Finally, a swedish Politician speaks on chemtrails in our skies!

reply to post by Char-Lee


Show me where one person in this thread has said that you are stupid. No one has called you a liar, no one has called you stupid. We have simply stated that you were mistaken on some things that you said.

If you live in the United States, then there is air traffic going over your head. You may not have noticed it because of the altitude it's at (I have heard planes going over and spent several minutes looking and never saw them, and I've seen planes going over and never heard them), but it's there. There is nowhere in the US that can NOT have air traffic going overhead, just because of the sheer number of flights going over every single day.

As for this being a debunker site, since when is trying to show that there are other explanations wrong? I'm sorry, I thought that people were allowed to disagree, and show that there were other explanations, not that we are all supposed to be robots that agree with everything that is said, especially when we know the subject that is under discussion.

Originally posted by Char-Lee


I have lived in one place nearly 20 years and my husband is a business owner, neither of us is particularly stupid and yet we can't get anyone to accept that we do NOT have large airplane traffic here. We have rarely seen in all these years any but a few offshore contrails, some small personal jets that hit the Crescent City airport and this last year for the first time we have seen military jets and choppers go over a few times.

The building of the grid pattern we saw was being done by two jets ...for a purpose...we have since seen abnormal trails from jets chis cross three or four times. I was hoping for discussion and I get throttled.

But I showed you the REAL TIME image of air traffic near Brookings- DID You look?? It clearly showed almost 50 planes within 50 miles- if any of them left a persistent contrail you could see it. I showed you a UNited jet almost directly overhead of Brookings...and yet you still deny it...fascinating.

I do not doubt that you saw 2 planes leaving persistent contrails...maybe they even did turn around and fly back...but it could have been anything- air force training, flight testing, atmospheric research...

planes leave persistent contrails...so just seeing one do so cannot be considered "evidence" on "chemtrails merely based on its flight path.

Originally posted by Thorazine

Originally posted by HIWATT

Originally posted by Thorazine

Originally posted by Char-Lee

There have been many pictures both of the planes and the trails but you will never accept any of them I am thinking.

www.darkgovernment.com...

Sigh...you really need to be more discerning about your sources
Sigh...you really need to be more discerning about your sources and learn how to validate claims yourself...just because that website says its a "chemtrail" planes doesn't mean you should automatically believe it...

that plane- and every other supposed spray plane has been thoroughly debunked- (scroll down for the actual plane in your article):

contrailscience.com...


...and while you are there- take at this article on "chemtrail" grids...any thoughts?:

contrailscience.com...

In all fairness, you just posted a "source" which is a website authored by Uncinus. So in effect, you're using one ATS members opinion as "evidence" that another's is somehow incorrect?

LOL

Speaking about "discerning sources" !

Actually- that is not accurate

It IS accurate!

Mick is a member here. So what if he has a website somewhere else where he says the exact same things he says here. It's still his opinion.

He likes to pump his own tires with regards to his knowledge of aviation... quite something for someone who's made a living programming video games

He is not any more an expert on what or what is not a "chemtrail" than I am or you are. Which is to say, his opinion carries no more weight than that of the member here you tried to beat it with.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I understand your point, but the media has an obligation to protect the public. We have a government that has prevented journalists from reporting the number of deaths that were occurring in the Vietnam war. Our government has been caught many times lying about events, spying, arms deals, soldiers deaths, experiments, chemical dumps etc.... So just because people don't have cold hard facts, doesn't mean there is not a possibility that chemtrails can't be real. Corporations hide facts from the public, the government is no different.

The Watergate scandal would have never come to light if it wasn't for two Washington Post reporters. I can go on and on giving examples of government cover-ups that have came to light. Why would you or anyone else entertain the thought that these can be nothing but normal contrails? How would you or anyone else feel 10 years down the line that these contrails were in fact chemtrails. How would you feel if we found out later that these chemtrails are now causing children and adults to die or they're becoming deathly ill?

What would be better, to wait until we get concrete facts when it's too late and nothing can be done to stop it, or investigate and prove that all of this is baloney or it's for real? What harm can come from proving to the public once and for all that these are nothing but contrails. You would set a lot of minds at ease, and show that the government is really concerned about the public's safety.

Our government works for us. Giving them free reign and not being accountable for the public's concerns is dangerous!

Originally posted by WeRpeons
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

I understand your point, but the media has an obligation to protect the public. We have a government that has prevented journalists from reporting the number of deaths that were occurring in the Vietnam war. Our government has been caught many times lying about events, spying, arms deals, soldiers deaths, experiments, chemical dumps etc.... So just because people don't have cold hard facts, doesn't mean there is not a possibility that chemtrails can't be real. Corporations hide facts from the public, the government is no different.

Indeed - but claiming something is real and then not actualy having any credible evidence and complaining when people point it out is not right eitehr.

tehre is a difference between suspicion and copnclusion.

I have no problem at all with people saying "I suspect the Govt is spraying us with stuff - they have done so in the past, they routinely keep secrets, and I don't trust them" - that is perfectly reasonable.

But when you say "The proof that Govt is spraying stuff on me now is that they sprayed stuff in th 1960's and they also sprayed vietnam in secret in the 1960's (and otehr stuff) " then I'm going to ask how it is that those show that "it" is happening now, and do you have any actual evidence that actually shows that it is actually happening now?.

And when you say "well you can't prove that it isnt' happening" then I'm going to roll my eyes and think unkind thoughts of you

Page one was interesting, a bit like a debunk convention, a lot of Co2 there, mostly to do with, "Why would any one do such a thing" My words, but you get the picture.
Is there a rationale for any sort of geo-engineering directly related to AGW, there certainly is, and perfectly described here, where I have emboldened the text. The paper is actually about Ocean iron fertilization to give CO2 a sore head, but also stressing the dangers unknown or otherwise. these are the authors,

John J. Cullen, Philip W. Boyd,
Department of Oceanography, Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia,
Chemical and Physical Oceanography, Department of Chemistry, University of Otago, New Zealand, respectively.

PROPOSED STRATEGY FOR MITIGATING
CLIMATE CHANGE
Despite profound uncertainties about its ultimate
consequences, widespread fertilization of the ocean is
being seriously considered as a strategy for mitigating
climate change (Buesseler et al. 2008). One reason for
contemplating this potentially risky manipulation of
marine ecosystems on an unprecedented scale is that
the consequences of taking no action could be worse.
The same reasoning is used to justify consideration of a
broad range of geoengineering proposals (Kintisch
2007). The premise of these arguments is that the geoengineering
activity could slow the rise of atmospheric
CO2 concentrations or otherwise modify global warming
enough to significantly mitigate greenhouse-gas
driven climate change. Pacala & Socolow (2004)
describe a portfolio of technologies they claim could
solve the carbon and climate problem for the next half
century. Each of seven ‘stabilization wedges’ would..... blah blah.

Dr, John Holdren's video is interesting too, he has elsewhere, (Oh yes the white house, to add and elsewhere) variably insisted that the
terminology should not be, 'global warming' but should be, 'Global climate disruption' or perhaps, 'global climatic disruption.' ...nah, 'Global climate disruption' sounds better. I'm not sure if he ever mentioned, 'climate change' though.
When you look at the extract from the Canada/New Zealand paper, and political waffle it's easy to see the disconnect, isn't it?

reply to post by Bodhi911


Scary stuff.

Been to Stockholm once, long ago. One of the most beautiful cities I've ever visited.

Originally posted by smurfy
When you look at the extract from the Canada/New Zealand paper, and political waffle it's easy to see the disconnect, isn't it?

I saw a clear connection - Climate disruption and disruption from climate change to such an extent that the lesser disruption that would be involved trying to halt it would be preferable

What disconnection do you see??

i could care less if all the government people in world get together on tv and admit to it, i don't need some higher up to tell me what i can see with my own damn eyes, its not a belief, its not a hope, its right in front of my eyes, just like i don't need a major government body telling me other species exist, i can see it on cave painting, historic paintings, and eye witness sightings for thousands of years

what i do want to know is what the hell is in it, with Alzheimer, ADHD, down syndrome and numerous other ailment on the rise how do we know this stuff isn't the cause. i sure as hell don't trust a government body who for years now has said fluoride is great, even though there is evidence showing it rots teeth and cause brain injury over long period of exposure how do we know this isn't the next installment of fluoride treatment in the name of global warming, of course.

reply to post by Seektruthalways1


My video has been removed, just put up a higher quality found here.

reply to post by Zaphod58


So your saying a passenger jet, can make 2 types of contrails out of the same fuel, from the same engines? Thats impossible, thats like saying your car can emit 2 types of exhaust from the same engine and same fuel. Also from my years from experience and research looking up at the skies and recording, no normal contrail will fan out from a regular passenger liner that isnt carrying aerosol spraying equipment. IF and IF the contrail does linger in the sky for over 10 mins it will not fan out but form a solid line and eventually dissipate like a normal cloud.

There is definitely some other exhaust from another source, thats what I am speaking of. Chemtrails clouds that form in a day that has no cloud cover is artificial. If there was the right atmospheric pressure, temperature, and humidity, there would be regular cloud cover. And if you tried to form clouds in a cloudless day with a jet by water vapor exhaust from a jet, it would dissipate due to the lack of correct conditions.

One of your video supposedly showing a jet making 2 types of contrail has been "removed by he user" - you say it is your video - why did you remove it?

the other one "starting at 9.50" only shows 1 type of contrail I can see - ther is no comment or text annotated it to it pointing out 2 types.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by smurfy
When you look at the extract from the Canada/New Zealand paper, and political waffle it's easy to see the disconnect, isn't it?

I saw a clear connection - Climate disruption and disruption from climate change to such an extent that the lesser disruption that would be involved trying to halt it would be preferable

What disconnection do you see??

Nobody said anything about a lesser disruption, except yourself.

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by smurfy
When you look at the extract from the Canada/New Zealand paper, and political waffle it's easy to see the disconnect, isn't it?

I saw a clear connection - Climate disruption and disruption from climate change to such an extent that the lesser disruption that would be involved trying to halt it would be preferable

What disconnection do you see??

Nobody said anything about a lesser disruption, except yourself.

Did you miss teh bit that was bolded??

One reason for contemplating this potentially risky manipulation of marine ecosystems on an unprecedented scale is that the consequences of taking no action could be worse.

Originally posted by Seektruthalways1
reply to post by Seektruthalways1

 

My video has been removed, just put up a higher quality found here.

this looks like the one I mentioned was removed in my previous post - but again - what 2 kinds of contrails from a single jet??

Originally posted by Char-Lee

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Char-Lee

 

What area has no normal ir traffic?

On the CA/OR border at the coast in the boonies.

Perhaps you could highlight which are on this screnshot I took from Flightradar24.com a few minutes ago?

We have a few coast gaurd and a few small planes that's it.

Seems you aer a bit behind the times - air traffic has increased a bit recently

Can you explain a grid produced over a small town by what looked like military jet.

Yep - if there are military jets flying at intersecting courses and producing contrails, the wind can blow them into a grid - see this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Glad to have helped

Originally posted by HIWATT



It IS accurate!

Mick is a member here. So what if he has a website somewhere else where he says the exact same things he says here. It's still his opinion.

He likes to pump his own tires with regards to his knowledge of aviation... quite something for someone who's made a living programming video games

He is not any more an expert on what or what is not a "chemtrail" than I am or you are. Which is to say, his opinion carries no more weight than that of the member here you tried to beat it with.

NO.

There is a difference between FACT and opinion. It is Mick's opinion is that he sees no evidence of "chemtrails"

But there are plenty of FACTS that he - and others- use to support their opinion. Facts like contrails have always been able to persist, spread and cover the sky in a haze of cirrus cloud.

facts like planes often leave persistent contrails and so multiple planes leaving multiple persistent contrails will look like a grid.

Facts like (insert supposed "spray" plane of your choice) is not really a spray plane but in fact a plane known for something else entirely.

These facts happen to be highlighted on Contrail Science.

Contrail Science is filled with facts...verifiable, well sourced facts of basic science and logic.

Opinion has very little to do with the information presented on CS...

the fact that you seem to have trouble discerning between facts and opinion is troubling.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by smurfy
When you look at the extract from the Canada/New Zealand paper, and political waffle it's easy to see the disconnect, isn't it?

I saw a clear connection - Climate disruption and disruption from climate change to such an extent that the lesser disruption that would be involved trying to halt it would be preferable

What disconnection do you see??

Nobody said anything about a lesser disruption, except yourself.

Did you miss teh bit that was bolded??

One reason for contemplating this potentially risky manipulation of marine ecosystems on an unprecedented scale is that the consequences of taking no action could be worse.

Nope, that was the bit I embolded myself, read it again.

Originally posted by Seektruthalways1

There is definitely some other exhaust from another source, thats what I am speaking of. Chemtrails clouds that form in a day that has no cloud cover is artificial. If there was the right atmospheric pressure, temperature, and humidity, there would be regular cloud cover. And if you tried to form clouds in a cloudless day with a jet by water vapor exhaust from a jet, it would dissipate due to the lack of correct conditions.

This is not accurate.

For a contrail to persist, the air at flight level has to be saturated with respect to ice. This CAN occur in clear skies...and all that is needed is a catalyst like hot, moist jet exhaust to form a contrail. That contrail will persist and spread...and actually initiate further ice crystal growth from the ambient air:

www.iac.ethz.ch...

the existence of cloud-free air masses in the status of ice supersaturation (so-called ice supersaturated regions, ISSRs) is clear from a theoretical point of view and it was also proven by a variety of measurement techniques.

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by smurfy
When you look at the extract from the Canada/New Zealand paper, and political waffle it's easy to see the disconnect, isn't it?

I saw a clear connection - Climate disruption and disruption from climate change to such an extent that the lesser disruption that would be involved trying to halt it would be preferable

What disconnection do you see??

Nobody said anything about a lesser disruption, except yourself.

Did you miss teh bit that was bolded??

One reason for contemplating this potentially risky manipulation of marine ecosystems on an unprecedented scale is that the consequences of taking no action could be worse.

Nope, that was the bit I embolded myself, read it again.

Yep - it says that doing nothing may be worse than doing something, hence ther are at least 2 levels of disruption involved - hence my point that doing something may involve a lesser level of disruption.

I'm still interested in what you think the disconnect is - can you be more specific??