1163 replies to this topic

[MID]

Babe Ruth, on 16 May 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

Seller

I am as big a CTard as there is, but I cannot find ANYTHING to support the idea that the USAF is spraying chemicals from on high.

Contrails were formed even by piston engines during WWII, and they are formed by modern jet engines too.  Depending upon temperatures and humidity, and perhaps even the chemical composition of the fuel being burned, contrails form, or do not.

Don't get me wrong--I would not put it past certain rogue elements of the government to do so, but the mere existence of contrails do not a spray program make.

I think we certainly agree on that  one!

[MID]

Chrlzs, on 20 May 2012 - 11:18 AM, said:

And the elephant in the room remains.. Not one chemtrail believer has EVER shown verifiable footage of an aircraft leaving a 'trail' at an altitude where such a trail shouldn't exist.

Not one.  Not ever.

The plague of many HB /CT threads here (probably anywhere when you think about it!).
No one ever does present soething at least in the slightest compelling to consider.  No one.
Chemtrails...Moon Hoax...9-11?

Nope Same thing.  Not one piece of evidence.  Nothing at all.  Lots of unsubstantiated claims, and glaring illustrations of the CT mindset, and the complete lack of subject-matter knowedge that the perpetrators of these things have.



Kinda gets boring after a while!

[kitty81]

I see these every day, dont think anythin of it tbh
x

[MID]

kitty81, on 20 May 2012 - 07:16 PM, said:

I see these every day, dont think anythin of it tbh
x

Not too many people do, Kitty.
I generally have these type of thoughts:

Pretty.
Cold up there.
Wather vapor.
It would be nice to be up there watching one happen:

[OverSword]

look at this list of patents and tell me that none of this could be applied to "chemtrails"
http://www.seektress.com/patlist.htm

It really is funny how many will deny the possibility that chemtrails exist at all when obviously there has been research into modifying the weather for well over a century.  But NO....obviously they are all naturally occuring contrails created from jet engines.

Edited by OverSword, 23 May 2012 - 08:00 PM.

[frenat]

OverSword, on 23 May 2012 - 07:53 PM, said:

look at this list of patents and tell me that none of this could be applied to "chemtrails"
http://www.seektress.com/patlist.htm

It really is funny how many will deny the possibility that chemtrails exist at all when obviously there has been research into modifying the weather for well over a century.  But NO....obviously they are all naturally occuring contrails created from jet engines.

"Could be" is a long way from IS.  COULD there be "chemtrails"?  Sure.  Is there any actual evidence there are?  No.  There are patents for time travel, free energy, and anti-gravity.  Just because somebody has patented something, doesn't mean it works or even if it works that it is or has ever been in production.
how does this patent supposedly relate to "chemtrails"?
4873928 - October 17, 1989 - Nuclear-sized explosions without radiation
or this one
5005355 - April 9, 1991 - Method of suppressing formation of contrails and solution therefor
when the whole idea behind "chemtrails" is they are making more contrails where there supposedly shouldn't be some?
Many of those patents are unrelated.  Many more involve cloud seeding which takes place far lower in already established clouds.
Modifying the weather is not in question.  That takes place with cloud seeding done in established clouds far lower where weather actually happens.  "Chemtrails" are far above the weather among cirrus clouds.  Cirrus clouds don't produce rain or snow.
I have personally yet to see ANY "chemtrails" that could not be explained by the well known and long known phenomena of contrails.

Why have no "chemtrail" believers chartered a plane and collected a sample directly from a trail?  Wouldn't this be the single best evidence?  At least a few have promised to do so and one years ago even collected money to do so but none ever do.  Instead they are content to collect samples from the ground that prove nothing and where contamination by other sources is not only likely but expected.

Edited by frenat, 23 May 2012 - 08:43 PM.

[OverSword]

So you don't believe there are any efforts to manipulate the weather through chemical means?

Not every link on that page was related to chemtrails specifically, I posted it as an example that research to modify the weather has gone on for some timem, and only a fool would deny it.

Ask yourself, is it possible that some form of cloud seeding could be related to chemtrails?

Edited by OverSword, 23 May 2012 - 08:58 PM.

[frenat]

OverSword, on 23 May 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

So you don't believe there are any efforts to manipulate the weather through chemical means?

Did I say that?  No, I believe I said the opposite.  Did you even read my post?  Stop trying to put words in my mouth.

OverSword, on 23 May 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

Not every link on that page was related to chemtrails specifically,

Specifically these two,
4873928 - October 17, 1989 - Nuclear-sized explosions without radiation
or this one
5005355 - April 9, 1991 - Method of suppressing formation of contrails and solution therefor
How do those even relate to weather modification?

OverSword, on 23 May 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

I posted it as an example that research to modify the weather has gone on for some timem, and only a fool would deny it.

Ask yourself, is it possible that some form of cloud seeding could be related to chemtrails?

NOBODY has denied cloud seeding takes place.  I already said it did.  NOBODY has denied that research into modifying the weather takes place.  Cloud seeding is NOT related to mythical "chemtrails".  It looks nothing like it and as I said already, it takes place in established clouds at altitudes far lower than "chemtrails".

Edited by frenat, 23 May 2012 - 09:11 PM.

[OverSword]

Are you kidding me????  Out of the more than one hundred things on that page you're just going to fixate on those two?

How about this? 3410489 - November 12, 1968 - Automatically Adjustable Airfoil Spray System With Pump could that one be related?


or how about this one? USRE29142 - This patent is a reissue of patent US3630950 - Combustible compositions for generating aerosols, particularly suitable for cloud modification and weather control and aerosolization process

or perhaps this?????4412654 - November 1, 1983 - Laminar microjet atomizer and method of aerial spraying of liquids

as far as "far lower than chemtrails"(which you deny exist) it's pretty impossible to gauge how far up a trail of what looks like steam is against a clear blue sky.

Edited by OverSword, 23 May 2012 - 09:19 PM.

[OverSword]

I think the main difference between me and the (do I dare use the term) deniers is that I acknowledge that chemtrails (whatever they may be) may exist while the deniers have decided no further evidence need be examined ever, chemtrails are an impossibility and our government never ever lies to us or hides what they do.

[frenat]

OverSword, on 23 May 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

Are you kidding me????  Out of the more than one hundred things on that page you're just going to fixate on those two?

Fixate?  no.  Ask again because you ignored the first and now second time.  Yes.  there are far more than 2 that are unrelated.  Those are just some of the most obvious that jump out at you.  yet that exact same list is touted by believers on multiple sites and reposted without any critical thinking whatsoever.

OverSword, on 23 May 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

as far as "far lower than chemtrails"(which you deny exist) it's pretty impossible to gauge how far up a trail of what looks like steam is against a clear blue sky.

They come from commercial traffic (provably, check out Flight Explorer or a similar program) at altitudes within class A airspace (provably) and are among other cirrus clouds.  Not impossible.

OverSword, on 23 May 2012 - 09:33 PM, said:

I think the main difference between me and the (do I dare use the term) deniers is that I acknowledge that chemtrails (whatever they may be) may exist while the deniers have decided no further evidence need be examined ever, chemtrails are an impossibility and our government never ever lies to us or hides what they do.

There you go putting words in other's mouths again.  Nobody said they were impossible.  There is however no actual evidence for them.  I and others have examined BOTH sides.  You appear not to.  Do try to keep up.

Edited by frenat, 23 May 2012 - 09:46 PM.

[OverSword]

What would you accept as evidence?  out of curiousity.

[frenat]

OverSword, on 23 May 2012 - 09:44 PM, said:

What would you accept as evidence?  out of curiousity.

Something other than what has so far been presented by the "chemtrail" crowd.  Rather tired of the ignorant "contrails can't persist so it must be something sinister" line.  Tests on a sample directly from a trail instead of miles below.  Evidence that commercial aircraft have been modified to make these trails without the pilots, maintennance staff or anyone else noticing.  A coherent theory about what they're supposed to even do without the handwaving that usually accompanies.

[OverSword]

snip

Edited by OverSword, 23 May 2012 - 10:04 PM.

[frenat]

OverSword, on 23 May 2012 - 10:03 PM, said:

Let's just say that someone on this forum met a friend of a friend who is a military air traffic controller that told them one drunken night that the so called chemtrails do show up on air traffic radar. What would you make of that, without automatically assuming that person was lying?

Is any of that actual evidence?  Since when do other clouds NOT show up on radar?  I've used air control radar.  Have you?

How do you know this "friend" wasn't pulling a joke on this "someone on this forum"?  Wouldn't be the first time.  Or did you miss the youtube video with the tanker pilots filming contrails and obviously laughing about them being "chemtrails" that the believers jumped on as some kind of disclosure?
http://contrailscien...emtrail-videos/

Edited by frenat, 23 May 2012 - 10:11 PM.