1163 replies to this topic

[_Only]

Englishgent, on 16 December 2011 - 06:15 AM, said:

All to do with prevailing weather conditions Jerry

So maybe the odd formations of clouds I see the next day aren't related to odd jet trails, but just natural formations that would appear after certain weather conditions that would allow trails from planes to stick around in the sky awhile.

[Englishgent]

Jerry Only, on 16 December 2011 - 07:35 AM, said:

So maybe the odd formations of clouds I see the next day aren't related to odd jet trails, but just natural formations that would appear after certain weather conditions that would allow trails from planes to stick around in the sky awhile.

I would suggest that it is highly unlikely that contrails seen on one day would still be visible, even in a different form the following day. The weather is constantly changing. Sometimes cloud formations stick around if there is no wind at the cloud formation level but that in itself would be unusual specially overnight when temperatures drop. It's like saying that the cloud (say cumulus) you see today is the same but different (say stratus) the following day. It snt.
Lets assume for one minute that a contrail is actually a chemtrail capable of sticking around for a few hours and changing into another cloud formation. This new cloud formation is highly unlikely to appear where the chemtrail originally was. It will have moved some considerable miles away due to the wind. Just because its a calm day at ground level does not mean there is no wind as you gain altitude.
I have watched contrails change their shape over a period of time as they drift across the sky. Some will spread out, some will break up into smaller sections and some just appear to dissolve. Some will join with moisture rising in thermals and mingle with new clouds. This does not mean the actual contrail is making that cloud.
After all, contrails are mostly water vapour.
I hope this all makes sense to you lol. Weather is a very compex thing and even a meteorologist will tell you they dont know everything. If they did we would get accurate weather forecasts

[oly]

Englishgent, on 16 December 2011 - 08:19 AM, said:

I would suggest that it is highly unlikely that contrails seen on one day would still be visible, even in a different form the following day. The weather is constantly changing. Sometimes cloud formations stick around if there is no wind at the cloud formation level but that in itself would be unusual specially overnight when temperatures drop. It's like saying that the cloud (say cumulus) you see today is the same but different (say stratus) the following day. It snt.
Lets assume for one minute that a contrail is actually a chemtrail capable of sticking around for a few hours and changing into another cloud formation. This new cloud formation is highly unlikely to appear where the chemtrail originally was. It will have moved some considerable miles away due to the wind. Just because its a calm day at ground level does not mean there is no wind as you gain altitude.
I have watched contrails change their shape over a period of time as they drift across the sky. Some will spread out, some will break up into smaller sections and some just appear to dissolve. Some will join with moisture rising in thermals and mingle with new clouds. This does not mean the actual contrail is making that cloud.
After all, contrails are mostly water vapour.
I hope this all makes sense to you lol. Weather is a very compex thing and even a meteorologist will tell you they dont know everything. If they did we would get accurate weather forecasts

It's obvious something unusual is happening in both pictures. Why are you saying its perfectly normal? You are appearing like you got some agenda

[oly]

MID, on 16 December 2011 - 02:51 AM, said:

Little Fish...with all due respect do not challenge me, and do not say silly things about me hijacking a thread about chemtrails.  Iasked a pertinent question.  If this is your best answer than there's no point in discussing this nonsense.

I am a pilot who's experience is much greater than your's will ever be.  If the likes of me are too hard to take...then leave.  Otherwise, expect me, every once in a while to challenge you.


I said show me.  You haven't.

I've seen connies at 4000 feet and below...let me show you one at ground level:




It's not special...it's natural.

If you think chemicals are being sprayed, you're sadly mistaken.

Why the attitude? If you were a pilot you'd know something fishy was happening, then getting shirty makes it all the more fffishy

[oly]

Jerry Only, on 16 December 2011 - 02:38 AM, said:

Yeah, I was aware of that general idea, but too afraid to entertain it, because people jump on you, basically calling you an idiot, or crazy, for thinking it could be a possible explanation.

edit - fixed quote

Yeah it's how certain groups try to shape public opinion these days. Hire twonks to spout abuse, ridicule, "facts", whatever to try to intimidate normal people into believing utter crap, or at least not to question it.
A lot of it too. Look up "netvocates".

Edited by oly, 16 December 2011 - 09:40 AM.

[Little Fish]

Englishgent, on 16 December 2011 - 02:37 AM, said:

the guy asks a very sensible question about the effects on human health

LOL! no he didn't. listen to it again, you missed the deception, and I'll bet everyone else did too. listen between 7 minutes and 11 minutes in the video in post#37, pause it between every sentence and make sure you understand everything that is being said. you'll then see the deception and realise why you misundertood the guys question.

Quote

But the seeding of clouds with various chemicals has been going on for years, not just since 2009 in the UK.

again you need to tune your observational skills, I never said that cloud seeding with chemicals started in the UK in 2009, go back and check what I said.

Quote

At the start of the video a lady says the reason for the contrails staying visible over a long period of time is because they are chemtrails and not contrails. I didnt hear her quote any evidence to back up her theory.

but you have heard evidence here, you were given a published scientific paper, you heard geoengineer scientists state that "right now it looks too easy" - a statement that cannot be made in scientific terms unless they have already actually tested it. you have been shown from official UN documents there is a political will to do it to acheieve a 2 ceclius drop in temperature, you have been shown Obama's scientific advisor stating it should not be ruled out and writing a book in the 1970s adocating it, you have been shown geoengineer scientists state that actually doing it would reinforce public perception of a climate crisis which would increase the UNs and banking elite's political power and increase public acceptance of actually doing it - "if their reaction is to say these crazy scientists are so concerned about putting co2 into the atmosphere they want to think about these <chemtrail> things then that means we should be more serious about the risk of co2 in the atmosphere". so any evidence not quoted by that lady doesn't take away from what you already know. to latch onto that lady and ignore everything else only demonstrates your own internal struggle with this information.

Quote

A contrail will last just as long as weather conditions allow.

a contrail will last just as long as the concentration of the chemicals in the jetfuel allow, read the paper I gave you.

Quote

I am not suggesting that the practice of seeding by commercial aircraft is not being carried out.

I think that is exacctly what you have been suggesting, you have been making every excuse and sophistry to dismiss the evidence. there are three people on this thread that have witnessed it and we are stating what we witness (and what you are not witnessing) is not normal.

[Englishgent]

oly, on 16 December 2011 - 09:24 AM, said:

It's obvious something unusual is happening in both pictures. Why are you saying its perfectly normal? You are appearing like you got some agenda

You obviously have a very poor understanding of the weather and weather related subjects such as clouds. I have no agenda. I dont need to have nor do I wish to have. You asked for answers and I, and others, gave you answers. But unfoftunately you refuse to believe those answers. If you are not going to believe the answers given, or debate them in an adult manner, then why bother in the first place?  I even agreed with you on certain points regarding exhaust emissions.
Allow me to repeat if only to annoy you.
1. There is nothing unusual happening in either photo.
2. I am saying it is perfectly normal because that is just what it is. Perfectly normal.
3. I have no agenda.
4. I have given you the links to two sites which if you bothered to check, you would find it is all perfectly normal.
5. have a nice day

[Englishgent]

Little Fish, on 16 December 2011 - 11:56 AM, said:

LOL! no he didn't. listen to it again, you missed the deception, and I'll bet everyone else did too. listen between 7 minutes and 11 minutes in the video in post#37, pause it between every sentence and make sure you understand everything that is being said. you'll then see the deception and realise why you misundertood the guys question.


again you need to tune your observational skills, I never said that cloud seeding with chemicals started in the UK in 2009, go back and check what I said.

but you have heard evidence here, you were given a published scientific paper, you heard geoengineer scientists state that "right now it looks too easy" - a statement that cannot be made in scientific terms unless they have already actually tested it. you have been shown from official UN documents there is a political will to do it to acheieve a 2 ceclius drop in temperature, you have been shown Obama's scientific advisor stating it should not be ruled out and writing a book in the 1970s adocating it, you have been shown geoengineer scientists state that actually doing it would reinforce public perception of a climate crisis which would increase the UNs and banking elite's political power and increase public acceptance of actually doing it - "if their reaction is to say these crazy scientists are so concerned about putting co2 into the atmosphere they want to think about these <chemtrail> things then that means we should be more serious about the risk of co2 in the atmosphere". so any evidence not quoted by that lady doesn't take away from what you already know. to latch onto that lady and ignore everything else only demonstrates your own internal struggle with this information.

a contrail will last just as long as the concentration of the chemicals in the jetfuel allow, read the paper I gave you.

I think that is exacctly what you have been suggesting, you have been making every excuse and sophistry to dismiss the evidence. there are three people on this thread that have witnessed it and we are stating what we witness (and what you are not witnessing) is not normal.

To be honest, I really cant be bothered with reading any paper or viewing any video after the attitude of the OP. The thread was regarding two photographs for which I gave a credible explanation.
You say, I really do need to tune my observation skills.  You said ''spraying''  which in my book is the same as cloud seeding,,,causing clouds to either be created or to make clouds already in existence produce precipitation.
As for any evidence being dismissed,, I have not seen any evidence yet so how can I dismiss something which does not exist?
The next word we will no doubt hear is 'Conspiricy'. Seems to be the favourite word just now.
Anyway. have fun debating this subject with the others. There is little point continuing with the OP's attitude.  I will no doubt pop in to see how thngs go but I have done and said my bit regarding the two photographs.

[oly]

Englishgent, on 16 December 2011 - 12:03 PM, said:

You obviously have a very poor understanding of the weather and weather related subjects such as clouds. I have no agenda. I dont need to have nor do I wish to have. You asked for answers and I, and others, gave you answers. But unfoftunately you refuse to believe those answers. If you are not going to believe the answers given, or debate them in an adult manner, then why bother in the first place?  I even agreed with you on certain points regarding exhaust emissions.
Allow me to repeat if only to annoy you.
1. There is nothing unusual happening in either photo.
2. I am saying it is perfectly normal because that is just what it is. Perfectly normal.
3. I have no agenda.
4. I have given you the links to two sites which if you bothered to check, you would find it is all perfectly normal.
5. have a nice day

Thank you for your opinion, which you have stated several times.
However, I find your manner somewhat arrogant, condescending, repetative, and as you admit, attempting to annoy. Isn't that called a troll?
if you have nothing more constructive to add, please stop posting.

[The New Richard Nixon]

oly, on 16 December 2011 - 12:34 PM, said:

Thank you for your opinion, which you have stated several times.
However, I find your manner somewhat arrogant, condescending, repetative, and as you admit, attempting to annoy. Isn't that called a troll?
if you have nothing more constructive to add, please stop posting.

What? you are the one who posts lack of evidence, lack of knowledge, poor research.
The same with that Little Fish, has been proven wrong so many times and he still continues with his lies of his ways that contain lack of evidence.

[Little Fish]

Englishgent, on 16 December 2011 - 12:19 PM, said:

To be honest, I really cant be bothered with reading any paper or viewing any video after the attitude of the OP. The thread was regarding two photographs for which I gave a credible explanation.
You say, I really do need to tune my observation skills.  You said ''spraying''  which in my book is the same as cloud seeding,,,causing clouds to either be created or to make clouds already in existence produce precipitation.
As for any evidence being dismissed,, I have not seen any evidence yet so how can I dismiss something which does not exist?
The next word we will no doubt hear is 'Conspiricy'. Seems to be the favourite word just now.
Anyway. have fun debating this subject with the others. There is little point continuing with the OP's attitude.  I will no doubt pop in to see how thngs go but I have done and said my bit regarding the two photographs.

I think oly has been very respectful, if you are referring to his "twonk" reference, you will observe it was not directed at you personally, and his statement is factually true. the purpose of such twonks is to create a climate of acceptability to an otherwise unreasonable state of affairs, once that behavioural climate has been established people will feel comfortable going along with it. they call it perception management. Jerry coined it precisely in post#50.
That is not to suggest you are the "twonk", but I would suggest you are one that goes along with that climate. you have not been innocent in this thread- wasn't it you that said "making a fool out of yourself"?

I recognise that discourse is now breaking down, which really does suit those that prefer to deny the evidence and not talk about it.
It is not true to say there is no evidence, you maybe conflating the word "evidence" with the word "proof", which are distinctly different, proof being the weight of evidence.

A way out of that breakdown is to use the scientific method and see how the evidence fits the hypothesis whilst also looking for evidence which contradicts the hypothesis. we can ignore any contrary evidence that does not contradict the hypothesis, so statements like "it could be normal clouds" should be filtered out since following reason it could also be chemtrails.

[Little Fish]

Erix, on 16 December 2011 - 12:50 PM, said:

What? you are the one who posts lack of evidence, lack of knowledge, poor research.
The same with that Little Fish, has been proven wrong so many times and he still continues with his lies of his ways that contain lack of evidence.

still being a dick I see.

[Dougal]

Little Fish, on 16 December 2011 - 12:54 PM, said:

I think oly has been very respectful, if you are referring to his "twonk" reference, you will observe it was not directed at you personally, and his statement is factually true. the purpose of such twonks is to create a climate of acceptability to an otherwise unreasonable state of affairs, once that behavioural climate has been established people will feel comfortable going along with it. they call it perception management. Jerry coined it precisely in post#50.
That is not to suggest you are the "twonk", but I would suggest you are one that goes along with that climate. you have not been innocent in this thread- wasn't it you that said "making a fool out of yourself"?

I recognise that discourse is now breaking down, which really does suit those that prefer to deny the evidence and not talk about it.
It is not true to say there is no evidence, you maybe conflating the word "evidence" with the word "proof", which are distinctly different, proof being the weight of evidence.

A way out of that breakdown is to use the scientific method and see how the evidence fits the hypothesis whilst also looking for evidence which contradicts the hypothesis. we can ignore any contrary evidence that does not contradict the hypothesis, so statements like "it could be normal clouds" should be filtered out since following reason it could also be chemtrails.

Unfortunately neither yourself nor Oly have presented any evidence of cloud seeding actively taking place so far. You've provided some evidence showing it's possible, and some people supporting it, but nothing actually showing it's going on.

You've also provided no evidence other than "well they don't look normal" for the cloud formations being of unusual origins.

Englishgent on the other hand has provided you with links and information about those clouds and information.

If anybody is denying evidence it's you, it's hard for others to deny evidence when you've not presented any.

[Little Fish]

Dougal, on 16 December 2011 - 01:16 PM, said:

You've also provided no evidence other than "well they don't look normal" for the cloud formations being of unusual origins.

so, no evidence other than evidence.
http://en.wikipedia....iki/Doublethink

[Dougal]

Little Fish, on 16 December 2011 - 01:35 PM, said:

so, no evidence other than evidence.
http://en.wikipedia....iki/Doublethink

"They don't look right, I think it's cloud seeding" is not evidence. It's your opinion.

So no, no evidence has been provided.