Chemtrails?

[Enemem]

You post in the first post (which was probably edited) asking if it's real. Someone replies "No". You ask them for proof, they give proof. Question is either answered or you aren't properly asking the question.

Can you quote me on that, please?

If you can fine quote me, if you can't then I'd like an apology. I think that's fair.

I also liked Famines post because it was one of the few posts that actually addressed what I had said, and not what somebody else had said. Even though the answer was brief, I didn't ask him to expand it or offer proof. Please re-read the thread with this in mind and actually look at what I've posted, not someone else. I've already been misquoted once and they didn't even use quotes. Maybe if they had then they'd have realised it wasn't me that said it.

For crying out loud ---- As I have already said I edited the first post because the video originally posted disappeared from youtube. That's hardly my fault and if anyone had quoted that first post then they would know that the only thing that changed was the source of the video.

 

[Scaff]

If I'd have said that they didn't exist, then that would have been an assumption also.

I'm a bit confused. If I came into a room and showed you a video, and asked if it was chem-trails then would you have said. You can't come in here and say that you need to have a properly formulated argument before you can show us that video, so you can back it up.

Now can someone quote me where i said chem-trails were real ?

This has been addressed with you repeatedly now, you claim to be impartial in regard to chem-trails yet your entire approach is clearly biased to favour the conspiracy (as has been pointed out a number of times).

 

[Enemem]

Ah, now I get it. Thanks Scaff much appreciated.

https://www.google.com/patents/US7413145

or

https://www.google.com/patents/CA2771142A1?cl=en&dq=inassignee:"Evergreen International Aviation, Inc."&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xB5oU9r1D8bJPf-qgeAE&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAQ



Evidence of a technology which is capable of producing chem-trails if required.

This is evidence exhibit A.

Edit:And if you're wondering why I like stuff like this, I used to like jigsaws but I'm a bit old for them now. I do it for fun. Presumably the same reason you do. Also as a secondary reason, because I could do this without being on a forum. But you guys actually help with my critical thinking, by partially doing it for me.

 

[Exorcet]

Evidence of a technology which is capable of producing chem-trails if required.

The ability to spray something into the air isn't evidence for chemtrails. Both papers make mention of large aircraft like 747, and the one with illustrations suggests the equipment can take up a lot of the fuselage space. It doesn't look like something you could hide on an airliner. All the issues about weight and such from before apply as well.

 

[Enemem]

The ability to spray something into the air isn't evidence for chemtrails. Both papers make mention of large aircraft like 747, and the one with illustrations suggests the equipment can take up a lot of the fuselage space. It doesn't look like something you could hide on an airliner. All the issues about weight and such from before apply as well.

No it isn't. It's very circumstantial at best. However some people in this post said that this couldn't happen. I was merely refuting that argument. No you couldn't hide in on a airliner. But you could put one on a plane specifically flown for that purpose, could you not? Don't hide the apparatus, put it on a military plane. Hey, if it's to mitigate global warming then surely that's a good thing? Have I mentioned whether chem-trails are good for us or not. I don't think so. How can I, I don't even know if they exist......yet...or not.

 

[Exorcet]

No it isn't. It's very circumstantial at best. However some people in this post said that this couldn't happen.

I think the consensus was it wouldn't happen secretly fitted to an airliner. If someone said that spraying from an aircraft was impossible that's wrong.

But you could put one on a plane specifically flown for that purpose, could you not? Don't hide the apparatus, put it on a military plane. Hey, if it's to mitigate global warming then surely that's a good thing? Have I mentioned whether chem-trails are good for us or not. I don't think so. How can I, I don't even know if they exist......yet...or not.

You could put a spraying device on a plane, yes. But that's pretty different from chemtrails. If you want to know if chemtrails exist or not, focus on the evidence for them, not the evidence for things that would only be vaguely related.

 

[Enemem]

I think the consensus was it wouldn't happen secretly fitted to an airliner. If someone said that spraying from an aircraft was impossible that's wrong.



You could put a spraying device on a plane, yes. But that's pretty different from chemtrails. If you want to know if chemtrails exist or not, focus on the evidence for them, not the evidence for things that would only be vaguely related.

That's a fair point. There is a difference between something coming from the wings or an engine. Since we are talking about contrails/chem-trails and not a general distribution of chemicals.

 

[BobK]

I think it might be helpful if we had a more or less rigorous definition of just what is meant by "chemtrails".

Wikipedia says this:

According to the chemtrail conspiracy theory, long-lasting trails left in the sky by high-flying aircraft are chemical or biological agents deliberately sprayed for sinister purposes undisclosed to the general public.

According to the Oxford Dictionary:

A visible trail left in the sky by an aircraft and believed by some to consist of chemical or biological agents released as part of a covert operation.

Note that, strictly speaking, the Oxford definition would include the mosquito-spraying C-130, crop dusters, and indeed normal contrails.

Can airplanes spray chemicals? Yes, clearly.

 

[Enemem]

The Oxford definition seems more reasonable.

 

[Imari]

The Oxford definition seems more reasonable.

Seems less useful. By that definition signwriting planes leave chemtrails, and I suspect that there's a useful definition to be made between signwriting and spraying the populace with mercury.

 

[LeMansAid]

This has been addressed with you repeatedly now, you claim to be impartial in regard to chem-trails yet your entire approach is clearly biased to favour the conspiracy (as has been pointed out a number of times).

And? Sometimes you need to poke it 'til it can't be poked no more. Even then, when all questions have been answered with logic, it doesn't mean that logic has found the truth.

@Enemem Some in these parts have a penchant for character assassination. It is ugly indeed.

I'm not sold on the chemtrails conspiracy, but I do have mistrust. And, I understand that sometimes we kind of have to act as if we're in, just to properly work out if we're out.

By that definition signwriting planes leave chemtrails

Not really. I could describe a lizard's features, with all of those features aligning with those of snakes. Wouldn't mean that I'd described a snake.

 

[Imari]

Not really. I could describe a lizard's features, with all of those features aligning with those of snakes. Wouldn't mean that I'd described a snake.

If your definition of a snake could also describe a lizard, then it's a terrible definition. Which is exactly the point I was getting at.

It's important that we define what we're actually talking about when we say chemtrails, because if we mean signwriting and cropdusters then it's pretty different to if we mean secret chemicals added to airliner fuel to alter the atmosphere.

I understood chemtrails to be strangely long lasting contrails. A contrail is produced in a specific way, and a chemtrail is produced in a way that is at least superficially similar. The difference being a chemtrail is engineered to contain additional chemicals for some secret purpose.

If this is wrong, it'd be nice if someone provided a decent definition so that we can get on with discussing whether it's actually possible. At the moment it feels a bit like someone asked if personal powered flight was possible, and was answered "well, you can jump can't you?"

 

[LeMansAid]

The trouble comes in trying to describe something that either doesn't exist, or doesn't have known features. The Oxford definition pretty much describes what is objectively known, and adds subjective detail. What else can it do?

Go to the contrail definition and I'm sure that the difference will be quite clear. Either through addition and/or omission.

 

[Imari]

The trouble comes in trying to describe something that either doesn't exist, or doesn't have known features. The Oxford definition pretty much describes what is objectively known, and adds subjective detail. What else can it do?

Which is why I was saying that it's useless for the purposes of this thread. If a chemtrail is a visible trail in the sky believed to contain chemicals, that's embodied by a strong fart.

This thread needs a stronger, clearer definition than what's in the Oxford, or we're going to be going around in circles all day. There's no point discussing chemtrails if there's not at least some sort of rough consensus on what a chemtrail actually is.

Some people in this thread seem to think they have a reasonable idea what constitutes a chemtrail, so I'm asking them to come up with something better than the waffle in the Oxford.

 

[Akira AC]

https://www.google.com/patents/US7413145

or

https://www.google.com/patents/CA2771142A1?cl=en&dq=inassignee:"Evergreen International Aviation, Inc."&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xB5oU9r1D8bJPf-qgeAE&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAQ



Evidence of a technology which is capable of producing chem-trails if required.

It has nothing to do with it, those are patents for air delivery systems that are not in cohesion with what Chemtrails are.

Those patents correspond to more effective methods to store fuel/fire retardant in planes that already use this system, like this one:

Something that has been done for decades, normal contrails are the resulting interaction between the residual games from the jet engine chamber combustion and it's interaction with the density of certain gases at those heights.

I had more to say, like how atmospheric changes affects temperature around the plane at those altitudes, how in heights of 30'000 to 40'000 ft there is an average temperature of -60º C and how it makes it virtually impossible for substances of that kind hit the ground, and how even in 9/11 the fuel dumping operation showed how such a system would work in planes that have this kind of system (as series of 767 and I think 737 do not have fuel dumping capabilities).

I'm too tired to joint the dots, but anyone who is not wearing a tinfoil hat might get around on how chemistry works in such low pressure/low temperature environments.

 

[Enemem]

Seems less useful. By that definition signwriting planes leave chemtrails, and I suspect that there's a useful definition to be made between signwriting and spraying the populace with mercury.

Do you really think that I'm going to try and provide evidence of signwriting ? Why would I do that? The definition is fine.

Oxford Dictionary said
A visible trail left in the sky by an aircraft and believed by some to consist of chemical or biological agents released as part of a covert operation.

Since when has signwriting been covert ?

 

[TenEightyOne]

A visible trail left in the sky by an aircraft and believed by some to consist of chemical or biological agents released as part of a covert operation.

Since when has signwriting been covert ?

There we have part of the problem, read it again. It doesn't say signwriting is covert.

@Akira AC wearing a tinfoil hat actually makes it easier for somebody to read your brainwaves. They WANT you to wear one, man.

 

[Enemem]

Okay, who said that sign writing was covert.

I think it might be helpful if we had a more or less rigorous definition of just what is meant by "chemtrails".

According to the Oxford Dictionary:
A visible trail left in the sky by an aircraft and believed by some to consist of chemical or biological agents released as part of a covert operation.

Now the next bit was put in by Bobk

Note that, strictly speaking, the Oxford definition would include the mosquito-spraying C-130, crop dusters, and indeed normal contrails.

There we have part of the problem, read it again. It doesn't say signwriting is covert.

No it doesn't BobK does. Now you go read it again. Obfuscation again.

 

[Imari]

Do you really think that I'm going to try and provide evidence of signwriting ? Why would I do that? The definition is fine.

Oxford Dictionary said
A visible trail left in the sky by an aircraft and believed by some to consist of chemical or biological agents released as part of a covert operation.

Since when has signwriting been covert ?

Contrails are hardly covert either then, or chemtrails, were they to exist. They're very, very visible.

Do you know who did any of them? Doubt it. Skywriting in general isn't covert, but it could be. Would it then be an example of chemtrails?

It'd probably be easier to go up and do some covert skywriting than it would be to slip random chemicals into the fuel of commercial airliners.

 

[Enemem]

It's covert if chem-trails are disguised as contrails. It's not overt because you can see them, its covert because they're portrayed as contrails.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Okay, who said that sign writing was covert...Now the next bit was put in by Bobk..no it doesn't BobK does. Now you go read it again. Obfuscation again.

Ah, you need to use "quote" tags if you use someone else's comment. Without psychic powers or a total recall of the entire thread I had to simply take the words that you posted as your own; the duty is yours to identify other people's content when you use it

To be frank; I don't see any evidence for their existence (outside small-scale experiments) either in this thread or elsewhere. I'm not sure you're doing much to sway anyone.

 

[BobK]

Okay, let's parse that Oxford dictionary definition here:

A visible trail left in the sky by an aircraft and believed by some to consist of chemical or biological agents released as part of a covert operation.

What it says is "a visible trail left in the sky by an aircraft". Furthermore it is "believed by some to consist of chemical or biological agents released as part of a covert operation." So if some nutcase thinks a skywriter is covertly releasing something and manages to convince someone else of this (thereby satisfying the "some" part of the definition) then that skywriter is indeed releasing chemtrails.

Note also that there needn't be anything actually covert being released. It only requires more than one person believing (correctly or incorrectly) that something is being covertly released. Accordingly, going strictly by the definition, chemtrails clearly exist.

This is why I really don't like the Oxford definition. Unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't define the therm; it just says what the chmtrail conspiracy theory is.

So again, just what do we mean by chemtrails?

 

[Scaff]

Ah, now I get it. Thanks Scaff much appreciated.

https://www.google.com/patents/US7413145

or

https://www.google.com/patents/CA2771142A1?cl=en&dq=inassignee:"Evergreen International Aviation, Inc."&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xB5oU9r1D8bJPf-qgeAE&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAQ



Evidence of a technology which is capable of producing chem-trails if required.

This is evidence exhibit A.

Edit:And if you're wondering why I like stuff like this, I used to like jigsaws but I'm a bit old for them now. I do it for fun. Presumably the same reason you do. Also as a secondary reason, because I could do this without being on a forum. But you guys actually help with my critical thinking, by partially doing it for me.

This one has already been covered in this thread already (and by myself) its a system for which the primary use is firefighting, reading the actual patent details also clearly shows that it works by dumping a large quantity of material, not by a constant flow and also details the technical difficulties that would result in attempting to house such a system in a commercial flight (i.e. impossible).

As such in terms of evidence that its used for the constant deployment of chemicals at high altitude nothing in the linked materials supports such a claim.

Rather its high altitude capability (for a delivery system of its type) runs to "The aerial delivery system 1 is capable of carrying and dropping a load at about 2,500 feet. The aerial delivery system 1 can drop about 25,000 gallons of fluid in approximately 5 seconds."

So 25,000 gallons in five seconds of delivery at a height of 2,500 feet, absolutely nothing in that at all is either 'covert' or in line with the claims made about Chem-trail delivery.

Or this bit...

"Aerial delivery systems are used to carry and dump, under control, loads of water, or other fire-retardants, onto a forest fire beneath. In addition, other aerial delivery systems are used to carry and dump fluids or other materials on to objects and/or the ground below the aircraft such as for decontamination of an area due to a chemical spill or attack, oil spills, or for soil stabilization. Unfortunately, conventional aerial delivery systems lack capability in delivering desired fluids or other materials to the ground in sufficiently high densities and/or require undesirably low flying altitudes for delivery."

...which again clearly states that its designed to dump high densities of material at higher altitudes than normal (for its primary purposes of firefighting), higher altitudes than normal does not mean commercial jets cruising heights (which is what is claimed for Chem-trails)

The question it does raise to me is how you missed this when presenting this 'evidence'? Did you actually bother reading it yourself?


It does also leave open the other question I raised when this was first mentioned....

Seriously if the CIA were to develop a chemical delivery system to kill us all why the hell would they bother to patent it?

....now that was rather tongue in cheek, but it is a valid point, you don't go around publicly patenting your covert delivery system. It kind of defeats the point of covert.

And? Sometimes you need to poke it 'til it can't be poked no more. Even then, when all questions have been answered with logic, it doesn't mean that logic has found the truth.

It also doesn't mean that you then take the evidence and simply try and shoe-horn it into fitting what you want.

@Enemem Some in these parts have a penchant for character assassination. It is ugly indeed.

If you believe an AUP violation has taken place then simply use the report button.

 

[BobK]

This fits the Oxford definition of "chemtrails":

However, I don't think it's what most of us mean by the term.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

First of all I object to the term "these people". Secondly I haven't said it's the government. And as you well know, there are plenty of people who do things illegally, that the government knows nothing about.

That's great, but the term is correctly placed in the fact that it is a small group of people that believe a certain notion and thus I'm minimizing it to make it simple for others to follow my argument. If you're going to take it on the chin due to the context only you place into I'm sorry but that's not the way it was written. However, if that alone made it so personal it only begins to perpetuate the idea that this entire argument or questioning you spur is based on emotional strings of an idea of what could be happening, and thus your really don't have anything at all.

Most people who fall this and believe it that I've seen claim Gov't is at hand. Hence the use of Air Force cargo jets or specialized passenger jets under military or DOD use. Never once I have I seen anyone claim (outside of you) that someone else is doing this. So now I must ask you, who is supposedly doing this? Because you are only trying to now not place yourself in any camp due to perhaps looking silly.

Also there isn't a single thing I've ever learned of that the Gov't is aware of that is an illegal activity. They may not be aware of the moment that illegal activity is unfolding but they're aware of illegal activities by and large and I'd like to know an activity that they supposedly don't know about.

So I've posed to you two questions and I hope you answer them rather than beat around the bush.

 

[Enemem]

That's great, but the term is correctly placed in the fact that it is a small group of people that believe a certain notion and thus I'm minimizing it to make it simple for others to follow my argument. If you're going to take it on the chin due to the context only you place into I'm sorry but that's not the way it was written. However, if that alone made it so personal it only begins to perpetuate the idea that this entire argument or questioning you spur is based on emotional strings of an idea of what could be happening, and thus your really don't have anything at all.

As you well know, "These people" is a loaded term. If you need to keep 'loading your terms' then that's your call.

Most people who fall this and believe it that I've seen claim Gov't is at hand. Hence the use of Air Force cargo jets or specialized passenger jets under military or DOD use. Never once I have I seen anyone claim (outside of you) that someone else is doing this. So now I must ask you, who is supposedly doing this? Because you are only trying to now not place yourself in any camp due to perhaps looking silly.

If you've never seen anyone else claim this, then fasten your seatbelt. My next post will show you that you've not been looking for the truth, but merely defacing the thread.



Tell you what, why wait until a new post I'll do it here.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/atmosp...r-manipulation-contrails-and-chemtrails/20369

I don't know who's doing it. I don't even know if they are doing it. Are you still not getting it yet? I posted a video with a question. The thread then moved to chem-trails and someone said that they don't exist. I suspect that they exist. And so I'll try find some evidence. Should I figure out who's doing chem-trailing, before I prove that chem-trailing actually exists? No. Because if I'm wrong then I've wasted a lot of time.

Also there isn't a single thing I've ever learned of that the Gov't is aware of that is an illegal activity. They may not be aware of the moment that illegal activity is unfolding but they're aware of illegal activities by and large and I'd like to know an activity that they supposedly don't know about.

Gobbledeegook! And concerns the current discussion not one jot.

So I've posed to you two questions and I hope you answer them rather than beat around the bush.

Tell you what BobK, while you having a play with definitions. Figure out what you think it is and then write it down on a piece of paper.

Let's see if anyone at NASA thinks there are chem-trails?



And yes, I know he is talking about lithium rocket chem-trails. Not planes.

Chem-trail. My definition. Visible trail resembling a contrail, which contains some additive other than spent fuel. Exhausted from a plane.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

As you well know, "These people" is a loaded term. If you need to keep 'loading your terms' then that's your call.

No it's not, once again you have come to this probably feeling targeted.

If you've never seen anyone else claim this, then fasten you seatbelt. My next post will show you that you've not been looking for the truth, but merely defacing the thread.

Me saying I've yet to see it doesn't mean it's not out there but the general consensus is the Government is behind this.

I don't know who's doing it. I don't even know if they are doing it. Are you still not getting it yet? I posted a video with a question. The thread then moved to chem-trails and someone said that they don't exist. I suspect that they exist. And so I'll try find some evidence. Should I figure out who's doing chem-trailing, before I prove that chem-trailing actually exists? No. Because if I'm wrong then I've wasted a lot of time.

So then you have no place saying that those who claim it's the government are wrong. And from the empirical evidence given to you by others it's not happening there is no proof for you to stand on.

Gobbledeegook! And concerns the current discussion not one jot.

Sure it does you made a claim to further along your argument that is now being contested. Thus you rather beat around the bush than answer a simple question as I was hoping you wouldn't.

Tell you what BobK, while you having a play with definitions. Figure out what you think it is and then write it down on a piece of paper.

Maybe you bumped your head while in transit to make this post but I'm not @BobK you once again making your argument personal rather than logical isn't intellectual at all.

 

[Enemem]

The fact that your last statement wasn't a question. And that I quoted it, may have indicated to you that the comment after wasn't directed at you, but BobK. Me, putting his name in there also, ought to have given the game away. Please bear in mind that while you may only be posting to me. I, however, am responding to more than one. A little bit of lee-way wouldn't go amiss.


Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.

 

[Scaff]

Tell you what, why wait until a new post I'll do it here.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/atmosp...r-manipulation-contrails-and-chemtrails/20369

I don't know who's doing it. I don't even know if they are doing it. Are you still not getting it yet? I posted a video with a question. The thread then moved to chem-trails and someone said that they don't exist. I suspect that they exist. And so I'll try find some evidence. Should I figure out who's doing chem-trailing, before I prove that chem-trailing actually exists? No. Because if I'm wrong then I've wasted a lot of time.

Do you ever bother checking you sources?
Globalresearch.ca has a track record of poor quality in terms of source material, a point born out by them describing an anonymously authored non-peer reviewed document as a 'scientific report', when it clearly is no such thing.

I also notice that you have totally ignored the points I raised in my last post and the rather important question I raised (in terms of an action you are once again repeating).

 

[Enemem]

@Scaff Pre-judging evidence by reputation is hardly disputing the evidence merely calling into question the character of the source. So did you watch it or just decide that it wasn't your brand of information.

The question it does raise to me is how you missed this when presenting this 'evidence'? Did you actually bother reading it yourself?

If this is the question to which you are referring then if I can quote it then so could you. Then the answer is, of course I know what the apparatus is for. You may not have said that it is not possible to disperse chemicals at a high level but there are people who used the argument that it wouldn't be possible to do it. In fact you mentioned evergreen international earlier in the thread. I'm not saying that they are using this technology to do it. Only that it would be entirely possible.

Now I know that you all want me to admit that I know what is going on. I don't. I think some of you in here don't have the best interests of discussion, debate and investigation at heart. But that's okay. There are some in here who may want to look beyond their limited imaginations and possibly see what the future may hold, if they look at what is happening now, and change it to a new future.



If you watch this video, then I hope you find it interesting. And I hope it will move you, to pay a bit more attention to the world around you.