --- the chemtrails MUST exist.
If you want to argue otherwise then you must be arguing against laws of physics!
Are you suggesting the crystals of ice can form at, let say 55 degrees Fahrenheit?
it is impossible!

Do some research and you will understand that you cannot 'debunk' something that it is provably real.
Still do not believe me? Well, you can see the chemtrail 'soup' after the spraying, at night with powerful spot light -- just shine it up there and look!
Sometimes, the days after spraying you will see the stuff falling down. THAT is what you BREATHE, my friend!

Let me put it this way; I would love more then anything that you, 'Mr. debunker' are correct with your theory and that I am wrong with my theory,
and I would gladly admit that you are right if you can PROVE that either I am making this stuff up or that I should have nothing to worry about because you have the proof
that chemtrails are harmless!. If you do so, as a token of my appreciation I will give you, say $ 1000, just because you have proven that I was worrying about nothing.
My sanity is definitely worth $1000.
So if you can convince me that some of the people who got sick after the spraying are loonies (or equivalent) and that I am wrong -- I would like to hear that.

So, for the starters, please explain about those pathogens that are found in the chemtrails,
please explain about mycoplasma-based illneses,
please explain about 3000 percent increase of upper respiratory diseases since the chemtrails spraying began,
please explain why contrails do not last for hours on the sky -- but chemtrails do,
please explain why contrails do not make people sick -- but chemtrails do,
please explain why contrails do not ever cover the whole sky -- but chemtrails do,

Go ahead � start debunking, $ 1000 is on the table.


Messenger
Monday, October 11, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------
ignorance is what holds us enslaved
the truth comes in only one flavor.




[edit on 11-10-2004 by incognit0]

Mr. Incognit0, welcome to ATS.

I see that you have just joined. Now I myself have only been a member for a month, so far be it from me to "instruct" you on any aspect of this fine forum. However, I might suggest that you read this entire thread, since most of your questions seem to have already been addressed in the three previous pages.

If you have some questions that have not already been addressed, please post them; I am sure that I or any other of my colleagues here will be happy to respond.

Blaine says:

"During the late 1990's I recall reading an article about aluminum chaff (spelling?) being sprayed (released from) military aircraft in the Denver area."

Chaff is still used as a part of an aircraft's ASE suite to confuse radar into thinking the target is larger than it really is. However, they're not sprayed, they're actually dispensed with or without pyrotechnics. But typically yo'd see chaff dispensing being done over target ranges. I'm not familiar with tany stories about such in Denver, but that doesn't mean there weren't any such incidents.

"Something about concerns regarding health issues."

You're probably aware of some studies which have suggested a correlation between aluminum cookware and exacerbating incidences or symptoms of Alzheimer's Disease. However, that's aluminum in the food chain. I don't think there's any link between exposure to aluminum itself and any disease or illness; if there is the airlines, my company (which builds most of our products from aluminun), and the aluminum foil people ought to get ready for a huge lawsuit!

"Many of these type of stories seem to emanate from events in the Denver area?"

True. Part of that is the DIA myth, with the "suspicious" murals and the Secret Underground Caverns, etc. I had the extreme misfortune to visit DIA three times; on two occasions their "state-of-the-art" baggage handling system tried to eat my guitar case, and the Leo Tanguma murals really suck.

However the fact that it is bad art by a bad artist who ripped off the airport people for the sake of political correctness says a lot about bad art and peer pressure, but it doesn't have anything to do with the Illuminati or the Skull and Bones guys or the Little Purple Men from Arcturus. It's just bad art.

aliens dont exist either guys. Remember that.


If your interested in seeing chemtrails that dont exist, I took pictures last fall.

for the gallery go to www.imagestation.com and log in as nick0000 password: nick0000 and go to the favorite albums.

Well, I went to the link you provided and there were no pictures there at all.

Regardless, pictures of persistent contrails don't prove the existence of a plot any more than pictures of Christmas-presents prove the existence of Santa Claus

[edit on 11-10-2004 by Off_The_Street]

Originally posted by incognit0
chemtrails ARE REAL!

to Mr. Chemtrails Debunker

if you have some blue skies for days, then on spray day you have hundreds of chemical trails that eventually (after a few hours) form a milky-white goo -- what would you call those?

Uh, a weather front moving through? Why don't you buy a decent barometer and track the changes in the air pressure when the "chemtrails" appear?

millions of people have seen the chemtrails and most of them know by now that it is IMPOSSIBLE to produce contrails at the lower altitudes and air higher air temperature at what chemtrails appear.
period.

Millions, huh? And how do these millions of people know that exact altitude and air temperature that these "chemtrails" are located at?

IMPOSSIBLE!
Therefore --- the chemtrails MUST exist.

If you want to argue otherwise then you must be arguing against laws of physics!
Are you suggesting the crystals of ice can form at, let say 55 degrees Fahrenheit?
it is impossible!

Damn, you have to warn me before you post something like that. Now I hvae to clean the Coke off of my monitor.

And just how do you come up with the idea that "Chemtrails" are present in 55 degree air?

Please post your proof.

Do some research and you will understand that you cannot 'debunk' something that it is provably real.
Still do not believe me? Well, you can see the chemtrail 'soup' after the spraying, at night with powerful spot light -- just shine it up there and look!
Sometimes, the days after spraying you will see the stuff falling down. THAT is what you BREATHE, my friend!

Let me put it this way; I would love more then anything that you, 'Mr. debunker' are correct with your theory and that I am wrong with my theory,
and I would gladly admit that you are right if you can PROVE that either I am making this stuff up or that I should have nothing to worry about because you have the proof
that chemtrails are harmless!. If you do so, as a token of my appreciation I will give you, say $ 1000, just because you have proven that I was worrying about nothing.
My sanity is definitely worth $1000.
So if you can convince me that some of the people who got sick after the spraying are loonies (or equivalent) and that I am wrong -- I would like to hear that.

So, for the starters, please explain about those pathogens that are found in the chemtrails,

What pathogens? Please provide proof. Note that I have high standards for quality control, so please do not bother to post anything from carnicom.

please explain about mycoplasma-based illneses,

Again, please provide back up for your claims.

please explain about 3000 percent increase of upper respiratory diseases since the chemtrails spraying began,

Did you know that scientists have correlated children's shoe sizes with their math test scores? Yes, it is true! The smaller their shoe size, the lower their scores. This is a proven fact.

please explain why contrails do not last for hours on the sky -- but chemtrails do,

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?










Do you find that question objectionable? Well, most people do. Is there a difference between that question and yours? absolutely not.

please explain why contrails do not make people sick -- but chemtrails do,
please explain why contrails do not ever cover the whole sky -- but chemtrails do,

Ditto. it is called begging the question

Since your logic is flawed, you lose the debate. Please donate the $1,000 to a local charity.

Its amazing how things can be done right in front of us, but we wont see it.
I will give an example. I have lived in Atlanta for over 7 years now. Along with about 4 million other people, I go about my business everyday and never really stop to "see."
The trees as they turn colors in the autum, we see, but dont...something has to draw our attention to it, like a little old lady who said, "arent the leaves beautiful?". I said my automatic, "yes"...but then paused, and really started to see in the "present moment" without all the regular mind chatter that often takes place in day to day life.

The point? Well, about a year ago, I started reading about chemtrails, etc.
Call it what you want...fog, chems, personally it doesnt matter for this point...
The point is, I started observing the sky. Nice summer days (and even at night on a bright lit night) I would watch as extremly long chem trails (whatever it is) came from behind the airplanes.
I watched as the chemtrails formed and literally begin to make the cloudscape of the sky.
Day after day I watched this and I would often, on my way to work, watch as multiple airplanes lined the sky and made their "patterns" and the clouds would often drift off with and/or form new clouds.
Textures...some times fluffy and sometimes heavier when spraying, etc.

So many people when they look up in the sky just assume the clouds have been there...when I have watched from a clear morning to an afternoon as they are formed by the airplanes.
Recently, or more correctly, after the hurricanes which swept through Florida I stopped seeing as much activity. Only recently have I seen such spraying, but it doesnt seem to be as heavy.
(though I have read on Rense that usually they dont spray as much in the autum...watch and see)

There are many pictures (stills) people put up of before and after. It is easier, especially if you are in an area with spraying, to observe it for yourself. If you dont see it...fine...if you do, then you ask yourself, whats up.

Once I started seeing this constantly, I wondered why others havent noticed...but, after all, I never really payed attention myself until someone said, "stop...see whats happening around you..."

Gods peace

dAlen

I found an article about the 747 being used as a wildfire tanker
www.landings.com...

Better link
www.evergreenaviation.com...

The thing is that this system is ment to dump alot of water at slower speeds and lower altitudes.

[edit on 4-11-2004 by brianhks]

Another one I heard of was that the spraying was being done in conjunction with the "shadow" governments weather controling machine up in Alaska. The point of the spraying is to help bounce and direct the weather machines radar waves to the target.

See and they used the weather machine to direct all those hurricanes at Florida so Bush could go down and look like the hero as he gets all kinds of aid for the residents, thus alowing him to win that state in the election. (man I kill myself )

[edit on 4-11-2004 by brianhks]

Unfortunately, people like DAlen are unable to distinguish between causation and correlation.

Did you know that there is a correlation between children�s show sizs and low math test scores? Does this mean that small shows cause poor test scores?

No, younger children have smaller feet. Younger children also don�t do as well on math tests as older children. The underlying causation is the child�s age.

The same thing happens with persistent contrails and overcast skies. They both have the same underlying cause, High relative humidity. (to simplify)

chemtrails are not just exclusive to areas of the u.s

i live in the u.k and recently they seem to be everywhere the sky is blue.....next day # weather for all

i cant remember the site but you can look at raw feeds from sattelite all showing chemtrails worldwide.....until they reach the nice people at fox sky news and other liar media and get doctored out before they are used for weather reports ans such like

talk to a lot of non commercial piolts - astrolgers - model aircraft dudes in the u.k and they will confirm chemtrail activity on the increase at a real alarming rate

i dont want to believe in chemtrails just for the sake of conspiracy but i do see them on mos days - i also live right next door to an airbase and have noticed the planes spraying them landing there on occasions

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Unfortunately, people like DAlen are unable to distinguish between causation and correlation.
(to simplify)

the point is that ALL the clouds during my observation over days...months, etc. came from SPECIFICALLY THE PLANES...

I'm sorry, but I'm going to be direct.

Radarmatrix.com has sufficiently documented EMF weapons, chemtrails and effects of the HAARP system that I do not need to go into all that now.

I have tumors on my adrenal glands that I have had for four hears; and I can hear the whistling of HAARP, and the milky white chemicals that planes spray across the sky make me very sick. When the sky is milky white, I can hardly get out of bed.

Not believing that the Globalists and the Georgia Guidestones and the Masons and the Rosecrucians and the Federalists and the Objectivists and the NeoCons and the LeoStraussians ALL want to empty the planet of everyone else but themselves--NOT BELIEVING IT will not make these phenomena go away. Governments are now deeply invested in OMNICIDE>

You kiddies deep in your denials, excuses, doctrines and preferences make me sick too. You don't want to see what's right in front of your faces.

May Almighty God have mercy on your stupefied, TV-addlepaited brains. I guess cause-and-effect is simply beyond your comprehension.

Grandma Emily

Radarmatrix?




Please, he is almost as loony as Clif Carnicom.

His grasp of science is about at the same level at least, which is to say it is nonexistant.