The Chemtrail Hoax

a reply to: network dude

Fair enough, as stated, I will get video of them next time I see a trail under a cumulus cloud.
I think the orb ufo's are pretty amazing. There are unknown objects flying around in the middle of the day and no one wants to acknowledge them. That may be a bigger conspiracy than the chemtrails existing.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: DerekB

Videos of blurry bugs and planes are only UFOs until they're identified as blurry bugs and planes. You know? Like your videos.

So it's not about faith, yet you can't provide any evidence of chemtrails existing?

All Praise The Chemtrails God!

Why do you believe you are qualified to judge what is in a video when you clearly couldn't tell that this ufo is more than a few ft. away when compared with the power pole? www.youtube.com...
You have no evidence for any of your claims. You have no evidence for it being only a few ft away and it being out of focus. Clearly everything in the shot was in focus.

a reply to: DerekB

My only claim is that chemtrails are not real as there's no evidence for them.

Want to prove me wrong with some evidence?

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: DerekB

My only claim is that chemtrails are not real as there's no evidence for them.

Want to prove me wrong with some evidence?

You write 2 lines and still have to edit it? C'mon.
You absolutely made more claims than one as anyone will see that reads through the thread. You also don't list evidence for any of your claims, but expect me to have evidence for all claims.

a reply to: DerekB

Your claim was a UFO and chemtrails. You've completely failed to prove that there was a UFO or a chemtrail.

Come on guy. Try harder.

Just a tiny bit of evidence to prove chemtrails exist?

originally posted by: DerekB
a reply to: network dude

Fair enough, as stated, I will get video of them next time I see a trail under a cumulus cloud.
I think the orb ufo's are pretty amazing. There are unknown objects flying around in the middle of the day and no one wants to acknowledge them. That may be a bigger conspiracy than the chemtrails existing.

If you can get a camera with a good zoom capability, I'd say forget about the chemtrails, and show the world your UFO's. Believe it or not, you look less crazy if you talk about them as opposed to the mystery spraying campaign that remains an enigma after 20 years with ZERO evidence to support it.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: DerekB
a reply to: network dude

Fair enough, as stated, I will get video of them next time I see a trail under a cumulus cloud.
I think the orb ufo's are pretty amazing. There are unknown objects flying around in the middle of the day and no one wants to acknowledge them. That may be a bigger conspiracy than the chemtrails existing.

If you can get a camera with a good zoom capability, I'd say forget about the chemtrails, and show the world your UFO's. Believe it or not, you look less crazy if you talk about them as opposed to the mystery spraying campaign that remains an enigma after 20 years with ZERO evidence to support it.

I have seen videos of these ufo's zoomed with good resolution and they just appear to be balls of light or something of the sort, some appear metallic and they often move with intelligence or guidance. They move much faster than any known birds or insects. Even if I got them zoomed with great resolution, it's likely not going to be much more than whatever is already on video. Their interaction with the trails makes them much more interesting. I have never seen them flying around traditional agreed on contrails that quickly disappear and dissipate.

Nvm.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Nvm.

I'm sure they can, I just don't think it's the ones that I am seeing that spreads and covers the sky with a thick haze. I'm sure the airlines and government could figure something out if they didn't want the entire sky covered in an artificial haze on some days. I find it odd that it's not interesting to more people that the entire sky can be changed from planes flying over. Whether you side on contrails or chemtrails, it's undeniable that they can change the entire weather and appearance of a day.

a reply to: DerekB

This is nothing new. Even back in 1980 researchers were finding that the east/west upper air routes covering the Midwest States was producing more cloud cover.

Richard Semonin, Illinois Institute of Natual Resources states.

In the absense of natural clouds given the correct atmospheric conditions jet aircraft in high frequency can almost completely cover the atmosphere, visible atmosphere, with clouds.

You are chasing a hoax. You claim never to have seen persistent contrails when you were growing up. This is a constant theme with chemtrailers who actually believe that a contrail should only last a few minutes or even seconds. It is just ridiculous and even leads to the ridiculous belief that modern hi-bypass jet engines are incapable of producing contrails! Yes some die-hard chemtrailers actually believe that!

As an avid aviation enthusiast from the 1970s I was watching the likes of Boeing 747s laying down horizon to horizon persistent contrails. The only difference between then and now is the massive increase in air traffic and airliners heavily utilizing the upper air routes.

How often have we heard the cry from chemtrail believers that back in their day that they didn't have horizon to horizon trails?

From 1956

'Another consideration is the length of the contrail: it may persist, and stretch from horizon to horizon; or it may be quickly re-absorbed, giving the effect simply of a short plume.'

1956 article. 'IDENTIFICATION BY CONTRAILS Possibilities Investigated by the Aircraft Recognition Society'

First part of 1956 article

Second part of 1956 article

Have a look at images pre-1995.

Pre 1995 Persistent Contrail Archive

A good source of contrail images is from railway enthusiasts. I recently uploaded a series of contrail images from US train enthusiasts dating from the 1960s to the early mid-1990s.

Thread on Metabunk

originally posted by: tommyjo
a reply to: DerekB

This is nothing new. Even back in 1980 researchers were finding that the east/west upper air routes covering the Midwest States was producing more cloud cover.

Richard Semonin, Illinois Institute of Natual Resources states.

In the absense of natural clouds given the correct atmospheric conditions jet aircraft in high frequency can almost completely cover the atmosphere, visible atmosphere, with clouds.

You are chasing a hoax. You claim never to have seen persistent contrails when you were growing up. This is a constant theme with chemtrailers who actually believe that a contrail should only last a few minutes or even seconds. It is just ridiculous and even leads to the ridiculous belief that modern hi-bypass jet engines are incapable of producing contrails! Yes some die-hard chemtrailers actually believe that!

As an avid aviation enthusiast from the 1970s I was watching the likes of Boeing 747s laying down horizon to horizon persistent contrails. The only difference between then and now is the massive increase in air traffic and airliners heavily utilizing the upper air routes.

How often have we heard the cry from chemtrail believers that back in their day that they didn't have horizon to horizon trails?

From 1956

'Another consideration is the length of the contrail: it may persist, and stretch from horizon to horizon; or it may be quickly re-absorbed, giving the effect simply of a short plume.'

1956 article. 'IDENTIFICATION BY CONTRAILS Possibilities Investigated by the Aircraft Recognition Society'

First part of 1956 article

Second part of 1956 article

Have a look at images pre-1995.

Pre 1995 Persistent Contrail Archive

A good source of contrail images is from railway enthusiasts. I recently uploaded a series of contrail images from US train enthusiasts dating from the 1960s to the early mid-1990s.

Thread on Metabunk

Well, if I ever see the ufo's around the trails accounted and explained for, and I never see any of them below cumulus clouds, I may likely change what I believe about them. The old documentation is a big factor, but that doesn't mean that what was contrails then is contrails now. If they are the same trails from the past, where are all the ufo's flying around them like the ones that are seen today?

a reply to: DerekB
No, you said "I understand that contrails are supposed to form around 30,000+ ft
" and "You can't prove that all the trails seen are at 30,000 ft. or higher." and "It will just be argued that all clouds are cumulus and the cloud is at 30000 ft. " Why did you think that contrails only occur above 30000ft?

a reply to: mrthumpy

You just quoted where I said around 30000 ft. 30000 ft. is the general altitude referenced for contrails forming and -40.

originally posted by: DerekB
a reply to: mrthumpy

You just quoted where I said around 30000 ft. 30000 ft. is the general altitude referenced for contrails forming and -40.

do you fully understand the -40 thing? because it's really important for any trail to form. When you get an idea that a trail you see is low, check the weather charts to see the temps at the altitude you think they are at. And if you actually put a little more effort into it, you can check the flight tracking apps to see if the plane that made the trail shows up. Then you will have empirical data for your studies.

I think if you do spend just a little time on this, you will either find the smoking gun proof, or you will quickly realize that we aren't lying to you and contrails are likely what you are seeing, and at the appropriate altitude.

Then you can focus on the orb UFO's. There is also a vacuum in the evidence department of those. I'd hate for you to be 0 for 2.

a reply to: network dude

Because it has to be cold enough for contrails, Alex?
I understand your point.
I disagree about evidence for the ufo Orbs. There is more than enough video evidence to prove they exist and aren't debris, birds or bugs. Some of them like the one I caught on video seem to materialize out of nothing or have something that makes them look invisible at times. There is no natural explanation for them. Birds, bugs, and flowers don't cut it. What kind of evidence do you think there needs to be in order to admit they exist?

a reply to: DerekB

you get a photo expert to share your beliefs, then you can be the guy who goes down in history as the first to ever get photographic proof of ET. But you are kind of blinded by bias in this, and you don't seem to be open to anyone critiquing your pictures. Besides, UFO's aren't my worry. If they exist, super, if not, that's fine too. I just know that contrails follow the laws of physics and can be explained with that same set of rules. I think it's important to separate the two conspiracies as they are vastly different.

Focus.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: DerekB

you get a photo expert to share your beliefs, then you can be the guy who goes down in history as the first to ever get photographic proof of ET. But you are kind of blinded by bias in this, and you don't seem to be open to anyone critiquing your pictures. Besides, UFO's aren't my worry. If they exist, super, if not, that's fine too. I just know that contrails follow the laws of physics and can be explained with that same set of rules. I think it's important to separate the two conspiracies as they are vastly different.

Focus.

Who said anything about ET?
Lol I am open to critique, but I am going to point it out when the critique is flawed. How do you define being open to critique?
I would disagree and say that the ufo's and possible chemtrails are connected, there is video evidence of one firing something into a trail and there are other videos showing them interacting with trails. I find it highly unlikely that anything would be interested or interacting with normal engine condensation, makes no sense. If these are some secret technology from our government, it makes no sense to use them in the middle of the day while they can be observed and captured on video. They also draw more attention to the skies and the trails.

a reply to: network dude

As far as an expert to "certify" my ufo is a ufo, what will that accomplish? How would an expert certify my ufo as proof of ET?

originally posted by: DerekB
a reply to: mrthumpy

You just quoted where I said around 30000 ft. 30000 ft. is the general altitude referenced for contrails forming and -40.

Where is that referenced? The only people I've s we quoting that altitude are chemtrail believers

a reply to: mrthumpy

You should really research Tricky Micks website called "contrail science".

Contrails typically form above 30,000 feet
contrailscience.com...