Chemtrails again [Archive]

Reheat

6th February 2008, 09:20 PM

The buffoons over at P4T are discussing chemtrails again. This time lead by the chief loon. They speculate with paranoia about containers and equipment in an Evergreen International Aircraft, guessing that it's chemicals. Yea, most likely fire suppression chemicals. I wonder why they don't just call Evergreen and ask what's in the containers, instead of spreading paranoid speculation about them on the Interweb. Of course, there's CIA involvement as overwhelming proof of the gubmint poisoning the population.

Some of their examples of Chemtrails are hilarious. Here's the LINK (http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=10773) if you want to have some belly laughs.

ElMondoHummus

6th February 2008, 09:28 PM

The Pilots for 9/11 Truth are discussing chemtrails?

Do I need any more reason to doubt their "pilot" credentials?

Reality Believer

6th February 2008, 09:28 PM

Chemtrails are real man! Here is one spraying dihydrogen monoxide :eye-poppi
qYthbWhjL78

Redtail

6th February 2008, 09:29 PM

Unsecured Coins

6th February 2008, 09:39 PM

post this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBu8-5OgJ_A) over there

WildCat

6th February 2008, 09:40 PM

Chemtrails are what really blew my mind with the Cters. "Wow... You really beli... wow..."
The first time I heard about chemtrails I was convinced it was a parody of some sort. When I realized that people were serious about them I was shocked that there was so much ignorance and stupidity out there... and then the 9/11 CTs came along. :boggled:

apathoid

6th February 2008, 10:40 PM

Chemtrails are real!
I have proof !11!!!1!11

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/9902470641c092a41.jpg

3bodyproblem

6th February 2008, 11:31 PM

The first time I heard about chemtrails I was convinced it was a parody of some sort.

You mean like a parody of the chemtrails I saw at my first Grateful Dead concert don't you WildCat? ;)

Jonnyclueless

7th February 2008, 12:28 AM

Luckily twoofers are all immune to the effects of the chemtrails.

OldTigerCub

7th February 2008, 12:37 AM

I like chemtrails! They're so pretty across a cobalt blue sky!:D
Bring on the spray!
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1975747aab3c3764d5.jpg
(just slightly different from apathoid's pic :p)

bje

7th February 2008, 05:22 AM

On closer examination....

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1593947aaf7d126ad2.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10635)

JimBenArm

7th February 2008, 05:35 AM

Chemtrails are real man! Here is one spraying dihydrogen monoxide :eye-poppi
qYthbWhjL78
Not dihydrogen monoxide! That's some nasty stuff, man!
I heard everyone who's ever died of drug overdose had traces of this in their system.

peteweaver

7th February 2008, 05:46 AM

Some people take the red arrows way too seriously

http://www.sunderland-airshow.com/images/1red2.jpg

Reheat

7th February 2008, 08:20 AM

The first time I heard about chemtrails I was convinced it was a parody of some sort. When I realized that people were serious about them I was shocked that there was so much ignorance and stupidity out there... and then the 9/11 CTs came along. :boggled:

I have flown airplanes both military and civilian for my entire adult life. I too had never heard of chemtails until just a few months ago when Lyte Bulb started a thread on them.

I couldn't believe it was a serious discussion until I went to a CT site and saw their evidence.:rolleyes:

People who believe this crap must live a miserable life to be so far removed from reality. I honestly don't understand how someone who believes this garbage can sleep at night. :boggled:

CurtC

7th February 2008, 09:42 AM

I think discussion of Chemtrails on the LC Forum should be encouraged. It would help show the new people who are just checking out the Truth Movement, the quality of their ability to evaluate evidence, and how insane they are.

ElMondoHummus

7th February 2008, 09:50 AM

Not dihydrogen monoxide! That's some nasty stuff, man!
I heard everyone who's ever died of drug overdose had traces of this in their system.

Worse, man. Everyone who's ever died has had large amounts of this distributed in their tissue.

JimBenArm

7th February 2008, 09:52 AM

Worse, man. Everyone who's ever died has had large amounts of this distributed in their tissue.
The worst part is the government hasn't done anything about this. You can still buy large quantities of this in any grocery store!

Reality Believer

7th February 2008, 10:01 AM

The worst part is the government hasn't done anything about this. You can still buy large quantities of this in any grocery store!
You think that is bad, in my city they pump it directly into everyone's house. Bastards! :mad:

Drudgewire

7th February 2008, 10:02 AM

Chemtrails are one of the things we're most proud of here in the disinfo wing of the NWO.

Not because they actually exist, but encouraging discussion of it helps us to differenciate between misguided and/or slightly paranoid CTers and the real wing nuts. :cool:

CurtC

7th February 2008, 10:30 AM

Not because they actually exist, but encouraging discussion of it helps us to differenciate between misguided and/or slightly paranoid CTers and the real wing nuts. :cool:

In my discussions at the old LC Forum, the reality of chemtrails was accepted by a very high percentage of them. Probably like 60% thought it was definitely true, but an additional 25% thought it was quite possible.

A similar thing for the JFK assassination conspiracy idea. It would be interesting to do a full psychological assessment on the lot of them. Maybe someday when they're all rounded up into FEMA death camps we can do that.

TShaitanaku

7th February 2008, 10:37 AM

post this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBu8-5OgJ_A) over there

Nice piece, I wish there were a slightly more "mature"/conservative version of this available. In its current form, due to both some of the language and imagery it wouldn't be appropriate for many forums.

TShaitanaku

7th February 2008, 10:41 AM

In my discussions at the old LC Forum, the reality of chemtrails was accepted by a very high percentage of them. Probably like 60% thought it was definitely true, but an additional 25% thought it was quite possible.

A similar thing for the JFK assassination conspiracy idea. It would be interesting to do a full psychological assessment on the lot of them. Maybe someday when they're all rounded up into FEMA death camps we can do that.

Well, its been my experience that this mindset spreads these people open to accepting virtually the entire spectrum of conspiracies, they live in a conspiracy world, and let's not forget all the various other woo! (ESP, alien UFOs, Bigfoot, etc.,.)

Father Dagon

7th February 2008, 10:59 AM

The Pilots for 9/11 Truth are discussing chemtrails?

Do I need any more reason to doubt their "pilot" credentials?Isn't it piloting to pilot a Cessna sunny days with perfect weather condition?

Or PF9/11T could be Air Force rejects that hasn't even been in a flying airplane.

Swing Dangler

7th February 2008, 11:01 AM

Aardvark422

7th February 2008, 11:16 AM

I particularly liked how one of the posters on that Pilot for truth site said that he never sees chemtrails over military no fly zones. Isn't it because it's a no fly zone that there aren't any planes to make contrails?? I have lived near several military bases, MCAS Miramar, Pendleton, MCAS New River and Camp Lejeune and there are contrails over our house. Oh NO! Maybe they ARE poisoning the military??

I have tried to get my dad, a HUGE supporter of chemtrails, HAARP etc, to look at evidence online against chemtrails, but he says that anyone can post anything online, so he's just take his truth from Art Bell and the like, thank you very much.

Reheat

7th February 2008, 11:17 AM

Planes, too, can be used to drop chemicals onto clouds to manipulate the weather.

This is related to CONSPIRACY, how?

This is related to the OP, how?

DavidJames

7th February 2008, 11:37 AM

This is related to CONSPIRACY, how?

This is related to the OP, how?In the mind of a CTists it's proof enough.

peteweaver

7th February 2008, 11:41 AM

Clouds can be seeded, to make them prematurely rain. So what Swing ?

Jonnyclueless

7th February 2008, 11:49 AM

Death to the clouds!!!!

sts60

7th February 2008, 12:06 PM

ROFLMAO those guys I tell ya. Here is one of my favorite recent articles about chemtrails!

Source: CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/06/05/china.rain/index.html)
Ham-fisted attempt at sarcasm noted. I suppose that's what passes for clever in CT circles.

Of course, Googling up a vaguely-kinda-sounds-like the same thing-article in the popular press is a favorite tactic of those who don't really understand the subject. I see it a lot of this in the Apollo hoax claims - usually something like CNN reporting NASA is studying "killer electrons", ergo radiation is lethal to astronauts!!111eleventyone! Same thing here; same lack of understanding of the differences between the iffy "science" of weather modification, and the ludicrous notion that one could effectively apply agents to a target population from tens of thousands of feet in the air.

Of course, then there's a few small problems like the utter lack of evidence for the program and the vast infrastructure it would require, the fact that not one of the legions of participants required ever decides to gain worldwide fame by blowing the whistle, and the fact that no coherent motive can even be proposed for such a scheme. Hey... what do you know, chemtrails are just like the Apollo hoax and the 9/11 "inside job"! No wonder so many of the terminally clueless and paranoid are drawn to all of these notions.

Father Dagon

7th February 2008, 12:21 PM

Is there a serious study on the inefficiency of chemical and biological warfare online?

Alferd_Packer

7th February 2008, 12:28 PM

Chemtrails are so last year. Actually they are mostly pre-9/11.

But here is my favorite chemmie

Cliff Carnicom (http://carnicom.com/)

His message board is a hoot. There was one poster, Sonny Growl, who would show up every four months and post a huge list of all the license plate numbers of cars, vans, and trucks that he was convinced were deliberately "spraying" him with noxious fumes and gasses.

Reheat

7th February 2008, 12:58 PM

Is there a serious study on the inefficiency of chemical and biological warfare online?

I doubt it, at least in the anything close to the thoroughness for which you are looking.

I see you're taking this stuff seriously.

Even a rudimentary knowledge of the effects of Chemical or Biological Weapons reveals that they are very ineffective unless delivered at close range to people in a concentrated package. That's why ALL of the C and B weapons are in the form of "bombs". They disperse very quickly even at ground level. Most of them actually need to come into contact with skin or be breathed in close proximity to the source to be effective.

That's precisely why the military uses rather small zones in an affected area. Activity outside of the specific zones affected is not inhibited by a C &/or B attack. In other words, during an attack and until the nature of the attack is discovered the military will go into a C&B protective mode in all areas of an installation. After the attack C&B search teams go out in search of weapons. If none are found in that area, unprotected work may resume. Only in the specific areas where weapons are found and identified will activity continue in a C&B protective mode.

To believe that any Chemical or Biological Weapon can be effectively delivered in a gaseous form from high altitude is ignorant and pure paranoid lunacy. The vast majority of it would disperse at altitude and very little in an effective amount would reach the surface.

Don't waste your time researching. It is idiotic idea and not worthy of anything more than a chuckle at how stupid some people can be.

1337m4n

7th February 2008, 01:07 PM

Here's my question.

Almost all contrails appear above 25,000 feet, right?

So. If they really did contain hazardous chemicals, about how densely packed would the chemical clouds be by the time they reached the ground (if they EVER reached the ground)?

ETA: And how come we haven't seen any sudden breakouts of anthrax or smallpox or Black Plague in regions that get a lot of air traffic?

Reheat

7th February 2008, 01:23 PM

Almost all contrails appear above 25,000 feet, right?

For those caused by engine exhaust, yes that is correct. (I've seen them much lower in Canada during the winter.) They can also appear from rapid pressure drop as in contrails coming from the wings or other parts of an aircraft. Those can occur at low altitude under the right high humidity conditions.

So. If they really did contain hazardous chemicals, about how densely packed would the chemical clouds be by the time they reached the ground (if they EVER reached the ground)?

See above. Not very effective at all. Chemical affects would be virtually nil, but biological effects from some toxins would be more, however, not in the numbers that would be effective based on the costs of delivery.

ETA: Bear in mind that any high altitude aerial type delivery of anything is essentially uncontrolled and would effect everyone, even the evil NWO which uses this tactic because they have lots of money. Haven't you received your Chemical Protective Gear yet? You must be behind on your dues! You'd better pay up or you'll die along with the rest of the sheeple.

sts60

7th February 2008, 03:13 PM

See above. Not very effective at all. Chemical affects would be virtually nil, but biological effects from some toxins would be more, however, not in the numbers that would be effective based on the costs of delivery.
And let's not forget about inactivation by UV (as well as the general inhospitality of the high-altitude environment for bioagents).

Reheat

7th February 2008, 03:51 PM

And let's not forget about inactivation by UV (as well as the general inhospitality of the high-altitude environment for bioagents).

Yes, there are several more reasons I didn't mention for bioagents to lose effectiveness if delivered from high altitude. UV, Winds aloft dispersal, short life span in the cold environment, not enough concentration to be effective due to distance. There are other reasons it's not practical, but I'm by no means an expert in this area. However, I suppose I've had more training than most civilians.

To be effective from aerial delivery any agent, chemical or biological would need to be delivered from VERY LOW altitude. A good example would be the C-123's in SEA who delivered Agent Orange for defoliation. That was delivered at near tree top level. As a side note most of the crewmembers of those aircraft were affected by the Agent Orange similar to those on the ground under the spray. That's a good example of the uncontrolled nature of this type of delivery. Everyone is affected even those dispensing it.

It is simply not practical to achieve anything worthwhile for anyone to deliver agents from high altitude be they a nefarious Government, enemy combatants in warfare or terrorists. It is a ridiculous idea from the very beginning.

dudalb

7th February 2008, 04:12 PM

No One Tell Swing that planes can be used to spray insecticides over crops. He would go postal.

Elizabeth I

7th February 2008, 06:54 PM

Chemtrails are real man! Here is one spraying dihydrogen monoxide :eye-poppi
qYthbWhjL78

Wow - do you know that if you try to inhale that stuff, you will almost inevitably die? And it's found in like 100% of poisons.

You think that is bad, in my city they pump it directly into everyone's house. Bastards! :mad:

In my town, they do that and then charge us for it!

Hyperviolet

7th February 2008, 07:06 PM

Chemtrails are definitely King Woo.
A bastion of stupidity.

OldTigerCub

7th February 2008, 07:52 PM

The NWO officially declines to comment on chemtrails.
On a totally unrelated note, I found a nice picture of our precision flying team at the last airshow:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1975747ab96e253eff.jpg

Hamradioguy

7th February 2008, 09:10 PM

CurtC

7th February 2008, 10:24 PM

Wow - do you know that if you try to inhale that stuff, you will almost inevitably die? And it's found in like 100% of poisons.

Are you sure about that? The web site for Friends of Hydrogen Hydroxide (http://www.armory.com/~crisper/DHMO/) (their friendly-sounding name for DHMO) tell me that it's beneficial and environmentally safe. Is that just a corporate sales pitch?

JimBenArm

8th February 2008, 05:48 AM

Are you sure about that? The web site for Friends of Hydrogen Hydroxide (http://www.armory.com/~crisper/DHMO/) (their friendly-sounding name for DHMO) tell me that it's beneficial and environmentally safe. Is that just a corporate sales pitch?
Don't listen to them! Gubmint shills!!!1111!!!1eleventy-eleven!!!8675309!!!!

Father Dagon

8th February 2008, 06:35 AM

I doubt it, at least in the anything close to the thoroughness for which you are looking.

I see you're taking this stuff seriously.

Even a rudimentary knowledge of the effects of Chemical or Biological Weapons reveals that they are very ineffective unless delivered at close range to people in a concentrated package. That's why ALL of the C and B weapons are in the form of "bombs". They disperse very quickly even at ground level. Most of them actually need to come into contact with skin or be breathed in close proximity to the source to be effective.

That's precisely why the military uses rather small zones in an affected area. Activity outside of the specific zones affected is not inhibited by a C &/or B attack. In other words, during an attack and until the nature of the attack is discovered the military will go into a C&B protective mode in all areas of an installation. After the attack C&B search teams go out in search of weapons. If none are found in that area, unprotected work may resume. Only in the specific areas where weapons are found and identified will activity continue in a C&B protective mode.

To believe that any Chemical or Biological Weapon can be effectively delivered in a gaseous form from high altitude is ignorant and pure paranoid lunacy. The vast majority of it would disperse at altitude and very little in an effective amount would reach the surface.

Don't waste your time researching. It is idiotic idea and not worthy of anything more than a chuckle at how stupid some people can be.Thanks.

Swing Dangler

8th February 2008, 07:17 AM

This is related to CONSPIRACY, how?

This is related to the OP, how?
The buffoons over at P4T are discussing chemtrails from planesagain. This time lead by the chief loon. They speculate with paranoia about containers and equipment in an Evergreen International Aircraft, guessing that it's chemicals. Yea, most likely fire suppression chemicals. I wonder why they don't just call Evergreen and ask what's in the containers, instead of spreading paranoid speculation about them on the Interweb. Of course, there's CIA involvement as overwhelming proof of the gubmint poisoning the population.

Hmm reading comprehension problems again?
I've highlighted the relationship in your post. Nefarious purpose or climate/weather control? Well I posted a link about China and planes using chemicals. Seems to me chemtrails are being used to alter the weather or climate patterns of a particular area. Now if it were some nefarious purpose say population control, we would have expected to see the results of that by now. I'm going to vote for climate control.
Interesting video here (http://www.thelastoutpost.com/site/1471/default.aspx).

Crazy mainstream media, who would have thought NBC would entertain the kooks by doing a story on chemtrails here. (www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIAWWL4HQDg)

Or here from the news website itself (http://www.knbc.com/video/9265818/detail.html). [/URL]

Nothing to see here, geo-engineering doesn't exist...move along.

Now if they are trying to manipulate the climate or weather does the public have a right to know? Is it a moral action if the long term health effects on humans and the environment are unknown? I think these are the points concerned citizens have with regards to the issue.

dudalb No One Tell Swing that planes can be used to spray insecticides over crops. He would go postal.
Is that the definition of "chemtrail"?

peteweaver Clouds can be seeded, to make them prematurely rain. So what Swing ?
Exactly! So what? What's the point in the post? Does cloud seeding fit the definition of "chemtrails"?

Tippit

8th February 2008, 07:40 AM

I have flown airplanes both military and civilian for my entire adult life. I too had never heard of chemtails until just a few months ago when Lyte Bulb started a thread on them.

I couldn't believe it was a serious discussion until I went to a CT site and saw their evidence.:rolleyes:

People who believe this crap must live a miserable life to be so far removed from reality. I honestly don't understand how someone who believes this garbage can sleep at night. :boggled:

I've actually seen chemtrails with my own eyes, on a couple occasions, and photographed them once. The idea that they are simply contrails, and not the results of chemical spraying is ridiculous, because I've seen contrails under similar atmospheric conditions and they are easily distinguishable. The photographs don't lie. It's not a question in my mind that chemicals are being sprayed from airplanes, the question is what are they spraying and for what purpose.

HawksFan

8th February 2008, 07:42 AM

Ya know, it was darn cold this morning when I left for work and, wouldn'tcha know it, everybody's cars were spewing chemtrails everywhere they went.

bje

8th February 2008, 07:47 AM

The idea that they are simply contrails, and not the results of chemical spraying is ridiculous, because I've seen contrails under similar atmospheric conditions and they are easily distinguishable.

So you presume to tell us that you know what a contrail does not look like, Tippit?

Let's test you on your astounding scientific knowledge. Demonstrate what a contrail must look like under all atmospheric conditions.

Drudgewire

8th February 2008, 07:51 AM

I've actually seen chemtrails with my own eyes, on a couple occasions, and photographed them once. The idea that they are simply contrails, and not the results of chemical spraying is ridiculous, because I've seen contrails under similar atmospheric conditions and they are easily distinguishable. The photographs don't lie. It's not a question in my mind that chemicals are being sprayed from airplanes, the question is what are they spraying and for what purpose.
How exactly are they easily distinguishable?

Reheat

8th February 2008, 07:54 AM

Pssssst! Hay Swing, Wake up.

If contrails (chemtrails to kooks) can be clearly seen on the ground what weather is there to manipulate?

So, your contention is that these "chemtrails" are not methods to control the population (as seems to be the primary thrust of at least some CTs), but attempts at weather modification. Correct?

Please explain how weather can be modified without any form of weather present, i.e. clouds.

What department of the Gubmint is handling this plot?

I have more question, but this will do for now.

Disbelief

8th February 2008, 07:55 AM

How exactly are they easily distinguishable?

Depends on what dastardly plot they are using. I think they are green for poison, red for mind control and black for something truly sinister!

Reheat

8th February 2008, 07:56 AM

Spins

8th February 2008, 07:58 AM

I love the smell of chemtrails in the morning!

Reheat

8th February 2008, 08:01 AM

I love the smell of chemtrails in the morning!

Before or after you shower?

Dave Rogers

8th February 2008, 08:01 AM

I love the smell of chemtrails in the morning!

The smell, you know that chemtrail smell, the whole sky. Smelled like... lunacy...

Dave

Calcas

8th February 2008, 08:14 AM

The chemtrail proponents are the nuttiest and wackiest CT believers out there.

Ignorance and lunacy combined. What a combination...

Spins

8th February 2008, 08:19 AM

Before or after you shower?
That reply killed me! :D

Dammit ... I knew I shouldn't have had that curry last night.

ElMondoHummus

8th February 2008, 08:30 AM

Before or after you shower?

Well, you know, I used to do that, until someone pointed out that it was that damn dihydrogen monoxide coming outta the shower head...

And damn! It comes out of my faucets too! Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelllp!

Spins

8th February 2008, 08:33 AM

Wasn't there a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide? Dangerous stuff! ;)

Reheat

8th February 2008, 08:45 AM

Dammit ... I knew I shouldn't have had that curry last night.

Curry and Garlic, two odors that even the chemical dihydrogen monoxide won't kill! ;)

Reality Believer

8th February 2008, 08:46 AM

I notice someone on the original source correctly pointed out just what these mystery barrels really are.

I THOUGHT they looked familiar. Her's something similar on a 747 rigged for flight testing....or maybe a giant Gubmint chemical sprayer, eh?
That looks like a picture of the beverage storage section on my last Oktoberfest junket :)

jproudj

8th February 2008, 08:48 AM

This is the bestest most out-there conspiracy since the Denver Airport Conspiracy. It's hard to believe that someone who was not actually mentally ill thought it up, it really does sound like the ravings of a paranoid schizophrenic.

Just to indulge them for a minute though, why on earth would the NWO spread poison gases from planes that everybody can see...

Drudgewire

8th February 2008, 08:49 AM

Well, you know, I used to do that, until someone pointed out that it was that damn dihydrogen monoxide coming outta the shower head...

And damn! It comes out of my faucets too! Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelllp!
This is terrifying. I've got to call someone and tell them.

DAMNIT! No change for the phone. Can someone shoot this Coke vending machine for me? IT'S A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH!!

beachnut

8th February 2008, 08:49 AM

Hmm reading comprehension problems again?
I've highlighted the relationship in your post. Nefarious purpose or climate/weather control? Well I posted a link about China and planes using chemicals. Seems to me chemtrails are being used to alter the weather or climate patterns of a particular area. Now if it were some nefarious purpose say population control, we would have expected to see the results of that by now. I'm going to vote for climate control.
Interesting video here (http://www.thelastoutpost.com/site/1471/default.aspx).

Crazy mainstream media, who would have thought NBC would entertain the kooks by doing a story on chemtrails here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIAWWL4HQDg)

Or here from the news website itself (http://www.knbc.com/video/9265818/detail.html). [/url]

Nothing to see here, geo-engineering doesn't exist...move along.

Now if they are trying to manipulate the climate or weather does the public have a right to know? Is it a moral action if the long term health effects on humans and the environment are unknown? I think these are the points concerned citizens have with regards to the issue.

Is that the definition of "chemtrail"?

Exactly! So what? What's the point in the post? Does cloud seeding fit the definition of "chemtrails"?NO
Chemtrails are nozzles fitted to jets, thousands of jets, dispensing chemicals to control and change people; done by the ENWO, or some unknown entity. This includes airliners. You can see them everyday spraying. No Wx mod, not crop dusting, chemtails. Look it up shallow researcher man.

Swing has posted full blown idiots making up paranoid ideas. . As you are look up articles off topic, and exposing stupid people. Since your post are obtuse, either explain or be happy you are a nut idea believer. Nuts who say something is coming out of the air with bad stuff in it are the chemtrail idiots. I love the pollen nuts. The actual things that may be used in the air, would be presented as such. So please show us real chemtrail for crazy people, or keep the crop spraying on a new thread, Swing finds anything but chemtrails. But you posted some real nuts squawking about pure stupid.

Chemtrails are for stupid people. What are you Swing? You post a lot of nuts on this one and unrelated crap. Please save time and explain your real world vs stupid world posts.
Wx mod does not count as "chemtrails". Since you do not understand the topic, please ask for help.
I've actually seen chemtrails with my own eyes, on a couple occasions, and photographed them once. The idea that they are simply contrails, and not the results of chemical spraying is ridiculous, because I've seen contrails under similar atmospheric conditions and they are easily distinguishable. The photographs don't lie. It's not a question in my mind that chemicals are being sprayed from airplanes, the question is what are they spraying and for what purpose.You have seen the evil chemtrails to control people? You do not know contrails.

Bobert

8th February 2008, 09:24 AM

I have flown airplanes both military and civilian for my entire adult life. I too had never heard of chemtails until just a few months ago when Lyte Bulb started a thread on them.

I couldn't believe it was a serious discussion until I went to a CT site and saw their evidence.:rolleyes:

People who believe this crap must live a miserable life to be so far removed from reality. I honestly don't understand how someone who believes this garbage can sleep at night. :boggled:

Yup I used to watch Lyte Trip everday point out the window and try and convince us that we were being sprayed by the government.
I imagine that one day he will be doing this from a padded room while wearing a straight jacket.

Jonnyclueless

8th February 2008, 09:25 AM

Chemtrails are like the nickel slots at the conspiracy casino.

Bobert

8th February 2008, 09:38 AM

I could just picture a truther getting angry that he didnt get a full house so he throws his chips at the dealer screaming
"Who is your handler?!?!"

dudalb

8th February 2008, 10:23 AM

sts60

8th February 2008, 11:01 AM

Crazy mainstream media, who would have thought NBC would entertain the kooks by doing a story on chemtrails here. (www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIAWWL4HQDg)
You mean the same mainstream media that blathers on endlessly and credulously about alien abductions and psychics and the latest energy healing whatever? (Raises hand) I'd believe it!

Really, isn't it about time for us to hear about Willie Nelson's courageous patriotism in denouncing chemtrails?

Swing Dangler

8th February 2008, 11:41 AM

You mean the same mainstream media that blathers on endlessly and credulously about alien abductions and psychics and the latest energy healing whatever? (Raises hand) I'd believe it!

Really, isn't it about time for us to hear about Willie Nelson's courageous patriotism in denouncing chemtrails?

No the mainstream media who consulted an expert who wasn't exactly sure what he was looking at. A fair and balanced piece in my opinion.

beachnut

8th February 2008, 11:52 AM

No the mainstream media who consulted an expert who wasn't exactly sure what he was looking at. A fair and balanced piece in my opinion.
To someone ignorant on the topic, a fair statement.

The nut case chemtrail people; ignorance exposed so easy, by you; thanks for showing how a few idiots can fall for chemtrails. How dumb do you have to be to fall for chemtrails? Expert? LOL

Reheat

8th February 2008, 12:17 PM

No the mainstream media who consulted an expert who wasn't exactly sure what he was looking at. A fair and balanced piece in my opinion.

Please explain how weather can be modified without any form of weather present, i.e. clouds.

Why can't your expert answer this question?

Apparently, You can't either, but you said this was related to a conspiracy. Your first example was a plan by the Chinese to seed clouds during the upcoming Olympics; a well known technique in practice since the 1950s.

Again, the questions remains. How does weather modification techniques relate to "chemtrails" in areas where there is no weather?

Now, you think pollen is being delivered by airplanes!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1840746c1f10359a41.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7720)

Well, the birds and bees do fly, so I guess that's how it's related, huh?

Hokulele

8th February 2008, 12:20 PM

The chemtrail proponents are the nuttiest and wackiest CT believers out there.

Ignorance and lunacy combined. What a combination...

Happy Birthday Calcas!

Swing Dangler

8th February 2008, 12:25 PM

Why can't your expert answer this question?

Apparently, You can't either, but you said this was related to a conspiracy. Your example was a plan by the Chinese to seed clouds during the upcoming Olympics; a well known technique in practice since the 1950s.

Again, the questions remains. How does weather modification techniques relate to "chemtrails" in areas where there is no weather?

Wow. Your research base is amazing. Go watch the NBC news report that I linked to and then repost your question if you indeed can form the question with regards to the expert. He isn't "my" expert, he is an expert that NBC consulted for the report and his visual analysis.

You didn't even suggest a conspiracy. What is the conspiracy, Reheat?

Stellafane

8th February 2008, 12:35 PM

Just thought I'd pop in to say I absolutely love the topic of chemtrails, because when someone claims to believe in them, you know instantly with 100% certainty that not only is the person you're talking to a paranoid and a lunatic, but they're also incredibly stupid as well. It's like a blood test that in one second can unfailingly identify three separate diseases! Chemtrails are the perfect storm of idiocy and insanity -- how can you not love them?

Reheat

8th February 2008, 12:39 PM

You didn't even suggest a conspiracy. What is the conspiracy, Reheat?

Double speak and pretend confusion to evade the question is a technique that fools no one, SD.

Remember, your buddies are watching. You're really not very good at this, you know.....

beachnut

8th February 2008, 12:43 PM

Wow. Your research base is amazing. Go watch the NBC news report that I linked to and then repost your question if you indeed can form the question with regards to the expert. He isn't "my" expert, he is an expert that NBC consulted for the report and his visual analysis.

You didn't even suggest a conspiracy. What is the conspiracy, Reheat?
It was watched. You exposed how stupid the people were who are thinking CT, and how the "expert" said nothing. Found nothing.

Why do you believe in chemtrails? It is another dumb CT, like 9/11 truth. Is this why you like chemtrails? You posted the video I assume to support that there are chemtrails, but now protest your error? You posted links I assume to support your failed assertion that wx mod is chemtrails, that an expert had an opinion, and the that you think the stupid idea of chemtrails has a basis is reality. Why have you picked another failed cult to support with weak evidence that only points to the absurdity of chemtrails and how dumb some people can be?

If you are trying to make an obtuse post and not support chemtrails, you have failed. I mean you failed to make a point and the only value I get from your post is tacit support of chemtrails. I bet you really have no clue what you are doing on this topic, and failed to preflight your own presentation aids.

Drudgewire

8th February 2008, 12:43 PM

Arrrrgh, I should have known. It's not NBC News, it's a California NBC affiliate. And their expert is a UC-Irvine professor.

Google "UC Irvine, paranormal" and you'll see they love their woo there.

E: That's not a shot at the whole university, they're very legitimate and do some great work there. But there's plenty of "alternative" study going on there as well.

Apollo20

8th February 2008, 12:46 PM

Why worry about chemtrails when we're all going to die from BISPHENOL-A?

Swing Dangler

8th February 2008, 12:51 PM

Double speak and pretend confusion to evade the question is a technique that fools no one, SD.

Remember, your buddies are watching. You're really not very good at this, you know.....

Star in dodge ball? What exactly is the chemtrail conspiracy?

Spraying chemicals to a)depopulate b)repopulate c)vaccinate d)control the climate/weather e)mind control f)mirrors so the aliens can admire themselves g)sun block?

I'm voting for d), climate control. Great for us, bad for our enemies! See Air Force Document here (http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v3c15/v3c15-1.htm).

CurtC

8th February 2008, 12:57 PM

I imagine that one day he will be doing this from a padded room while wearing a straight jacket.

Just a nitpick - it's straitjacket, as in dire straits.

I agree with Stellafane - I too love the chemtrail topic because it's such an accurate marker for insanity.

Reheat

8th February 2008, 01:21 PM

What exactly is the chemtrail conspiracy?

You've made several post in the thread and you ask this ridiculous question? Speaking of reading comprehension problems, this is the epitome.

Thanks for participating. You can go back to your Lego Blocks now.

beachnut

8th February 2008, 01:26 PM

moving the goal posts award for today... goes to... swing, not understanding chemtrails; just move them posts.

Corsair 115

8th February 2008, 03:29 PM

So you presume to tell us that you know what a contrail does not look like, Tippit?

Let's test you on your astounding scientific knowledge. Demonstrate what a contrail must look like under all atmospheric conditions.

How exactly are they easily distinguishable?

Ok, let's see one of your photographs?

We really are open minded here, if you convince us with evidence.Quoting the above in the hope that perhaps Tippit will respond to these queries.

Tippit

8th February 2008, 03:36 PM

So you presume to tell us that you know what a contrail does not look like, Tippit?

Let's test you on your astounding scientific knowledge. Demonstrate what a contrail must look like under all atmospheric conditions.

I'm not going to get into your pedantic argument about what a contrail should or shouldn't look like. It's obvious to me when a plane is spraying, and when it isn't.

Contrails don't linger for hours, and then dissipate into long hazy trails forming large grid patterns. I actually stood outside and observed multiple planes flying in criss-crossing patterns, they were obviously not commercial planes even though they were at very high altitude, because we don't usually get much air traffic here.

In contrast, I saw a contrail a week or so later, and it was no longer than perhaps 20-30 lengths of the plane itself, and quickly dissipated under the same conditions.

I made a photobucket of this spraying, it's important to realize that the skies were clear blue before the planes began.

http://s261.photobucket.com/albums/ii55/Tippit_photos/Chemtrails/

I'm not contending they're spraying some sort of mass depopulation agent, I'm saying, they're spraying something and I haven't given any consent.

Jonnyclueless

8th February 2008, 03:39 PM

I saw some chemtrails after eating those bacon burritos...Carnage everywhere.

Corsair 115

8th February 2008, 03:43 PM

I'm not going to get into your pedantic argument about what a contrail should or shouldn't look like. It's obvious to me when a plane is spraying, and when it isn't. Evasion noted.

Contrails don't linger for hours, and then dissipate into long hazy trails forming large grid patterns. How do you know that? What's the basis for that statement?

Unsecured Coins

8th February 2008, 03:50 PM

and exactly how much chemicals would it take to make a hundred mile long trail?
How do they fit them in the plane?
why do I feel like this guy needs to watch my video?

Drudgewire

8th February 2008, 03:51 PM

Evasion noted.

How do you know that? What's the basis for that statement?
Certainly not the Air Force.

Claim: Long-lasting contrails are something new and they have abnormal characteristics.

Fact: Contrails can remain visible for very long periods of time with the lifetime a function of the temperature, humidity, winds, and aircraft exhaust characteristics. Contrails can form many shapes as they are dispersed by horizontal and vertical wind shear. Sunlight refracted or reflected from contrails can produce vibrant and eye-catching colors and patterns. Observation and scientific analysis of contrails and their duration date back to at least 1953.

USAF Document: Contrails pdf (http://www.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-051013-001.pdf) (page 11)

bje

8th February 2008, 04:40 PM

I'm not going to get into your pedantic argument about what a contrail should or shouldn't look like. It's obvious to me when a plane is spraying, and when it isn't.

Sorry, Tippit, it is your claim what that you can tell the difference just by looking at them. Let me remind you what you claimed:

I've seen contrails under similar atmospheric conditions and they are easily distinguishable. The photographs don't lie.Obviously, you believe you can tell the difference just by looking at them. So, tell us HOW you know what a contrail should not look like.

Contrails don't linger for hours,...Yes, they can and do all the time. They are known as "persistent contrails." See: http://tinyurl.com/yrgb2z

...and then dissipate into long hazy trails forming large grid patterns. Contrails do not form grid patterns. Contrails are formed by jet engines. Persistent contrails stay around long enough for jets crossing paths at different times to leave a grid-like pattern. Basic stuff.

I actually stood outside and observed multiple planes flying in criss-crossing patterns, they were obviously not commercial planes even though they were at very high altitude, because we don't usually get much air traffic here.It's apparent you don't know much about air traffic, aircraft, or contrails. I live under a major corridor of flights from the U.S. toward Europe, Asia, and Africa. On days where atmospheric conditions are conducive for persistent contrail formation, the sky is full of them for hours. There are days with no contrails at all, days with quickly dissipating contrails, days with interrupted contrails. I am aircraft enthusiast and I have been watching planes, jets, and contrails for decades.

In contrast, I saw a contrail a week or so later, and it was no longer than perhaps 20-30 lengths of the plane itself, and quickly dissipated under the same conditions.Perfectly normal for contrails.

I made a photobucket of this spraying, it's important to realize that the skies were clear blue before the planes began.

http://s261.photobucket.com/albums/ii55/Tippit_photos/Chemtrails/You took photos of contrails, period. You are unable to tell us what a contrail does not look like. You have no evidence to present us.
I'm not contending they're spraying some sort of mass depopulation agent, I'm saying, they're spraying something and I haven't given any consent.You can say anything you want, but it is foolish to say you see chemtrails when you are just looking at normal contrails and cannot tell us what contrails are not supposed to look like. Since persistent contrails have been seen since World War II when bombers were able to achieve altitudes where contrails form, you've got more than sixty years of explaining to do, Tippit. Apparently, when bombers were bombing Germany from high altitude, it was really to spread "chemtrails."

Now, here is a tough question for you, Tippit, if you want to persist with your "chemtrail" silliness. WHO sprays chemtrails and from what type(s) of aircraft?

Tippit

8th February 2008, 04:45 PM

beachnut

8th February 2008, 04:46 PM

Contrails don't linger for hours, and then dissipate into long hazy trails forming large grid patterns. I actually stood outside and observed multiple planes flying in criss-crossing patterns, they were obviously not commercial planes even though they were at very high altitude, because we don't usually get much air traffic here.
How can you without evidence say such a ridiculous thing. There is no spraying, you have got to get some knowledge and stop making up what contrail can, and can not do. It depends on the conditions. Like rain vs clear skies.

BUSTED. LOL, you are funny. Where do you live, [now] we forgot to turn off the dissipation time constant. /nwo

Did anyone actually look at my photos, and honestly conclude that those were condensation trails? I saw multiple planes in close proximity flying in criss-crossing patterns before I decided to photograph them, and again, the sky was clear blue before they arrived.

Perhaps a better question is in order. How would we know that we are being sprayed with chemicals if everyone is under the assumption that every jet-created pattern in the sky is really just a condensation trail? What are the scientifically demonstrable physical constraints as to what could possibly constitute a condensation trail, and what couldn't?Sorry, you are wrong. It is water vapor. And the engines today are 98 percent cleaner than the engines when I was a kid. And the contrails have not changed much. You are joking right?

Unsecured Coins

8th February 2008, 04:46 PM

Did anyone actually look at my photos, and honestly conclude that those were condensation trails? I saw multiple planes in close proximity flying in criss-crossing patterns before I decided to photograph them, and again, the sky was clear blue before they arrived.

Perhaps a better question is in order. How would we know that we are being sprayed with chemicals if everyone is under the assumption that every jet-created pattern in the sky is really just a condensation trail? What are the scientifically demonstrable physical constraints as to what could possibly constitute a condensation trail, and what couldn't?

Have you ever tried to like, you know... stand under one and see if you got wet? And if you did, would you go get it analyzed to see what it was?

Jonnyclueless

8th February 2008, 04:54 PM

Did anyone actually look at my photos, and honestly conclude that those were condensation trails? I saw multiple planes in close proximity flying in criss-crossing patterns before I decided to photograph them, and again, the sky was clear blue before they arrived.

Perhaps a better question is in order. How would we know that we are being sprayed with chemicals if everyone is under the assumption that every jet-created pattern in the sky is really just a condensation trail? What are the scientifically demonstrable physical constraints as to what could possibly constitute a condensation trail, and what couldn't?

Yes, I did. Nice pictures of contrails.

The issues of why chemtrails are simply impossible have been discussed to death here, so you can do a search to find that info. And otherwise all you have is a baseless assumption that those contrails are chemicals simply because different ones disperse in different ways. As if the many variables involved should have no effect on them.

Reheat

8th February 2008, 04:59 PM

What are the scientifically demonstrable physical constraints as to what could possibly constitute a condensation trail, and what couldn't?

What on earth ever gave you the idea that the contrails could be anything besides,...uh...... contrails? You want US to prove a negative? :boggled:

This is so mind boggling stupid I need to take a break for awhile.

Tippit

8th February 2008, 05:00 PM

Obviously, you believe you can tell the difference just by looking at them. So, tell us HOW you know what a contrail should not look like.

Contrails look like the one I described seeing a week or two later, in my previous post. I would have taken a picture of that too, to illustrate the stark contrast.

Yes, they can and do all the time. They are known as "persistent contrails." See: http://tinyurl.com/yrgb2z

I'm sorry, but that doesn't describe what I saw.

Contrails do not form grid patterns. Contrails are formed by jet engines. Persistent contrails stay around long enough for jets crossing paths at different times to leave a grid-like pattern. Basic stuff.

I saw multiple planes in the same proximity all spewing particulate at the same time. When I decided to come back out and photograph them later, the planes were gone.

It's apparent you don't know much about air traffic, aircraft, or contrails. I live under a major corridor of flights from the U.S. toward Europe, Asia, and Africa. On days where atmospheric conditions are conducive for persistent contrail formation, the sky is full of them for hours. There are days with no contrails at all, days with quickly dissipating contrails, days with interrupted contrails. I am aircraft enthusiast and I have been watching planes, jets, and contrails for decades.

I'm sorry that I'm not an air traffic expert like yourself. I live in a fairly rural area, and I'd not seen anything like what I documented in those photos before, ever.

Now, here is a tough question for you, Tippit, if you want to persist with your "chemtrail" silliness. WHO sprays chemtrails and from what type(s) of aircraft?

How would I know who was doing the spraying? The planes were far to high for me to observe any markings. I hadn't arrived here with a prepackaged chemtrail theory to sell anyone, I merely saw the thread and decided to share my own experiences, and photographs.

Your explanations for what you think I saw are not satisfying.

Dave Rogers

8th February 2008, 05:03 PM

Contrails look like the one I described seeing a week or two later, in my previous post. I would have taken a picture of that too, to illustrate the stark contrast.

Just out of interest, Tippit, how do you know that the ones you say are contrails, aren't actually chemtrails, and vice versa? In other words, how can you tell you haven't got them the wrong way round?

Dave

Tippit

8th February 2008, 05:05 PM

Yes, I did. Nice pictures of contrails.

The issues of why chemtrails are simply impossible have been discussed to death here, so you can do a search to find that info. And otherwise all you have is a baseless assumption that those contrails are chemicals simply because different ones disperse in different ways. As if the many variables involved should have no effect on them.

Are you really claiming that it's impossible for airplanes to spray chemicals at high altitudes which may be confused with contrails?

My assumption that they aren't contrails is because I've seen contrails my entire life. I know what they look like, how long it takes for them to dissipate, and how much area is affected. I also know what is typical for air traffic where I live, and what is atypical.

Hokulele

8th February 2008, 05:08 PM

Are you really claiming that it's impossible for airplanes to spray chemicals at high altitudes which may be confused with contrails?

Are you really claiming it is possible? Care to offer some evidence?

My assumption that they aren't contrails is because I've seen contrails my entire life. I know what they look like, how long it takes for them to dissipate, and how much area is affected. I also know what is typical for air traffic where I live, and what is atypical.

Wait a minute. Anything atypical for an area can't possibly be due to weather, but has to be a government conspiracy? All right then, someone had better explain this one to me.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22902118/

Unsecured Coins

8th February 2008, 05:10 PM

Have you ever tried to like, you know... stand under one and see if you got wet? And if you did, would you go get it analyzed to see what it was?

um...

1337m4n

8th February 2008, 05:10 PM

Did anyone actually look at my photos, and honestly conclude that those were condensation trails?

Sure looks like Dihydrogen Oxide to me. Perhaps you could tell me of another chemical that forms visible white clouds at high altitudes and stays aloft for long periods of time?

Perhaps a better question is in order. How would we know that we are being sprayed with chemicals if everyone is under the assumption that every jet-created pattern in the sky is really just a condensation trail? What are the scientifically demonstrable physical constraints as to what could possibly constitute a condensation trail, and what couldn't?

Contrails form at about 25,000 feet.

It is impossible for a gaseous substance to be sprayed at 25,000 feet and be dense enough to be effective at anything by the time it reaches the ground.

It is impossible for a gaseous substance to be sprayed at 25,000 feet and be able to predict when and where it is going to land or what effect it's going to have.

In other words, even if they WERE chemical sprays, who cares?

Now I have a question for you:

How do you know there aren't secret NWO chemicals in your toothpaste, your water, your medicine cabinet, your food, your clothes, your toilet paper, etc?

Or how about this: I claim that your toilet paper contains secret NWO mind-control chemicals designed to seep into your brain through your rectum. Now prove me wrong.

Tippit

8th February 2008, 05:11 PM

Just out of interest, Tippit, how do you know that the ones you say are contrails, aren't actually chemtrails, and vice versa? In other words, how can you tell you haven't got them the wrong way round?

Dave

The contrail I saw a week later dissipated quickly and didn't create the massive haze visible in the photos I took, and lingered no more than 20-30 lengths of the plane creating them.

The abnormal frenzy of particulate-spewing planes in the sky, coupled with the drastically different properties of the trails they left behind lead me to conclude that one phenomenon was different from the other.

Jonnyclueless

8th February 2008, 05:15 PM

Are you really claiming that it's impossible for airplanes to spray chemicals at high altitudes which may be confused with contrails?

My assumption that they aren't contrails is because I've seen contrails my entire life. I know what they look like, how long it takes for them to dissipate, and how much area is affected. I also know what is typical for air traffic where I live, and what is atypical.

For them to have any effect? Absolutely!

Are you going to claim that different contrails at different altitudes, different air pressures, different wind velocities, and the 100s of other factors can't disperse differently?

And are you going to claim that despite these variations that all contrails disperse the exact same way regardless of the variables? Can you back this up with scientific data? Or are you just making assumptions?

Yes, you know what is typical. And the weather and environment never ever possibly changes. I imagine that would also mean it never rains, and there is never bad weather if even the moderate weather has no variables to it what so ever. I think you should present a scientific paper showing these things for us. To me it sounds impossible, but you have been studying this all your life, so I am interested.

Dave Rogers

8th February 2008, 05:16 PM

My assumption that they aren't contrails is because I've seen contrails my entire life. I know what they look like, how long it takes for them to dissipate, and how much area is affected. I also know what is typical for air traffic where I live, and what is atypical.

Again: How do you know that what you've seen your entire life are not chemtrails, and that they've been going on that long? How do you know that what's typical for your area isn't chemtrails, and that when you see a plane leaving an unusual trail that's because it isn't spraying?

Dave

Spins

8th February 2008, 05:17 PM

http://www.mugen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/isc.jpg

Definitive proof of their existence at last!

beachnut

8th February 2008, 05:21 PM

The contrail I saw a week later dissipated quickly and didn't create the massive haze visible in the photos I took, and lingered no more than 20-30 lengths of the plane creating them.

The abnormal frenzy of particulate-spewing planes in the sky, coupled with the drastically different properties of the trails they left behind lead me to conclude that one phenomenon was different from the other.
You are wrong; it depends on the weather. Mother nature. I have flown big jets and small jets since 1974. The things you see are all contrails. You are not being rational, or asking anyone who knows. Are you making up ideas on your own? Why not the other way around, the short lasting ones are the spray evaporating like Vicks, to poison the world; the real contrails last just like clouds that hang over the city all day, or for 11 days straight. Fog for 11 days. OOPS water vapor can not last for days? WRONG, you need to talk to a wx person.

bje

8th February 2008, 05:28 PM

Did anyone actually look at my photos, and honestly conclude that those were condensation trails?

You're not paying attention. I've seen them all the time.

I saw multiple planes in close proximity flying in criss-crossing patterns before I decided to photograph them, and again, the sky was clear blue before they arrived.The fact that you saw planes flying like that, if true, is irrelevant. Jets leave contrails when atmospheric conditions are conducive for their formation. Even the stealth fighter and stealth bomber leave contrails at those altitudes when.

Perhaps a better question is in order. How would we know that we are being sprayed with chemicals if everyone is under the assumption that every jet-created pattern in the sky is really just a condensation trail?There is a very simple way which I have been advising chemtrail believers to test for themselves for years.

1. Sign up for Flight Explorer Personal. http://www.flightexplorer.com/personal/personalEdition.aspx. It'll cost you $9.95 a month but one month should be sufficient. It shows you every commercial and private flight in the air over the U.S. and some other countries. It does not display military aircraft.

2. Wait to sign up during the summer months when contrails are more prolific.

3. On a day when you see persistent contrails form (what you claim are "chemtrails"), and you see the aircraft doing it from the ground, log in to Flight Explorer and zoom into the area in which you live.

4. If it is a passenger aircraft, you can identify the airline, origin and destination, flight altitude, speed, and aircraft type. If you see a jet pass over forming a contrail but do not see it on Flight Explorer, then you know it's a military aircraft.

5. Since 9/11, the FAA has mandated a delay in time in which aircraft are displayed. In other words, if you see an aircraft passing directly overhead of your location outside, expect to see it displayed on Flight Explorer 5 to 10 minutes later. This does not impede you at all from identifying the aircraft.

What you will note:

1. Atmospheric conditions will determine the type of contrail formed. You will generally see the same type of contrail form in the same region at the same time. Sometimes altitude matters so that conditions at 33,000 feet are different at 40,000 feet. Obviously, time matters, too.This means that you generally see persistent contrails forming from multiple aircraft within your visibility at the same time.

2. You will note, if you are in the right location as I am, that persistent contrails form from any type of jet, commercial or military, from any airline, and from any country.

What are the scientifically demonstrable physical constraints as to what could possibly constitute a condensation trail, and what couldn't?I haven't a clue. You said you knew.

bje

8th February 2008, 05:34 PM

How would I know who was doing the spraying? The planes were far to high for me to observe any markings. I hadn't arrived here with a prepackaged chemtrail theory to sell anyone, I merely saw the thread and decided to share my own experiences, and photographs.

Your explanations for what you think I saw are not satisfying.

You actually were here to sell chemtrails, as you claimed you knew what they look like.

Now that you have read my most recent post, you are free to do your own investigation and report your findings to us. I have given you the means to do so.

If, after you you do that, and still believe in chemtrails, tell us what the government should do to prevent airlines from foreign countries spraying chemicals on us.

beachnut

8th February 2008, 05:35 PM

http://www.mugen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/isc.jpg

Definitive proof of their existence at last!
Do you see them everywhere? Let me guess; they do not know they are Chemtrails? Thought so.

Elizabeth I

8th February 2008, 06:29 PM

Wait a minute. Anything atypical for an area can't possibly be due to weather, but has to be a government conspiracy? All right then, someone had better explain this one to me.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22902118/

Did you like that one? It was my first solo NWO assignment, and I'm pretty proud of it.

ktesibios

8th February 2008, 07:00 PM

For Tippit (and anyone else who's interested:)

Contrails: Improved Forecasting Technique (http://contrail.gi.alaska.edu/)

Condensation trails (contrails) formed by aircrafts are sometimes visible from the ground for several hours. Numerous contrails are formed in the vicinity of main air- traffic routes; due to additional spreading effects contrails may contribute significantly to the total cloud cover. Continuous
observational methods are used to study the formation of contrails in the subarctic setting of Fairbanks, Alaska. Since March of 2000 a contrail database has been established, which includes contrail characteristics, Federal Aviation Administration flight data, and atmospheric measurements
derived from radiosonde ascents at Fairbanks International Airport. The contrail analysis is based on all-sky digital camera imagery and direct observations of aircrafts.

These people have been studying the formation of persistent contrails for years, working on methods of predicting when and at what altitudes they're likely to form. The idea is to avoid creating artificial cloud cover and its effects on the environment on the ground.

Download and read some of the papers from the "publications" section. There's lots of information there about what conditions favor the formation and persistence of contrails, and about the testing and validation of predictive models.

If this kind of work results in airlines tweaking flight plans to avoid creating persistent contrails- for environmental reasons- it could leave the chemtrails believers without anything to get their panties in a bunch about.

Wouldn't that be funny?

bje

8th February 2008, 07:23 PM

If this kind of work results in airlines tweaking flight plans to avoid creating persistent contrails- for environmental reasons- it could leave the chemtrails believers without anything to get their panties in a bunch about.

Wouldn't that be funny?

Yup. But then they would claim it was an INSIDE JOB! http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1593947ad0e8cb5cfc.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10677)

Hokulele

8th February 2008, 08:15 PM

Did you like that one? It was my first solo NWO assignment, and I'm pretty proud of it.

Very impressive, I hope you got a bonus for that one. What made it most effective was the fact that none of the tourists believed it could ever snow on Maui, didn't bring the appropriate clothing, and couldn't stay up there long enough to discern that it WASN'T REALLY SNOW AT ALL!!!!!!!!

Jonnyclueless

8th February 2008, 08:26 PM

Did you like that one? It was my first solo NWO assignment, and I'm pretty proud of it.

Ah, nothing more moving than getting your first 'population control' badge. Myabe just the 'landing on the moon' badge, but that's about it.

jproudj

8th February 2008, 08:30 PM

I know if what I am saying is real or not. I know when a normal contrail is a chemtrail, because it is too hard to accept that I may not know. You can post all the cold hard facts you like, I know what I saw.

:cool:

Unsecured Coins

8th February 2008, 08:32 PM

Corsair 115

8th February 2008, 09:03 PM

I'd like to know if all those aircraft flying over Europe during WWII were also laying down chemtrails, because there are plenty of photos of some kind of trails in the sky.

If B-17s and B-24s were using chemtrails to try and soften up German resolve, it did not appear to work.

CurtC

8th February 2008, 10:17 PM

Did anyone actually look at my photos, and honestly conclude that those were condensation trails?

I did - those are quite normal contrails, the persistent kind. Contrails are persistent when the humidity (at that altitude) is high. When the humidity is low, the contrails dissipate by evaporating.

ElMondoHummus

8th February 2008, 11:01 PM

Just for fun:

http://www.stuffucanuse.com/Odds_and_Sods/contrail.jpg

OldTigerCub

8th February 2008, 11:23 PM

Just for fun:

http://www.stuffucanuse.com/Odds_and_Sods/contrail.jpg

:D

ElMondoHummus

8th February 2008, 11:51 PM

littlehulkster

9th February 2008, 12:27 AM

I wonder who is more insane, chemtrailers or flat earthers?

Jonnyclueless

9th February 2008, 12:49 AM

Fish control. Duh.

bje

9th February 2008, 06:20 AM

I wonder who is more insane, chemtrailers or flat earthers?

Flat earthers. They had a few hundred years head start.

Elizabeth I

9th February 2008, 10:14 AM

Hummus, those photos are all great, but the first one is awesome.

Father Dagon

9th February 2008, 06:20 PM

I saw multiple planes in the same proximity all spewing particulate at the same time. When I decided to come back out and photograph them later, the planes were gone.Well, that's a bummer. You know that even though the angular velocity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_velocity) of passenger airplanes at cruising altitude is fairly low compared to ground vehicles, it's still pretty high. Taking pictures of airplanes in motion is not a question of decision. It's do. Or don't.I'm sorry that I'm not an air traffic expert like yourself. I live in a fairly rural area, and I'd not seen anything like what I documented in those photos before, ever.Guess what? I think that you should look at the same spot of the sky exactly one week later (then repeat for a couple of weeks.) Also bear in mind that sometimes planes are redirected from their flight plans in order to avoid some other trouble.IHow would I know who was doing the spraying? The planes were far to high for me to observe any markings. I hadn't arrived here with a prepackaged chemtrail theory to sell anyone, I merely saw the thread and decided to share my own experiences, and photographs.Abscence of evidence is not evidence of covert ops. Check the timetables for the flights crossing your area. With a little research you could (theoretically) get the names of every member of the flight crew and the passengers. Nothing hidden here.

ElMondoHummus

9th February 2008, 06:26 PM

Hummus, those photos are all great, but the first one is awesome.

And the thing is, they're easy to find.

Why fantasists look for the convoluted explanation rather than the correct one is a mystery to me.

Tippit

10th February 2008, 07:23 AM

Well, that's a bummer. You know that even though the angular velocity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_velocity) of passenger airplanes at cruising altitude is fairly low compared to ground vehicles, it's still pretty high. Taking pictures of airplanes in motion is not a question of decision. It's do. Or don't.

I'm not sure what your point is. I don't normally carry my camera around with me, and when I first walked outside and noticed what was going on, it didn't occur to me to photograph it. I spent about 15-20 minutes just staring at the particulate trails in the sky.

Guess what? I think that you should look at the same spot of the sky exactly one week later (then repeat for a couple of weeks.) Also bear in mind that sometimes planes are redirected from their flight plans in order to avoid some other trouble.

I've only seen a scene similar to that one other time in my life, in Chicago, IL a few years ago. I wouldn't have taken those photographs if I didn't think it was a rare photo op. I haven't seen planes doing what they were doing here before, and I had never seen a completely blue sky turned into haze before. I pointed out earlier that I do not live below an air corridor, so the presence of all of these planes and the multiple trails that covered the entire sky in all directions was highly abnormal. I don't think I can make this anymore clear.

Abscence of evidence is not evidence of covert ops. Check the timetables for the flights crossing your area. With a little research you could (theoretically) get the names of every member of the flight crew and the passengers. Nothing hidden here.

I'm aware of that. However, I found the behavior of the planes and the nature of the trails to be highly suspicious to the point where I decided to photograph them. I'm convinced they were spraying some sort of aerosol, I could actually see it billowing out of the planes. I can't prove to you whether they were spraying anything or not, and I don't expect my photos or my account to convince anyone here. Nor am I persuaded by anyone's comments here about what I personally witnessed. I guess you just had to be there.

Par

10th February 2008, 07:33 AM

I found the behavior of the planes and the nature of the trails to be highly suspicious to the point where I decided to photograph them. I'm convinced they were spraying some sort of aerosol, I could actually see it billowing out of the planes. I can't prove to you whether they were spraying anything or not, and I don't expect my photos or my account to convince anyone here. Nor am I persuaded by anyone's comments here about what I personally witnessed. I guess you just had to be there.

Do you not think that it’s more parsimonious to simply conclude that you were mistaken?

Tippit

10th February 2008, 07:43 AM

Reheat

10th February 2008, 08:12 AM

I think it's more parsimonious to conclude that skeptics who weren't present to witness what I witnessed are more likely to be mistaken. They're merely operating under some assumptions about what they think I saw, as opposed to actually having witnessed it for themselves.

On the other hand, I have no doubt that some of you would disagree on the color of ****, if witnessed in person.

I haven't witnessed ANYONE disputing what you saw. I saw the photos you posted and I suspect so did everyone else who has commented. It's not a problem with WHAT you saw, the problem is YOUR INTERPRETATION of what you saw.

Did you also view the numerous other posted photos of contrails? Your photos and your description of what you saw perfectly describes normal condensation of engine exhaust from high flying airplanes, routinely called contrails. They are not always the same due to differing weather conditions. Their varying appearance has been described several times in the thread.

BTW, no one is trying to convince you of anything. You're obviously ineducable. Folks comment and post in this forum for those who choose to learn about phenomena they don't understand or misinterpret.

Everyone has a choice in life of living in ignorance or learning/understanding rational explanations for things they don't understand. You're choosing the path of ignorance. Have at it, if that makes you happy.

Par

10th February 2008, 08:22 AM

Do you not think that it’s more parsimonious to simply conclude that you were mistaken?
I think it's more parsimonious to conclude that skeptics who weren't present to witness what I witnessed are more likely to be mistaken. They're merely operating under some assumptions about what they think I saw, as opposed to actually having witnessed it for themselves.

Well, no, you’re wrong there. You being correct about what you saw involves positing far more hypothetical entities and more unnecessary assumptions (in the form of a nefarious spraying operation and all the framework behind it) than does the notion that one man was simply mistaken about what he saw (something that we already know happens every day). Therefore, you being mistaken about what you saw is a considerably more parsimonious explanation for the phenomenon at hand than the notion that you really saw what you thought you saw.

Calcas

10th February 2008, 08:42 AM

I haven't witnessed ANYONE disputing what you saw. I saw the photos you posted and I suspect so did everyone else who has commented. It's not a problem with WHAT you saw, the problem is YOUR INTERPRETATION of what you saw.

Did you also view the numerous other posted photos of contrails? Your photos and your description of what you saw perfectly describes normal condensation of engine exhaust from high flying airplanes, routinely called contrails. They are not always the same due to differing weather conditions. Their varying appearance has been described several times in the thread.

BTW, no one is trying to convince you of anything. You're obviously ineducable. Folks comment and post in this forum for those who choose to learn about phenomena they don't understand or misinterpret.

Everyone has a choice in life of living in ignorance or learning/understanding rational explanations for things they don't understand. You're choosing the path of ignorance. Have at it, if that makes you happy.

Well said. Some people will never be convinced their delusions are just that and it's simply redundant to continue to present logical evidence. Terral is another perfect example.

Ignorance is bliss.

GDC

10th February 2008, 08:45 AM

I'm sorry that I'm not an air traffic expert like yourself. I live in a fairly rural area, and I'd not seen anything like what I documented in those photos before, ever.

I actually stopped lurking because of this quote. If it's something unusual that's out of your sphere of experience, it must be a nefarious plot, right? There's no other explanation!

I get the feeling that if they were born 400 years ago, this person would be one of the first to start with cries of "SHE'S A WITCH!!"

It doesn't matter what other people who actually know what they're talking about say, right? To you, it was weird and scary, and that's all that matters.

ElMondoHummus

10th February 2008, 08:58 AM

Welcome, GDC.

You're right. Conspiracy addiction is not scientific, it's superstitious. And like others here, I've often lived by Sagan's statement (I think it was Sagan who said it) that superstition is not an enlightenment value.

Hypotheses must change to reflect new facts and proven knowledge. Chemtrails have no more than misinterpretations and superstitions behind it. That is Dark Ages thinking, and unbecoming of a modern, educated person.

bje

10th February 2008, 09:06 AM

I think it's more parsimonious to conclude that skeptics who weren't present to witness what I witnessed are more likely to be mistaken. They're merely operating under some assumptions about what they think I saw, as opposed to actually having witnessed it for themselves.

That statement is illogical, disingenuous, and intellectually dishonest Tippit. YOU are merely operating under some assumptions about what you think you saw. "Being there" is not a valid claim to knowing what you saw. We have given solid reasons and data for you to acknowledge that you could very well be wrong. You are unable describe any characteristic of what you saw different from normal and persistent contrails, your photos show nothing unusual, despite your claim that: "The photographs don't lie." You should be honest with us and acknowledge that you have no ability to make the claim that they are chemtrails.

Not only that, you have not even acknowledged that you have given the ability to confirm for yourself what you are seeing.

Are you going to dig your feet in like 9/11 Truthers and refuse to acknowledge inconvenient evidence and that there are good reasons that you could be wrong, Tippit, thereby discrediting any of your claims and beliefs?

HeyLeroy

10th February 2008, 10:19 AM

post this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBu8-5OgJ_A) over there

"The wissels go WOOOOO!!"

Maybe someday when they're all rounded up into FEMA fun camps we can do that.

Fixed that for ya.

Alferd_Packer

10th February 2008, 11:20 AM

Tippit, please google the term "ice supersaturated regions" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ice+supersaturated+regions+contrail+formation) (or just click on the link)

You might want to study the science behind chemtrail operations. ;)

Alferd_Packer

10th February 2008, 11:22 AM

Oh, and what about "ship trails?" (http://pafc.arh.noaa.gov/classroom/ship_trails.php)

Jonnyclueless

10th February 2008, 11:59 AM

I used to think that the theory of evolution was pretty air tight. But I think Tippits research set the bar much higher now. I mean after reading his testimony, I don't see how any sane scientist can deny such evidence. Dude, the guy watched it with his own eyes. How can there be any doubt now?

Hokulele

10th February 2008, 12:17 PM

Tippit, how do you know you aren't in any air traffic flight paths? At the altitude required for the types of contrails you photographed, most airplanes wouldn't be noticeable unless you were very good at spotting them. Most people are pretty oblivious to high-altitude planes, unless they happen to be making obvious contrails, or unless that person is a meteor photographer (I used to do this in high school and would capture about 3 planes for every meteor). I do not know if you are in the US, but here is an interesting web site showing most commercial air traffic. Note, commercial aircraft aren't the only things up there.

http://flightaware.com/live/

bje

10th February 2008, 12:38 PM

Hokulele

10th February 2008, 12:47 PM

I gave him instructions earlier (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3415871&postcount=108) on how to use Flight Explorer to confirm for himself just what flights he was seeing. Of course, he won't acknowledge it.

Yeah, but the site I linked to is free, so he can't use the "I can't afford $9.95 a month" excuse. :p

Seriously though, I did see your post and figured that making the point more than once using different sources would make it clear to any on-lookers that he has no excuse for ignoring it, and if he keeps doing so, it suggests something about his arguments.

bje

10th February 2008, 01:17 PM

Yeah, but the site I linked to is free, so he can't use the "I can't afford $9.95 a month" excuse. :p

Seriously though, I did see your post and figured that making the point more than once using different sources would make it clear to any on-lookers that he has no excuse for ignoring it, and if he keeps doing so, it suggests something about his arguments.

Your point is good. I would have used FlightAware except that one is forced to know something about the flight ahead of time, i.e., flight number or type aircraft or origin or destination. There's no ability to point to any plane on a map and find out the info about that flight as there is with Flight Explorer.

If Tippit is truly after the truth, he'll spend the $9.95, I'm sure, and be able to see for himself.

Stellafane

10th February 2008, 03:07 PM

I wonder who is more insane, chemtrailers or flat earthers?

My vote goes to chemtrailers. At least the earth looks flat when you're standing on it. Chemtrailers, on the other hand, don't even have that much going for them.

Tippit

10th February 2008, 07:11 PM

Are you going to dig your feet in like 9/11 Truthers and refuse to acknowledge inconvenient evidence and that there are good reasons that you could be wrong, Tippit, thereby discrediting any of your claims and beliefs?

There are good reasons that I could be wrong? That implies there is a possibility that I might not be wrong. I'm not refusing to acknowledge evidence, I'm familiar with contrails and "persistent" contrails, and none of that explains or justifies the spraying I saw being done by multiple planes that turned a blue sky into a hazy mist in just a short period of time. In other words, I accept the possibilities that you offered for what I saw, but I am not convinced. After all, I own my own experiences, and I have to weigh what is possible with what is likely, based on them. I reserve the right to not only be suspicious, but also to be wrong.

Tippit

10th February 2008, 07:25 PM

I actually stopped lurking because of this quote. If it's something unusual that's out of your sphere of experience, it must be a nefarious plot, right? There's no other explanation!

I get the feeling that if they were born 400 years ago, this person would be one of the first to start with cries of "SHE'S A WITCH!!"

It doesn't matter what other people who actually know what they're talking about say, right? To you, it was weird and scary, and that's all that matters.

There are plenty of possible explanations for what I saw, some more "nefarious" than others. But the two most relevant possibilities are 1) A coincidence of an unusual number of planes for this area and unusual atmospheric conditions to produce persistent condensation trails turning a blue sky into a milky haze, and 2) Unknown planes spraying unknown substances for unknown purposes.

Since I actually saw the planes emitting particulate, since I live in a rural area with almost no air traffic, and since the scope of these "condensation" trails was so immense so as to visibly alter the sky as far as the eye could see in 360 degrees, I have ruled out possibility #1. My photos don't really do justice as to how drastically the clear blue sky was altered.

Since I don't consent to having anything sprayed on me, for whatever purpose, I have a problem with the only other possibility, even if whatever they're spraying is harmless.

Tippit

10th February 2008, 07:34 PM

Yeah, but the site I linked to is free, so he can't use the "I can't afford $9.95 a month" excuse. :p

Seriously though, I did see your post and figured that making the point more than once using different sources would make it clear to any on-lookers that he has no excuse for ignoring it, and if he keeps doing so, it suggests something about his arguments.

I appreciate the links, however, since I didn't log the time and date, and since that feature on my camera was turned off, I don't have enough information to determine whether they were commercial airplanes. That isn't really relevant though, because again, I saw them spraying, and I saw them flying haphazard routes. The latter should be evident from the photos.

Corsair 115

10th February 2008, 07:41 PM

Here's a question: when did aircraft begin doing this alleged widespread laying of chemtrails? Ten years ago? Twenty? Fifty?

beachnut

10th February 2008, 07:45 PM

Tippit

10th February 2008, 08:04 PM

Here's a question: when did aircraft begin doing this alleged widespread laying of chemtrails? Ten years ago? Twenty? Fifty?

Where did I allege anything other than what I witnessed, and photographed?

Reheat

10th February 2008, 08:15 PM

Delete

beachnut

10th February 2008, 08:20 PM

Delete
cleared to contact
got your gas
i guess we were doing chemtails, should we tell him the truth?

Reheat

10th February 2008, 08:24 PM

cleared to contact
got your gas
i guess we were doing chemtails, should we tell him the truth?

I guess a little leaked, huh! For heavens sake, don't say any more it would really scare him if he knew the truth.

Calcas

10th February 2008, 08:28 PM

i guess we were doing chemtails, should we tell him the truth?

That's up to you, but of course then your checks will stop coming.

I still have two more kids to put through college...;)

robinson

10th February 2008, 08:29 PM

Reheat

10th February 2008, 08:32 PM

Here's a question: when did aircraft begin doing this alleged widespread laying of chemtrails? Ten years ago? Twenty? Fifty?

It's funny you should mention something a few years back. After deregulation of the airlines I've heard that a few startups reduced the size of the lavatory holding tanks and just vented overboard. I hadn't thought of that previously, but I'll bet thats what it was.

Geesh, I hope they never vent that stuff over my head. I don't blame him for being a little upset about it as I would be too.

Tippit, I'm sorry I didn't remember that previously. I'll bet it smelled really bad too, didn't it?

beachnut

10th February 2008, 08:38 PM

I've video taped planes leaving contrails in patterns. It seems pilots don't like to fly through a contrail, so they keep laying a new one parallel to the earlier ones. When you have cross traffic, it creates a grid pattern. If they last a long time, you end up with an overcast sky.

It looks freaky. Like they are doing it on purpose. You can see satellite images of extreme overcast in heavy traffic patterns. I know it is just paraffin oil, naphtha-kerosene, alkylated phenols, some dinonylnaphthylsulfonic acid, corrosion inhibitors, icing Inhibitors, Biocides, and water vapor, but still, all that crap floating down in the air is strangely disturbing.

Unless you don't give a crap what is in the air you breathe ...
Jets, I believe are cleaner than your car! Sorry, you can skip all this crap and clean up your car first. At 700 C fuel seem happy to come clean.

The planes are not avoiding anything (sort of). They have different altitudes and paths. You are joking right? You can stack over 10 planes up, different directions and different attitudes over the same place;, FL240, 250, 260 270 290 310 330 350 370 390 410 430 450 and more, Every altitude the opposite direction.

Planes navigation systems a while back were off up to 3 or 4 miles; the road is like 8 miles wide in a sense. Now planes can if they want be on course to 10 feet. The pilots are not close enough to worry about missing the contrail usually but you are right if a set was coming down on the other plane he would avoid it incase there was turbulence.

TjW

10th February 2008, 08:43 PM

It truly is amazing. The disinfo program regarding chemtrails is over sixty years old!
Consider this early disinfo attempt from that notorious NWO shill Antoine de Saint-Exupery:

The German on the ground knows us by the pearly white scarf which every plane flying at high altitude trails behind like a bridal veil. The disturbance caused by our meteoric flight crystallizes the watery vapor in the atmosphere. We unwind behind us a cirrus of icicles. If the atmospheric conditions are favorable to the formation of clouds, our wake will thicken bit by bit and become an evening cloud over the countryside.

From Flight to Arras Chapter VIII Copyright 1942
Available in Airman's Odyssey, published by Harcourt Brace & Company

Notice how he cleverly implies that not only do high-flying airplanes leave contrails, but that when conditions are right, they will thicken and cover the sky! It's almost as though he had observed, over sixty years ago, the same sort of phenomena that Tippit saw.

TjW

10th February 2008, 08:53 PM

I've video taped planes leaving contrails in patterns. It seems pilots don't like to fly through a contrail, so they keep laying a new one parallel to the earlier ones. When you have cross traffic, it creates a grid pattern. If they last a long time, you end up with an overcast sky.

It looks freaky. Like they are doing it on purpose. You can see satellite images of extreme overcast in heavy traffic patterns. I know it is just paraffin oil, naphtha-kerosene, alkylated phenols, some dinonylnaphthylsulfonic acid, corrosion inhibitors, icing Inhibitors, Biocides, and water vapor, but still, all that crap floating down in the air is strangely disturbing.

Unless you don't give a crap what is in the air you breathe ...

Yes, it certainly is weird. It's almost as though they were flying along the same line from one navigational beacon to another and wind is drifting the contrails left behind.
But us really smart guys know that couldn't be the case, because the wind would have to be at an angle to the contrails... and what are the odds of that?
Us really smart guys also know that the airlines are rolling in cash, and just pump the damn fuel overboard without burning it. Because burning it efficiently might turn it all into water and carbon dioxide, and what would be the fun in that?

Jonnyclueless

10th February 2008, 08:54 PM

SO what do these chemicals do?

DavidJames

10th February 2008, 09:04 PM

SO what do these chemicals do?Just anecdotal I know, but based on what I've seen from those that report them, I'd say they make them paranoid and stupid.

Tippit

10th February 2008, 09:08 PM

I guess a little leaked, huh! For heavens sake, don't say any more it would really scare him if he knew the truth.

The idea that what some call "persistent contrails" are really chemical trails isn't nearly as scary as some of the things that I know to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt. Not much scares me anymore.

beachnut

10th February 2008, 09:11 PM

The idea that what some call "persistent contrails" are really chemical trails isn't nearly as scary as some of the things that I know to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt. Not much scares me anymore.
There is no such things as the CT of chemtrails. Do you understand that?

persistent contrails are persistent because of mother nature!

steve s

10th February 2008, 09:14 PM

But the two most relevant possibilities are 1) A coincidence of an unusual number of planes for this area and unusual atmospheric conditions to produce persistent condensation trails turning a blue sky into a milky haze,

What in the world is so unusual about the atmospheric conditions in those photos? Those are perfectly ordinary conditions, the type of thing I see around here often. There's also nothing "haphazard" about the routes. The planes are flying in straight lines, not zigzagging bag and forth.

Since I actually saw the planes emitting particulate,

How could you possibly see the planes emitting anything from 30,000 feet away?

As for the sky changing, atmospheric conditions do change, you know. Last week the temperature here dropped fifty degrees in about 3 hours.

ETA: Here's a photo that I took a while back. Looks a lot like yours. Nothing unusual about it at all.

http://www.photochimps.com/pp/data/604/contrails.jpg

Steve S.

Unsecured Coins

10th February 2008, 09:15 PM

There is no such things as the CT of chemtrails. Do you understand that?

persistent contrails are persistent because of mother nature!

NO!! they're chemtrails coming from Jewish airliners because Jews don't like anyone looking at the sun for free.

*bong hit*

steve s

10th February 2008, 09:17 PM

If B-17s and B-24s were using chemtrails to try and soften up German resolve, it did not appear to work.

My father flew a B-17 in the war. Apparently he was in on it.

Steve S.

Reheat

10th February 2008, 09:19 PM

I've video taped planes leaving contrails in patterns. It seems pilots don't like to fly through a contrail, so they keep laying a new one parallel to the earlier ones.

Of course, they don't like to fly through contrails. There's frequently wake turbulence in them. The technical term is wake vortices, and it unnerves passengers when they are in clear blue sky with no prior warning of turbulence.

It is particularly important that smaller airliners such as, 737's avoid the wake turbulence of heavy aircraft such as a 747. It can get pretty shaky.....

Reheat

10th February 2008, 09:22 PM

Jonnyclueless

10th February 2008, 09:25 PM

Why are they spraying chemicals again?

Unsecured Coins

10th February 2008, 09:30 PM

Why are they spraying chemicals again?

did you not watch my video? They're mass innoculating people so they're easy to brainwash in order to vote republican so they can give you the spanish flu.

Reality Believer

10th February 2008, 09:39 PM

....... so they can give you the spanish flu.
Doh! I thought it was Spanish Fly! Better dismantle my atmospheric collection device pronto.

beachnut

10th February 2008, 09:41 PM

A coincidence of an unusual number of planes for this area It is called air traffic. They use hubs now, means all the planes fly to one place at nearly the same time. Switch planes and fly on. There are clumps of traffic.
unusual atmospheric conditions This is the most unique term I have see for what is called; weather
Unknown planes spraying unknown substances for unknown purposes. This is called fantasy.

So we have
Air traffic
Weather
fantasy

robinson

10th February 2008, 09:44 PM

I can't imagine a contrail would be good to fly through. It would decrease visibility as well.

Reheat

10th February 2008, 09:48 PM

I can't imagine a contrail would be good to fly through. It would decrease visibility as well.

Only for a second or two, if anyone ever looked outside! :jaw-dropp

robinson

10th February 2008, 09:50 PM

I'm talking about a pilot following another plane. You would be flying through it for a long time.

Since the wind can drift them, pilots tend to avoid flying through another planes contrail. In heavy traffic, this makes it look like they are laying patterns down.

Unsecured Coins

10th February 2008, 09:50 PM

Doh! I thought it was Spanish Fly! Better dismantle my atmospheric collection device pronto.

you eeeeeedeeot!!! :D

robinson

10th February 2008, 09:51 PM

When you get cross traffic, it creates a grid. Combine that with the on and off effect of changing areas of moisture and temperature, it can look like multiple planes are laying down a pattern, and turning the trails on and off, all at the same place.

It is strange to see.

Jonnyclueless

10th February 2008, 10:03 PM

did you not watch my video? They're mass innoculating people so they're easy to brainwash in order to vote republican so they can give you the spanish flu.

Sorry, I should have specified Tippit since he is the one that is pretty sure about what is going on. Not that I doubt you or anything. it sounds like a wonderful plan on their part.

1337m4n

10th February 2008, 10:08 PM

Tippit, like I said, nothing sprayed at 30,000 feet is going to be dense enough to do any damage whatsoever by the time it hits the ground. You're getting yourself scared over nothing.

My advice to you would be to chillax. Go to a bar, pick up a hot chick, take her to a nice movie, maybe have some smecks, and take a long, hot bath. Calm your nerves, and take a break from conspiracies. It'll be good for you.

beachnut

10th February 2008, 10:12 PM

robinson

10th February 2008, 10:20 PM

1337m4n

10th February 2008, 10:22 PM

IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT:

When I flushed just now, my toilet paper got shredded into pieces, instead of getting flushed away in one piece. It's never done that before.

Unsecured Coins

10th February 2008, 10:23 PM

IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT:

When I flushed just now, my toilet paper got shredded into pieces, instead of getting flushed away in one piece. It's never done that before.

did you have mexican (thermite) or chinese (thermate) tonight?

beachnut

10th February 2008, 10:28 PM

I'm trying to make the point that normal traffic creates a situation where it LOOKS like a pattern is being "sprayed", when in fact it is just pilots avoiding the contrail. I can see how the paranoid would view it as a deliberate effect. A cross hatch pattern "directly over them", which could lead to the belief it is intentional.

While there are planes doing this all the time, you only see it when the weather allows persistant contrails.
That is true. It does look like it is being sprayed, the core is clear until it cools. You are right sometimes there are distinct areas of no contrail and then contrail, and no contrail. The SR-71 would con, then stop as it passed to different levels.

beachnut

10th February 2008, 10:29 PM

NO!! they're chemtrails coming from Jewish airliners because Jews don't like anyone looking at the sun for free.
*bong hit*
That was a secret

1337m4n

10th February 2008, 10:30 PM

did you have mexican (thermite) or chinese (thermate) tonight?

It was Thai. And the spicy kind, too.

Jonnyclueless

10th February 2008, 10:31 PM

Maybe they're spraying Fabreeze.

robinson

10th February 2008, 10:33 PM

I tend to avoid this entire part of the JREF. But if you are going to discuss CTs, I think it best to explain why somebody could come up with the CT in the first place, instead of acting like morons.

Unsecured Coins

10th February 2008, 10:42 PM

It was Thai. And the spicy kind, too.

ahh.. you went "military grade"

beachnut

10th February 2008, 10:43 PM

I tend to avoid this entire part of the JREF. But if you are going to discuss CTs, I think it best to explain why somebody could come up with the CT in the first place, instead of acting like morons.
I resemble that statement. But you got it, this CT is for MORONS, the ones who buy chemtail books

I first discovered the CT and it is real. I found an author who sells book and talks about chemtrails. I wrote him an email and explained it was H2O and CO2, he was polite and told me there was more to it.
http://www.willthomas.net/Chemtrails/
The CT is to sell books! That is the reason. He makes money. I left him to sell books to morons; I too could be a moron; I have proven it many times. But terminal stupidity cures use to be one scholarship away.
http://www.willthomas.net/Chemtrails/
Money; we have to eat! Sell those chemtrail books.

http://www.willthomas.net/Chemtrails/ (http://www.willthomas.net/Chemtrails/) Found HIM. I wrote this guy years ago. He makes money off of the chemtails; this must be the internet selling idea 1007. Email him, he gave me a straight answer, I did not call him names, just reminded him of his fraud without mentioning it. A covert attempt to see what he was up to. He sells books and talks. Pure stupid, it exists, but this guy is making money from those who are, challenged with the facts?

That was easy to find, years ago, and it pops up a 5 or 6, searching chemtrails books.

http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&safe=off&q=chemtrails+books (http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&safe=off&q=chemtrails+books)

The real CT, to sell books! Buyer beware.

Pure nut case stuff; the guy is a 9/11 truther also. http://www.willthomas.net/911/index.htm

Unsecured Coins

10th February 2008, 10:45 PM

That was a secret

was being the operative word. I'm onto you, zionist! you and your gold foiled chocolate coins.

beachnut

10th February 2008, 11:22 PM

was being the operative word. I'm onto you, zionist! you and your gold foiled chocolate coins.
.wondering why Bigfoot does not leave big piles of scat

Here we worry about the evil chemtrail capitalist, and bigfoot scat is piling up.

Corsair 115

11th February 2008, 02:01 AM

Where did I allege anything other than what I witnessed, and photographed?You've voiced the opinion that what you are seeing are not natural effects of aircraft flying through the atmosphere.

If the effect is an artificial one, then follow-up questions as to the nature of what the chemicals are and how long the spraying have been going on strike me as entirely reasonable. Particularly if one is convinced of the legitimacy of the chemtrail explanation, as I would expect such a person would want to investigate the subject in depth.

My father flew a B-17 in the war.My respects to your father on his service. He must have some interesting stories to tell (assuming that he's ever spoken about his experiences).

The B-17 is probably my second favourite aircraft of WWII.

Dave Rogers

11th February 2008, 03:31 AM

I find that simple arithmetic is often informative in examining some of these sort of theories, to make an assessment of plausibility. How much vapour is there, by weight, in a contrail?

I just looked out of the window and saw a couple of airliners pulling contrails. Typically they will produce a pair of trails, which look roughly cylindrical and extend slightly beyond the wingtips. Assuming a wingspan of a little under 40 metres (about right for a 757, say) we can estimate that the radius of each cylinder is 10 metres, so the area is about 300 square metres (truncating pi to a single digit; this is order of magnitude stuff).

Now length. Let's take the example of an aircraft flying at a height of 10,000 metres (33,000 feet), passing overhead, and producing a contrail from horizon to horizon - not an unusual scenario, but about the maximum contrail length that can be seen by a single observer. Wikipedia gives a handy formula for estimating the distance from a point at altitude to the horizon; multiply the height in metres by 13, then take the square root, and the result is the distance in kilometres. When the airliner crosses my horizon, the point where I'm standing is at its horizon, so that's how far away it is. Multiply by two - it goes from one horizon to the other - and we get a total length of 690 kilometres (or about 430 miles). Multiply this by the area, and we have a contrail volume of about 200 million cubic metres.

Estimating the water content of a cloud is a very complicated business about which I know very little. However, let's make some estimates. The visibility of contrails tends to be very good, so optically they can be taken to behave something like cumulus clouds. A quick Google gives:
http://books.google.com/books?id=hvtcLzc5mB8C&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=cumulus+water+content&source=web&ots=ajA-8jOQ2G&sig=afGWGOEF5AoW6NY2lSwWrRyyxLQ
Cumulus clouds vary in water content from 0.2 to 1.0 grammes per cubic metre. Let's take 0.5 as a sensible mid-range number.

That gives us a total weight of water in the contrail as about 100 million grammes, or 100 metric tons. And that's just the length of contrail we can see from a single point of observation - 430 miles is a pretty short distance for an airline flight. Just for comparison, the maximum payload of a C-17 Globemaster is 77.5 metric tons.

For me, that more or less proves that the source of contrail clouds must be atmospheric. There simply isn't enough payload capacity, even in the biggest airliners, to release that much of anything.

Dave

bje

11th February 2008, 07:02 AM

There are good reasons that I could be wrong? That implies there is a possibility that I might not be wrong."

Therefore, you imply that you might be wrong.

I'm not refusing to acknowledge evidence, I'm familiar with contrails and "persistent" contrails, and none of that explains or justifies the spraying I saw being done by multiple planes that turned a blue sky into a hazy mist in just a short period of time.
Yes, you have persistently refused to acknowledge the evidence everyone has brought you in this thread. You have simply made unfounded assertions and claims based solely on what you imagine something should or should not look like. You are unable demonstrate what contrails could not look like.

In other words, I accept the possibilities that you offered for what I saw, but I am not convinced. But you cannot give us evidence for what you claim you believe. The burden of proof is on you.

After all, I own my own experiences, and I have to weigh what is possible with what is likely, based on them. I reserve the right to not only be suspicious, but also to be wrong.You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts, Tippit.

bje

11th February 2008, 07:25 AM

There are plenty of possible explanations for what I saw, some more "nefarious" than others.

You have given us no evidence, Tippit. You cannot just claim there are "possible" explanations, some "nefarious" , based only on what you imagined you saw. You have given no reason nor evidence.

"But the two most relevant possibilities are 1) A coincidence of an unusual number of planes for this area and unusual atmospheric conditions to produce persistent condensation trails turning a blue sky into a milky haze, and 2) Unknown planes spraying unknown substances for unknown purposes."

You have no basis for arriving at #2. What you think may be unusual cannot be inferred from the fact that you have never seen it before. Your explanation is no better than people who see lights in the sky at night, they don't look familiar to them, and then conclude they saw flying sawyers. No matter how you slice it, you saw something, and have tried to give an explanation to it, but you are unable to produce evidence.

Since I actually saw the planes emitting particulate, since I live in a rural area with almost no air traffic, and since the scope of these "condensation" trails was so immense so as to visibly alter the sky as far as the eye could see in 360 degrees, I have ruled out possibility #1. My photos don't really do justice as to how drastically the clear blue sky was altered.

Planes fly over rural areas. Jets do not always emit contrails; over time there are far more days with no contrails which means far less likelihood that you would see planes flying overhead.

You actually were very clear about your photos:

The photographs don't lie.
Did anyone actually look at my photos, and honestly conclude that those were condensation trails?

Since I don't consent to having anything sprayed on me, for whatever purpose, I have a problem with the only other possibility, even if whatever they're spraying is harmless.

Since you have provided not one iota of evidence for so-called "chemtrails", you have no basis for making any claim that you are being sprayed.

And you want us to accept that chemicals are being sprayed on us by nefarious elements in a secret program in broad daylight instead of at night when no one could see them?

How so, Tippit?

bje

11th February 2008, 07:31 AM

I appreciate the links, however, since I didn't log the time and date, and since that feature on my camera was turned off, I don't have enough information to determine whether they were commercial airplanes. That isn't really relevant though, because again, I saw them spraying, and I saw them flying haphazard routes. The latter should be evident from the photos.

We are not talking about the past, Tippit. Pay attention: we are suggesting you use Flight Explorer for the future.

Again, you have no basis for concluding you saw spraying and have brought nothing to the table to support your claims.

bje

11th February 2008, 07:38 AM

Where did I allege anything other than what I witnessed, and photographed?

From your first post, Tippit. Have you already forgotten?

"I've actually seen chemtrails with my own eyes, on a couple occasions, and photographed them once. The idea that they are simply contrails, and not the results of chemical spraying is ridiculous, because I've seen contrails under similar atmospheric conditions and they are easily distinguishable. The photographs don't lie. It's not a question in my mind that chemicals are being sprayed from airplanes, the question is what are they spraying and for what purpose."

Do you now retract that statement, Tippit? I hope you now understand why you should.

bje

11th February 2008, 07:42 AM

The idea that what some call "persistent contrails" are really chemical trails isn't nearly as scary as some of the things that I know to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt. Not much scares me anymore.

Then why are you so afraid to admit you have no evidence for "chemtrails", Tippit? Are you afraid of admitting that you fell for chemtrail conspiracy theories?

Reheat

11th February 2008, 07:44 AM

And you want us to accept that chemicals are being sprayed on us by nefarious elements in a secret program in broad daylight instead of at night when no one could see them?

How so, Tippit?

We don't even need to go this far. Why deliver via air in the first place. It would be much more effective to just put the chemicals in the water supply.

On the other hand, since a high altitude aerial delivery of an aerosol would be extremely ineffective, maybe that's evidence that it is what they contend and designed to make people stupid. Empirical evidence indicates it only affects a few.... That's the SmOkIng GuN pwoof!!!!!!

robinson

11th February 2008, 07:55 AM

It's obvious to me when a plane is spraying, and when it isn't.

It is obvious to anyone, except even when you can't see a contrail, there is still pollution being sprayed.

Contrails don't linger for hours, and then dissipate into long hazy trails forming large grid patterns. I actually stood outside and observed multiple planes flying in criss-crossing patterns, they were obviously not commercial planes even though they were at very high altitude, because we don't usually get much air traffic here.

Contrails can last all day. There is continuous cloud cover from them over many countries because of the magnitude of planes flying the same routes.

In contrast, I saw a contrail a week or so later, and it was no longer than perhaps 20-30 lengths of the plane itself, and quickly dissipated under the same conditions.

Right now I can see short, temporary contrails from high altitude jets overhead. If the weather was different (at 40,000 feet) there would be lingering contrails. I live in a high traffic area, both military and civilian jets. They are always flying. On days with no contrails you can't even see them. On days with the right weather conditions, they form an overcast.

I'm not contending they're spraying some sort of mass depopulation agent, I'm saying, they're spraying something and I haven't given any consent.

That is actually true. Jets leave a trail of pollution behind them, all the time. And nobody asks for permission, much less worries about it. Air traffic has always polluted.

But even if people were complaining about just the pollution from jets, they would get treated badly.

After 911 when the skies were clear, measurements found weather changes are directly attributable to contrails, visible or not. That much cloud cover changes both the heating during the day, and the cooling at night. During WWII contrails were considered as a weapon, to block sunlight over Germany, to destroy crop production.

Research found it was cheaper to just drop bombs than to try and block out the sun.

Check out this satellite photo.
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/images/fgz/science/contrails040595a.gif

On a bad day commercial flights create an overcast over large areas of the US and Europe. It isn't on purpose, but it sure as hell effects those below.

robinson

11th February 2008, 07:56 AM

After thinking about it, pilots avoid flying through another flights trail, even when there are no contrails. It smells bad.

MRC_Hans

11th February 2008, 08:14 AM

Chemtrails are real man! Here is one spraying dihydrogen monoxide :eye-poppi
qYthbWhjL78Actually a very interesting shot. Here we have a plane actually spraying an aerosol (hitting the airstream at even that low flying speed turns the water into an aerosol), and what do we see? A long trail that hangs suspended there for minutes or hours, like the Chemtrailers claim is the hallmark of a chemtrail (as opposed to a contrail)? Nah, we see it drop and spread in a matter of seconds. Even faster than a short-lived contrail.

Bookmarked for further reference :D.

Hans

Reheat

11th February 2008, 08:20 AM

After thinking about it, pilots avoid flying through another flights trail, even when there are no contrails. It smells bad.

That's interesting. I've never known anyone to actually stick their head out the window to check. Is that the reason for the angry expression on the face in your avatar?

Steve H

11th February 2008, 08:22 AM

...On the other hand, since a high altitude aerial delivery of an aerosol would be extremely ineffective, maybe that's evidence that it is what they contend and designed to make people stupid. Empirical evidence indicates it only affects a few.... That's the SmOkIng GuN pwoof!!!!!!(Bolding mine)That's why this flavor of woo never made sense to me. It wouldn't work! I'm always reminded of Milton William Cooper of Behold a Pale Horse "fame" when I see this paranoid chemtrail nonsense.

robinson

11th February 2008, 08:38 AM

If you had ever been in an aircraft, you would know that outside air is used to breathe, hence you can smell what a contrail smells like, without opening a window.

Do not insult other posters.

Swing Dangler

11th February 2008, 08:43 AM

Here's a question: when did aircraft begin doing this alleged widespread laying of chemtrails? Ten years ago? Twenty? Fifty?

Are there date and time stamps on covert programs if chemtrails are indeed a covert program?

Robinson-If you had ever been in an aircraft, you would know that outside air is used to breathe, hence you can smell what a contrail smells like, without opening a window.

Dumbass.

Hmm being in the same plane that produces a contrail so there for you can smell the contrail that exits behind you? Welcome to Stundie!

Disbelief

11th February 2008, 08:48 AM

Hmm being in the same plane that produces a contrail so there for you can smell the contrail that exits behind you? Welcome to Stundie!

Nice reading comprehension. Obviously you failed to notice the exchange as to why pilots do not fly through other contrails.

Steve H

11th February 2008, 09:07 AM

If you had ever been in an aircraft, you would know that outside air is used to breathe, hence you can smell what a contrail smells like, without opening a window.

Dumbass.Heh, been sniffing a lot of contrails lately robinson?

TjW

11th February 2008, 09:11 AM

Are there date and time stamps on covert programs if chemtrails are indeed a covert program?

Possibly not. But there would be a date and time stamp on when contrails began behaving anomalously. People would notice. If it is your position that people would NOT notice, then why is there a chemtrail conspiracy theory at all?

Reheat

11th February 2008, 09:24 AM

Heh, been sniffing a lot of contrails lately robinson?

I think he has indicated what he has been sniffing.

Dumbass.

Reality Believer

11th February 2008, 09:44 AM

Actually a very interesting shot. Here we have a plane actually spraying an aerosol (hitting the airstream at even that low flying speed turns the water into an aerosol), and what do we see? A long trail that hangs suspended there for minutes or hours, like the Chemtrailers claim is the hallmark of a chemtrail (as opposed to a contrail)? Nah, we see it drop and spread in a matter of seconds. Even faster than a short-lived contrail.

Bookmarked for further reference :D.

Hans
Here is more damning evidence. The NWO is going to have to answer for these crimes! This is an attack, apparently spraying Soylent-Pink :eek:
kpi0oTDYG8I

bje

11th February 2008, 10:00 AM

Tippit likes to claim he's in a rural area without many commercial flights. How well does this claim affect his ability to see contrails from his location?

The first image below is a screen shot of a FlightExplorer display (blue dots) of all commercial and private flights (no military) over the continental U.S. this morning, 4,962 flights at the instant of this screen shot.

In addition the dashed lines display high altitude airways used by commercial aircraft. Aircraft do not always use these airways if ATC directs then otherwise. The screen shot gives an idea of the density of commercial and private aircraft over rural areas during daylight hours.

Click on image for larger view:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1593947b07d7427c47.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10742)

The second screen shot below is a zoomed-in image of a specific flight over Pierre, South Dakota, a fairly rural state. The tag shows us that it is Delta Airlines Flight 1003, flying at 38,000 ft, 414 mph, flying from JFK, NY, to Salt Lake City. It also tells us that the aircraft is a Boeing 757 Model 200. A typical flight flying at common altitude over a rural state.

The black circle centered on the aircraft delineates the distance to the horizon from the flight. At 38,000 feet the horizon is 239 statue miles away. One can see from Delta 1003's flight level and location, that the entire state of South Dakota is enclosed in that range ring, but good size chunks of North Dakota and Nebraska, and smaller parts of Minnesota, Iowa, Colorado, and Wyoming.

On good clear days, it is very easy to see contrails that are only 5 degrees above the horizon. What this means is that if Tippit were virtually anywhere in South Dakota, he would have a good chance of seeing the contrail from Delta 1003 on a clear day. It also means that he has a good chance of seeing many aircraft producing contrails when atmospheric conditions are conducive. And if he claims that they are chemtrails, then a very sizable population over a great territory can see them, too.

Click on image for larger view:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1593947b07df56e761.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10743)

Tippit's photos (http://s261.photobucket.com/albums/ii55/Tippit_photos/Chemtrails/)
show many contrails that are not overhead but are within 10 degrees to around 45 degrees above the horizon. I am sure he doesn't want to reveal his location to us, but he can see for himself that he can see contrails from quite a distance.

funk de fino

11th February 2008, 10:26 AM

Are there date and time stamps on covert programs if chemtrails are indeed a covert program?

U2 spyplane was a covert program. I bet you could find out pretty much everything about it online now swingie

Hmm being in the same plane that produces a contrail so there for you can smell the contrail that exits behind you? Welcome to Stundie!

You get me everytime with your basic inability to understand anything that is posted. Its too funny.

CurtC

11th February 2008, 10:55 AM

Tippit's photos (http://s261.photobucket.com/albums/ii55/Tippit_photos/Chemtrails/)
show many contrails that are not overhead but are within 10 degrees to around 45 degrees above the horizon. I am sure he doesn't want to reveal his location to us, but he can see for himself that he can see contrails from quite a distance.

There you go, trying to reason a man out of a position that he didn't reason himself into. Good luck with that.

Unsecured Coins

11th February 2008, 11:05 AM

Here is more damning evidence. The NWO is going to have to answer for these crimes! This is an attack, apparently spraying Soylent-Pink :eek:
kpi0oTDYG8I

Soylent-Pink is PEOPLE!!!

ElMondoHummus

11th February 2008, 11:24 AM

Here is more damning evidence. The NWO is going to have to answer for these crimes! This is an attack, apparently spraying Soylent-Pink :eek:
kpi0oTDYG8I

"Pink"?? How'd they keep it fresh? We call the original Solylent Green for a reason folks!

:eek:

robinson

11th February 2008, 11:39 AM

Hmm being in the same plane that produces a contrail so there for you can smell the contrail that exits behind you?

You get me everytime with your basic inability to understand anything that is posted. Its too funny.

Made my day.

Tippit

11th February 2008, 02:28 PM

Contrails can last all day. There is continuous cloud cover from them over many countries because of the magnitude of planes flying the same routes.

I had not before witnessed such a dramatic change from clear blue skies to overcast weather before, all due to airplanes. It wasn't a particularly humid day, and I haven't seen anything like it since.

Right now I can see short, temporary contrails from high altitude jets overhead. If the weather was different (at 40,000 feet) there would be lingering contrails. I live in a high traffic area, both military and civilian jets. They are always flying. On days with no contrails you can't even see them. On days with the right weather conditions, they form an overcast.

If this is true, that overcast weather is an incidental consequence of condensation trails in high air-traffic zones, then what does this say about the feasibility of weather control?

After 911 when the skies were clear, measurements found weather changes are directly attributable to contrails, visible or not. That much cloud cover changes both the heating during the day, and the cooling at night. During WWII contrails were considered as a weapon, to block sunlight over Germany, to destroy crop production.

That's interesting. Do you have a source relating how the weather changed after air traffic was grounded post 9/11?

On a bad day commercial flights create an overcast over large areas of the US and Europe. It isn't on purpose, but it sure as hell effects those below.

Well, I have to accept the possibility that what I saw was harmless condensation. On the other hand, I'm not completely convinced.

LTC8K6

11th February 2008, 02:49 PM

bje

11th February 2008, 03:09 PM

That's interesting. Do you have a source relating how the weather changed after air traffic was grounded post 9/11?

There have been several studies done on various aspects of the three-day no-contrail window after 9/11 that you can find by doing a search on Google Scholar, including:

http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/conference/Minnis.sim.AAC03.pdf

http://www.ottokinne.de/articles/cr2004/26/c026p001.pdf

http://www.lightwatcher.com/chemtrails/contrails%20during%209-11.pdf

sts60

11th February 2008, 03:13 PM

I had not before witnessed such a dramatic change from clear blue skies to overcast weather before, all due to airplanes. It wasn't a particularly humid day, and I haven't seen anything like it since.
I've seen such "dramatic" changes before. In the absence of evidence of an actual chemtrail plot, it's much more parsimonious to assume you simply noticed this particular occurrence and was struck by it, than to believe it was truly unique.
If this is true, that overcast weather is an incidental consequence of condensation trails in high air-traffic zones, then what does this say about the feasibility of weather control?
Ordinary contrails do have cumulative effects on cloud formation and climate, though ineffective for "acute" weather control. NASA, for example, is very much into this topic (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2004/apr/HQ_04140_clouds_climate.html). Here (http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/sass-ref.html) are some papers on the topic.
That's interesting. Do you have a source relating how the weather changed after air traffic was grounded post 9/11?
Here's (http://www.atmos.berkeley.edu/news/cohen_jul2002.article) a 2002 newspaper article about it. The conference papers listed above have more technical articles.
Well, I have to accept the possibility that what I saw was harmless condensation. On the other hand, I'm not completely convinced.
That's reasonable. Try asking yourself - where is the hard evidence for a deliberate, massive, secret campaign, and what exactly it would be trying to accomplish? How would you distinguish such a campaign from ordinary contrails happening?

Corsair 115

11th February 2008, 03:23 PM

Are there date and time stamps on covert programs if chemtrails are indeed a covert program?Reusing my reply from post #195:

If the effect is an artificial one, then follow-up questions as to the nature of what the chemicals are and how long the spraying have been going on strike me as entirely reasonable. Particularly if one is convinced of the legitimacy of the chemtrail explanation, as I would expect such a person would want to investigate the subject in depth.

It would seem both you and Tippit have done nothing in the way of further investigating the claim that chemtrails are a legitimate phenomenon. It would appear you can't even offer speculation.

bje

11th February 2008, 03:53 PM

http://www.supercell.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20

A bunch of stuff I compiled during battles with chemtrailers.

Note that when I write "unmarked", it's what the chemmies would call it when they photograph it from 6 miles away with a cheap equipment and overexpose it into unmarked whiteness.

Nice collection.

Here is a particularly nice persistent contrail:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/National-Jet-Systems/National-Jet-Systems/0928639

And a contrail love fest:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Singapore-Airlines/Singapore-Airlines/0556245

tsig

11th February 2008, 04:51 PM

We are not talking about the past, Tippit. Pay attention: we are suggesting you use Flight Explorer for the future.

Again, you have no basis for concluding you saw spraying and have brought nothing to the table to support your claims.

Actually he tripped over his own feet, fell into the table and broke it.

Jonnyclueless

11th February 2008, 04:57 PM

They are spraying Fabreeze up there. That's how outside gets that fresh outside scent.

twinstead

11th February 2008, 05:00 PM

They are spraying Fabreeze up there. That's how outside gets that fresh outside scent.

I guess even the outside can feel "not so fresh"...

tsig

11th February 2008, 05:01 PM

I had not before witnessed such a dramatic change from clear blue skies to overcast weather before, all due to airplanes. It wasn't a particularly humid day, and I haven't seen anything like it since.

If this is true, that overcast weather is an incidental consequence of condensation trails in high air-traffic zones, then what does this say about the feasibility of weather control?

That's interesting. Do you have a source relating how the weather changed after air traffic was grounded post 9/11?

Well, I have to accept the possibility that what I saw was harmless condensation. On the other hand, I'm not completely convinced.

Every time you look in the mirror you see something you have never seen before.

tsig

11th February 2008, 05:06 PM

They are spraying Fabreeze up there. That's how outside gets that fresh outside scent.

Co-ordinating the chem trails with ground smells is but a small part but we do it proudly.

Hump and dump it: the motto of "The Rectum Group"

Jonnyclueless

11th February 2008, 05:11 PM

I guess even the outside can feel "not so fresh"...

And I have just as much evidence to back it up as Tippit does.

robinson

11th February 2008, 05:42 PM

Well, I have to accept the possibility that what I saw was harmless condensation. On the other hand, I'm not completely convinced.

You sound skeptical.

Alferd_Packer

11th February 2008, 06:37 PM

I've video taped planes leaving contrails in patterns. It seems pilots don't like to fly through a contrail, so they keep laying a new one parallel to the earlier ones. When you have cross traffic, it creates a grid pattern.

If the air mass is moving at an angle to the flight paths, and the planes tend to follow the same flight paths at regular intervals, then yes, there will be a series of parallel lines.

Alferd_Packer

11th February 2008, 06:43 PM

I had not before witnessed such a dramatic change from clear blue skies to overcast weather before, all due to airplanes. It wasn't a particularly humid day, and I haven't seen anything like it since.

The humidity at ground level has nothing whatsoever to do with the humitiy at flight altitudes.

The same thing with the temperatures. with the ambient temps at flight altitudes around -40 degrees* or so, contrails are not water, but ice.

Are you familiar with the concept of ice supersaturation at high altitudes?

* a cookie to anyone who can explain why I didn't indicate F or C.

robinson

11th February 2008, 07:00 PM

The wiki article on contrails is very informative.

Reheat

11th February 2008, 07:06 PM

* a cookie to anyone who can explain why I didn't indicate F or C.

All cookies are the same, so no thanks.

LTC8K6

11th February 2008, 07:17 PM

Never forget that water vapor is invisible, that you won't find liquid water way up there, that "relatively humid" may be very dry, and the word "sublimation", in your discussions with the ICP.

Lynx2174

11th February 2008, 07:44 PM

[quote=robinson;3423495]
That is actually true. Jets leave a trail of pollution behind them, all the time. And nobody asks for permission, much less worries about it. Air traffic has always polluted.

But even if people were complaining about just the pollution from jets, they would get treated badly. [/e]

Nobody asks permission to drive cars, either, and cars have always polluted. Perhaps you'd be treated badly for badmouthing aircraft manufacturers and airlines over pollution if you happen to be a Legislator working for the state they're based in, but as an average citizen, you'd not likely take any more flak over it than anyone who badmouths Microsoft because vista is a memory hog.

That said, the EPA recently revised aircraft emissions standards for good reason, and I'm sure they can do better than that.

JimBenArm

11th February 2008, 07:44 PM

* a cookie to anyone who can explain why I didn't indicate F or C.
Because it's the same in both scales.

I like oatmeal raisin. Thanks.

Alferd_Packer

11th February 2008, 07:51 PM

http://www.cookiegarden.com/images/cookie_images/oatmeal_new.jpg

robinson

11th February 2008, 07:54 PM

Nobody asks permission to drive cars, either, and cars have always polluted.

Yep, but they are regulated now, and instead of lead and other serious crap we only get a mild dose of carcinogens from cars and trucks.

steve s

11th February 2008, 08:05 PM

My respects to your father on his service. He must have some interesting stories to tell (assuming that he's ever spoken about his experiences).

He had an interesting time in the war. He joined the Army Air Corps before the war and was stationed as an airplane mechanic at Hickam Field, Honolulu. He was there the day the Japanese attacked. Once the war got going he decided he wanted to be where the action was so he enrolled in flight school and became a pilot. He was sent to the base at Foggia, Italy. On his fifth mission he was shot down over northern Italy and was held at Stalag Luft 3 for the rest of the war. That's the same camp where the great escape took place, but he was there after the escape.

The B-17 is probably my second favourite aircraft of WWII.

Let me guess. The P-51 is #1. :D

Steve S.

JimBenArm

12th February 2008, 05:40 AM

http://www.cookiegarden.com/images/cookie_images/oatmeal_new.jpg
Mmmm. Tasty! And it's still warm, too!

I Am He

12th February 2008, 05:50 AM

People who believe this crap must live a miserable life to be so far removed from reality. I honestly don't understand how someone who believes this garbage can sleep at night. Did you ever think that they don't?? :D

I Am He

Swing Dangler

12th February 2008, 06:07 AM

And now for my flippin'ly dumb, yet serious question:

If the purpose of chemtrails is to spray humans, as so many sites claim, why do we see so many over the ocean?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1238647ad490553938.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1238647ad49050d06e.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1238647ad48ee1e607.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1238647ad48ee3ab16.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1238647ad48edef5d9.jpg

I mean, this doesn't matter if the "hypothesis" :oldroll: is that chemtrails exist for weather control (be happy that none of you can hear the *SNORT* as I type that), but to me, this does demonstrate how ridiculous any of the "biological warfare" or "mind control" chemtrail woo is. Why waste so much payload over open water?

Exactly! Weather or climate control is not necessarily nefarious. The very real problem that arises is the short term and the long term effect the chemical's have on humans. Does the public have a right to know what might happen to them as a result of such chemicals?
I don't agree with the mind control/bio warfare/ population reduction excuse but the health effects should be a concern.

LTC8K6

12th February 2008, 07:14 AM

ElMondoHummus

12th February 2008, 08:01 AM

Exactly! Weather or climate control is not necessarily nefarious. The very real problem that arises is the short term and the long term effect the chemical's have on humans. Does the public have a right to know what might happen to them as a result of such chemicals?
I don't agree with the mind control/bio warfare/ population reduction excuse but the health effects should be a concern.

Swing, waitaminute, I'm not convinced that "chemtrails" are really that: Chemical trails deliberately "sprayed" from jets on the human population.

Now on the other hand, if you are talking about jet exhaust contrails (as opposed to the wing vortex generated contrails, which are nothing more than water condensation), and if you agree that we're talking about pollution from that exhaust, then for once I can agree with you that there's a problem. As with any combustion of petroleum product, the health effects are generally well known (such as in this study (http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2000/108p183-192pleil/abstract.html) or this one (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TCR-4BJ77S9-7&_user=1105409&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000051666&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1105409&md5=e1f4c496c0cbaa2755c8cb4b33292bb4); sorry that second link isn't a direct one to an article, the point in citing it is that this sort of thing has been and is being studied), but you're right, they're still a concern. In general, any combustion-for-propulsion related pollution is.

But that's assuming you're discussing jet exhaust contrails and not "chemtrails". If the former, you're on firm ground. If the latter, not so much.

Swing Dangler

12th February 2008, 08:14 AM

Swing, waitaminute, I'm not convinced that "chemtrails" are really that: Chemical trails deliberately "sprayed" from jets on the human population.

Now on the other hand, if you are talking about jet exhaust contrails (as opposed to the wing vortex generated contrails, which are nothing more than water condensation), and if you agree that we're talking about pollution from that exhaust, then for once I can agree with you that there's a problem. As with any combustion of petroleum product, the health effects are generally well known (such as in this study (http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2000/108p183-192pleil/abstract.html) or this one (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TCR-4BJ77S9-7&_user=1105409&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000051666&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1105409&md5=e1f4c496c0cbaa2755c8cb4b33292bb4); sorry that second link isn't a direct one to an article, the point in citing it is that this sort of thing has been and is being studied), but you're right, they're still a concern. In general, any combustion-for-propulsion related pollution is.

But that's assuming you're discussing jet exhaust contrails and not "chemtrails". If the former, you're on firm ground. If the latter, not so much.
Chemicals sprayed from jets that happen to land on the human population. I don't think it is deliberately done to the population. IMHO it is for weather control or to combat global warming.

Why do you think there would not be chemical spraying operations to combat global warming or in attempt to control or modify the weather as per the U.S. Airforce Force Multiplier paper?

I'm curious as to why the opposition to such operations?

It reminds me of the black triangle UFO people reported in the early 80's only to learn it was the F117 Stealth Fighter in development.