Pilot admits chemtrails and says they are a "necessary evil"........

Point at which he says they are a necessary evil is at 1:23 in.....



My opinion is that there is overwhelming evidence of these, we can see them with our own eyes everyday, we need to move past the disinfo distraction of "do they exist" to questions like what they really are, are they harming us, who is doing it, and why they are doing it.

For those of you new to the debate I would suggest that since they exist but many don't actually realize their existence, there is a massive effort afoot to cover up their existence, and of course that effort would exist on here, let's watch them self-identify as part of the cover-up.

What else have we been lied to about? I suggest there is much.........

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE


I've always been in two minds about this subject. A few years ago I posted some videos on youtube showing the grid pattern that these aircraft were leaving behind. Then I learnt about how contrails are formed and dismissed the grids as mere contrails.

However, over the last year and a half I have not seen this grid effect of persistent contrails since. Now I'm starting to wonder again. I realise that atmospheric conditions play a big part in the creation of contrails but I work outdoors and I see the sky on a daily basis.

Couple of my vids, I didn't realise it was 4 years ago... Please excuse the expletives used in these videos.





This has really got me wondering, why don't I see these trails anymore?

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE


Thanks for posting this!
I have also been trying to spread the truth about chemtrails and aerial spaying for some time now...and most the time it falls on deaf ears.

The other day, the sky was just filled with these chemtrails. I just couldn't believe it, they sprayed for hours.
I noticed when I was leaving the grocery store, I decided to point out the strange patterns to a random person in the parking lot. All he said as a reply was, "Oh yeah, that is strange eh?."

I used to work at the Sudbury Airport, so I am very familiar with their flight patterns...none of these match up with the abundant amount of planes that are spraying on those given days.

I believe they are very real and they are harming people and the environment.

I'm not one to usually re-hash one of my older posts, but I think this will really help your argument.











Anyone who tells you there isn't any form of aerial spraying going on up there needs to do some research...

United States Patent and Trademark Office,

1957075 – May 1, 1934 – Airplane Spray Equipment
2097581 – November 2, 1937 – Electric Stream Generator – Referenced in 3990987
2409201 – October 15, 1946 – Smoke Producing Mixture
2476171 – July 18, 1945 – Smoke Screen Generator
2480967 – September 6, 1949 – Aerial Discharge Device
2550324 – April 24, 1951 – Process For Controlling Weather
2510867 – October 9, 1951 – Method of Crystal Formation and Precipitation
2582678 – June 15, 1952 – Material Disseminating Apparatus For Airplanes
2591988 – April 8, 1952 – Production of TiO2 Pigments – Referenced in 3899144
2614083 – October 14, 1952 – Metal Chloride Screening Smoke Mixture
2633455 – March 31, 1953 – Smoke Generator
2688069 – August 31, 1954 – Steam Generator – Referenced in 3990987
2721495 – October 25, 1955 – Method And Apparatus For Detecting Minute Crystal Forming Particles Suspended in a Gaseous Atmosphere
2730402 – January 10, 1956 – Controllable Dispersal Device
2801322 – July 30, 1957 – Decomposition Chamber for Monopropellant Fuel – Referenced in 3990987
2881335 – April 7, 1959 – Generation of Electrical Fields

3899144 – August 12, 1975 – Powder contrail generation
3940059 – February 24, 1976 – Method For Fog Dispersion
3940060 – February 24, 1976 – Vortex Ring Generator
3990987 – November 9, 1976 – Smoke generator
3992628 – November 16, 1976 – Countermeasure system for laser radiation
3994437 – November 30, 1976 – Broadcast dissemination of trace quantities of biologically active chemicals
4042196 – August 16, 1977 – Method and apparatus for triggering a substantial change in earth characteristics and measuring earth changes

4415265 – November 15, 1983 – Method and apparatus for aerosol particle absorption spectroscopy
4470544 – September 11, 1984 – Method of and Means for weather modification
4475927 – October 9, 1984 – Bipolar Fog Abatement System
4600147 – July 15, 1986 – Liquid propane generator for cloud seeding apparatus
4633714 – January 6, 1987 – Aerosol particle charge and size analyzer
4643355 – February 17, 1987 – Method and apparatus for modification of climatic conditions
4653690 – March 31, 1987 – Method of producing cumulus clouds
4684063 – August 4, 1987 – Particulates generation and removal
4686605 – August 11, 1987 – Method and apparatus for altering a region in the earth’s atmosphere, ionosphere, and/or magnetosphere
4704942 – November 10, 1987 – Charged Aerosol
4712155 – December 8, 1987 – Method and apparatus for creating an artificial electron cyclotron heating region of plasma
4744919 – May 17, 1988 – Method of dispersing particulate aerosol tracer
4766725 – August 30, 1988 – Method of suppressing formation of contrails and solution therefor
4829838 – May 16, 1989 – Method and apparatus for the measurement of the size of particles entrained in a gas
4836086 – June 6, 1989 – Apparatus and method for the mixing and diffusion of warm and cold air for dissolving fog
4873928 – October 17, 1989 – Nuclear-sized explosions without radiation

5984239 – November 16, 1999 – Weather modification by artificial satellite
6025402 – February 15, 2000 – Chemical composition for effectuating a reduction of visibility obscuration, and a detoxifixation of fumes and chemical fogs in spaces of fire origin
6030506 – February 29, 2000 – Preparation of independently generated highly reactive chemical species
6034073 – March 7, 2000 – Solvent detergent emulsions having antiviral activity
6045089 – April 4, 2000 – Solar-powered airplane
6056203 – May 2, 2000 – Method and apparatus for modifying supercooled clouds
6110590 – August 29, 2000 – Synthetically spun silk nanofibers and a process for making the same
6263744 – July 24, 2001 – Automated mobility-classified-aerosol detector
6281972 – August 28, 2001 – Method and apparatus for measuring particle-size distribution
6315213 – November 13, 2001 – Method of modifying weather
6382526 – May 7, 2002 – Process and apparatus for the production of nanofibers
6408704 – June 25, 2002 – Aerodynamic particle size analysis method and apparatus
6412416 – July 2, 2002 – Propellant-based aerosol generation devices and method
and the list goes on...

It's a wonder we can even see the sun at all.

reply to post by Wide-Eyes


I spent a long time in hospital here in Manchester, UK recently, and I also saw on several occasions some serious chemtrail spraying going on, grids and 'x' patterns everywhere in the skies above. The days on which I saw the trails were no different from days when there were no trails, in terms of the weather, and so I do not buy into the debunking myth that they only form in certain weather conditions. Not for the first time, I also saw regular passenger aeroplanes passing over the chemtrails and leaving absolutely no vapour trail, despite seemingly being at the same altitude, or a bit higher - and so the debunking myth that all planes form so-called 'lingering contrails' is also ridiculous to my own understanding.

I can't say why, but at certain times, certain places get a spray-treatment, and the result is that oftentimes a beautiful sunny day will eventually turn into a hazy day, or a downright cloudy day, seemingly as a result - directly - of the spraying of mixtures that leave particles in suspension in our skies. Why this might be, and what is being sprayed, I cannot say - but I'm confident that something is being done deliberately. The pilot in the OP video suggested they are a 'necessary evil' - I presume he has been told that it is some sort of atmospheric manipulation to minimise the effects of global warming. I have a feeling it may not be in our best interests at all - but that is just a feeling.

I'm tentatively on the fence regarding motive, but completely sold on the actuality of the spraying.

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE


No debunkers have showed up yet, but they will probably try to argue that the context is what makes for a misinterpretation of the pilot's words - or that pilots are notoriously 'bad witnesses' when it comes to observing the skies (same as in the UFO debunking circles).

We all know that pilots are in fact some of the best people to tell us about what is happening in our skies. I can only presume there is a major 'national security' program in every nation - which swears them to secrecy, or to 'no-commenting' if they are ever asked.

Props to the pilot for actually saying something - if he declined to be on camera when speaking about it, that says he's been briefed to say nothing.

PlanetXisHERE
Point at which he says they are a necessary evil is at 1:23 in....

Oh, the wonder of taking a single quote out of context.
Why then, do you not quote the entire rest of the interview, where he continually says that he doesnt know a lot about the topic, although he had heard of it.

Edit - any in any case, doesnt it say a lot about the chemtrail community that they actually use this "interview" as having some meaning?

When paleontologists want to know what the range of that species was, they do it by getting an interview with somebody who "admits" it was in a certain area... oh no wait, they dont. They use evidence.

When solar astronomers want to know how many sunspots there are on the sun today, they do it by using a youtube interview where somebody "admits" a number... oh no wait, they dont. They use evidence.

When aerodynamicists want to know what the lift/drag ratio of a wing is, they do it by finding an interview on yotube where somebody "admits" that it might have a certain value... oh no wait, they dont. They use evidence.

When radio amateurs want to know if a 0.5 watt signal can be detected by using WSPR mode on the 160m band at night between the USA and Europe, they do it by finding a youtube video of somebody who "admits" that it works... oh no wait, they dont. They use evidence.

BUT

When chemtrail advocate what to know if chemtrails exist, they do it by finding evidence... oh no wait, they dont. They use a youtube video.

reply to post by alfa1


Ohno Alfa, Fly said someone would do that and you did it. OMGZOMBIES..

It's like he knew exactly why the video would be pointless, and was prepared!

Welp, it's proof enough for me. They're up there spraying. They have to be, some random pilot said something along those lines on a video on youtube. Can't get more conclusive than that.

Next on the list, we must work out why it's not working. It's like someone just said, they are up there every day spraying vast amounts of toxic poisons designed to destroy humanity.

Once we work that out why it's not working, we can find another pilot to explain that to us too!

Yahoo bearded camera guy who can just waltz into a cockpit!

(ps, please do not confuse aerial spraying with the chemtrail fiasco, we're been there a billion times, and you don't get to mix things up just because you lose focus of what paranoia you're peddling)

When chemtrail advocate what to know if chemtrails exist, they do it by finding evidence... oh no wait, they dont. They use a youtube video.

Or by providing evidence like the 50 patents I just posted.

reply to post by ArchaicDesigns


And I can find fifty patents for things never built, and never used. A patent doesn't prove something is in use, only that someone had an idea and wanted to make sure no one else used it.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Keep telling yourself that.
Do you honestly think, that not a single one of those apparatuses are currently in use?
And even 1 in use is too many.

reply to post by ArchaicDesigns


And you really think that a plane can carry enough material to affect a large area? Keep telling yourself that.

ArchaicDesigns
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

Keep telling yourself that.
Do you honestly think, that not a single one of those apparatuses are currently in use?
And even 1 in use is too many.

No, I think you dont have one single credible ounce of evidence to prove that these patents are in FACT being used...

Hearsay is not evidence friend. We have been through this.

reply to post by ArchaicDesigns

Or by providing evidence like the 50 patents I just posted.

That's no better that using "YouTube" videos as evidence. Do you have any evidence that shows something from your list actually BEING USED to produce "chemtrails"?

See ya,
Milt

So are you suggesting the pilot knows anything at all, or that maybe his plane is going to dump chemicals during the flight?

I'm under the impression the pilot is thinking that anything the plane makes is a chemtrail and in that case it is a "necessary evil" since planes can't stop having trails when conditions are right.

reply to post by Zaphod58


If you actually research the patents further and review the diagrams, they explain the amount of liquid and/or aerosol particles that are being used in these apparatuses and how much of an area they can effect.

It could be one plane or many, but either way, they are up there.

reply to post by alfa1


Pretty sure the poster above you posted plenty of evidence.
Also, this is a discussion and no one is claiming to try and "prove" anything.
If you don't want to be part of the discussion you can stay?

ohh no wait,
that's right,

You can LEAVE.

What people call 'chemtrails' are, indeed, a necessary evil. Unfortunately.

The only way you can stop them is to stop flying. Although hopefully in time we will develop the technology to prevent them occurring (the military are very keen on this, for obvious reasons).

reply to post by ArchaicDesigns


And where are they hiding the sheer number of planes required? Because no one has to date been able to show a single sprayer plane, other than the NKC-135 used at Edwards AFB for icing tests.

You would need to figure out exactly what the government is trying to accomplish by spraying first of all.

People often rush to find evidence of something without first understanding why there would be a need.

Without a motive, there won't be a conspiracy.

What would they be spraying and why will lead you on a better path to find evidence. You should establish the conspiracy first, then look for evidence. Not find evidence first then tailor a conspiracy to fit it.

The interesting part to all this is we only need to test the air, soil or water to find these mysterious chemicals. Why don't we do that to prove once and for all that chemicals are being sprayed.

None of this takes into account the 10,000 of people who would be involved in this production, the massive industrial complex involved, the massive logistics too. The only way to do it is mix it with the fuel and I do not know of a chemical that would not burn up just like the chemical they use for fuel. If anyone was to suggest sprayers, added tanks, etc. then they know nothing about aviation, and how that would involve millions of more people in the know and an incredibly humongous infrastructure.


Once again with all this said...just test the air, soil and water... it would be that easy since it is suggested to be everywhere.