Discussion in 'Contrails and Chemtrails' started by Mick West, Jul 20, 2012.
The issue is there's no evidence for this, so there's not really anything to deny.
how did they create the clear sky for chinas olympics? with rockets, but also planes - what purpose were the planes for? is it that you deny chem trails on the basis of the metal connection? i mean i also doubt it's a wide conspiracy, but the technology, or at least the science/capability exists -
i just can't imagine they wouldn't be testing all aspects of Geo-engineering, the Iranian president not long ago claimed that USA (and i think the EU he blamed too) are Geo-engineering droubt (sp) in Iran right now; we also had one of the wettest years ever in the UK last year....
my curiosity is just that i have seen on rare occasion persistent contrails in a grid like pattern and then eventual spreading of them, and hours after that complete cloud cover here in Brighton. I'm sure you've heard much of this, and i'm not going to debate the causes of that in this thread - but more just why the complete denial of it? to me saying they're probably experimenting with chem trails is no more nutty than saying they're experimenting with microwaves as a form of crowd control lol, or sound weapons which can disable someone 100's of meters away
But there's evidence for both of those things, for chemtrails there isn't.
What exactly do you mean when you say 'clearing the sky'?
The grid patterns are easily explained, see here.
All i can remember without googling is reading a head line "China boasts man-made clear skies for the Olympics" - I assumed at the time they did this by drawing in clouds to elsewhere through chem trailing, i think i discussed this recently with one of your de-bunkers on twitter who got me back on to the site, he said it was "commercial techniques" but it involved 4,000 rockets and *hundreds?* of planes, what purpose do the planes have if not for spraying? is the denial of chemtrailing purely based on the uses of metals alone? , but i guess it's also possible to destroy cloudy weather too?
That's cloud seeding, see this Guardian article. However, cloud seeding is not what is considered to be 'chemtrails'. See here, scroll down a little. Cloud seeding isn't covert and has been around for decades.
I don't understand the difference between cloud seeding, and chemtrailing? unless when people use the term they believe it's a attempt to poison us etc? i mean, i don't believe that BUT then biological AND metal spraying have occurred in the UK between 1930's-70's over my home town no less. I guess my problem is that i don't see anything as being beyond governments and corporations if it serves a purpose to them, i'd feel more daft not believing it (until being proven otherwise) than the other way round.
Depends on your definition of chemtrailing I guess.
I believed it. Then I proved to myself otherwise.
"Chemtrails" refers to the belief that those persistent white trails that people see across the sky (persistent contrails) are actually the result of some substances being intentionally sprayed, either for geoengineering or for some nefarious purpose or other. Cloud seeding is done into existing clouds (not across open skies) to enhance precipitation or reduce hail damage - it doesn't leave persistent visible trails, and it's not done at jet cruising altitudes.
Thanks Belfrey, that's a useful clarification. be nice to have the brain of the guy/girl who knows everything, my head is far too murky for my liking haha.
It depends what chemtrail believer you're talking to. I've heard people say it's for population control, weather control, to give us diseases, to prevent diseases. . . lately from what I have seen chemtrailers seem to be congealing around the "weather control" and "geoengineering" aspect, possibly because they can obliquely use cloud seeding and geoengineering to bolster their "argument".
Let me explain why you are having trouble seeing the difference. The problem which you are having is the intentional result of a successful propaganda ploy. At it's inception, there was no word called "chemtrails", previous to 1999, people called the persistent lines they saw in the sky, even though they claimed them to be evidence of spraying "contrails" or "contrails spraying". During 1999, a fellow using the pen name "Val Valerian" (think about the meaning of that name.....) proposed that a portmanteau be coined to better distinguish the observation from ordinary contrails. That was the first propaganda ploy but over the next five years, the word became discredited and associated with outlandish people and ideas.
Eventually, a woman named Rosalind Peterson began suggesting that it would be better to associate the observation with another word already accepted in scientific circles, "geoengineering". You will find that over time the leadership of the movement realized that if they could connect the previously discredited word with an accepted word, they could ease-in to discussion and have at hand some credible association away from the discredited word. Many of them have been quite open in their expression that this was the right thing to do, and for example, Michael J. Murphy consistently uses the term chemtrails/geoengineering when making his presentations.
To change the meaning of words is a propaganda technique within the class of "association".
In this case, the hazard which this false association ploy presents is exactly the point at which a deception has had to be made by those who have chosen to confuse you.
The deception is that the terms geoengineering and cloud seeding/weather modification refer to quite different things, both of which are distinctly different from what people are seeing..
For one, geoengineering, if it were to be effective, is a global project which would require massive effort in the mid- stratosphere, physically beyond the altitude range of any jets currently able to carry a significant quantity of material to do the task. Geoenginering must takeplace so high because anything placed lower will be washed out of the qtmosphere too quickly. Secondly, it is quite obvious that the jets people are seeing are neither a new sort nor flying in the mid-stratosphere twice as high as ordinary flights.
In the case of cloud seeding, this is not done in clear air, and also not at the altitudes people are seeing, but in the exact opposite direction.
You see, cloud seeding is done to change clouds or weather, it requires clouds to be present before the weather can be modified. Weather as such does not exist at flight altitudes where the lines are being seen. One reason why jet airliners fly so high is that they escape the vagaries of weather. Thus cloud seeding is below the geoengineering altitudes, and also below the flight altitides where contrails form!
The leadership must always avoid letting these parts of geoengineering and cloud seeding enter into the discussion because doing so ruins the association they try to make. If you doubt me go and ask the leaders why their claims of geoengineering/cloud seeding/weather modification don't agree with these known aspects. They will not give you satisfactory answers, and will avoid a response if possible through deflection or additional deception. They will dodge some how.
That is why you are confused, because they have successfully avoided the whole truth, yet another propaganda technique!
It would not look like a bunch of individual barrels. There's zero reason to do that. It would look more like and ADDS or MAFF setup.
But it kind of misses the point. A theoretical chemtrail setup would look like tanks on a plane, that's an entirely trivial point. The idea in showing these videos is specifically to say "this is a chemtrail plane". However these are NOT chemtrail planes, and we know exactly what all these images are. It would be like if the Discovery channel showed reconstructions of a UFO encounter, and pretended they were real.
And there is ZERO evidence of any tests of geoengineering involving spraying things from planes. The geoengineers specifically deny this, and quite often discuss how we might eventually work up to doing it.
that's most enlightening, more so that the 'chemtrail movement' has leaders and a sense of structure to it, this alone makes me distrust the theory somewhat more...BUT, why? somebody like Alex Jones, Icke or whatever are in a position to abuse disinformation for financial gain, the same can't be said for chem-trailing? though i guess the answer, as with anything like this - be it reptillians or 9/11 truth (still got a thing for that one, lol), there's money being made of it.
^ originally intended for Jay Reynolds
Mick - I take your point completely, bar the last point, it's a contested issue - one they could not do publicly easily, secret testing of it very plausible even if no evidence, just as secret testing of much is quite plausible despite no evidence....LOL, look at Iran, they've not got evidence of nuke building =P
You've hit the nail on the head, be it selling rainwater test kits, selling herbs and supplements or just driving traffic to sites for ad-revenue some people seem to make some cash from it.
Be careful, you'll get George B started...
Indeed. It's an annoying argument. "What if they were doing XXXXXX in such a way that left no evidence". It's unanswerable, and essentially meaningless as it begs the question.
Buy my chembuster. It will solve all your problems.
From its inception, it was profit-driven.
Conceived by Richard Finke and Larry Wayne Harris in 1997 to establish some 'buzz' to sell their book and establish 'street cred', next promoter was William Thomas, he sold vitamins he said would protect you, plus books and free-lance articles. Before Alex Jones there was Jeff Rense and Art Bell on air and online, they always needed material and brought it to a larger audience.
Then there were 'footsoldiers', dupes who became true believers. Then there were 'grudges', folks who had agendas which they tagged on to chemtrails, and egotistical folks who saw it as a path to fame.
Two things I wrote long ago might help explain my thoughts on the matter:
From a historical perspective- http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/evolution.html
Futurecasting chemtrails in 2000- http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/scarehow.html
I received this response to my comment on chemtrail watch about John's video - my comment was not published:
So John if you are still reading this they want to thank you for the publicity - thus showing they really are not actually interested in content at all, just in the hits you generate.
This photo is being promoted on Facebook as being "banned" from Facebook.
But it's just yet another photo of ballast barrels, taken from airliners.net
It's the test Boeing 747-8JK, N6067E
There's some nonsense in the comments:
It showed up just fine in Google Image search.
Unfortunately I can't follow your link as I was blocked by Madison some time ago. Have you ever heard her radio broadcasts and phonecalls to the EPA? [...]
It's not my field, but if they were spraying, wouldn't a single tank be more efficient. And wouldn't it be much more stable to locate it down in the hold, rather than up in the passenger compartment? Firepilot, if you are around, how does Evergreen rig their large fire tankers?
I think along the center line would probably be best - I think you'd want to keep the center of gravity in the middle of the plane for maneuverability.
A single large tank would be too difficult to place in a plane but would be lighter. There is no need to place the tanks lower or along the center of the fuselage really. The biggest concern as far as loading would be front to back. If I designed this system I would make darn sure there is no way for the tanks to empty partially, only allowing the front or aft tanks to drain as this would instantly present balance problems. Using the 747 was a wise choice as I believe it have a fairly wide range as far as cg is concerned, i.e., it is less sensitive to shifts in weight.
I guess these people do not realize that the photo is copyrighted property and the author/owner has the right to have it pulled from unauthorized usage. I started marking and imbedding all of my images primarily because of people coping from websites and using for their own devices.
I quite often use copyrighted photos for debunking purposes under "fair use" rationale (educational and non-profit). Doubt someone would be too bothered with a Facebook share - it's probably more to do with the misleading usage. Or quite possibly the entire "banned by Facebook" story was a misunderstanding, or just made up.
I imagine that if it was 'banned by Facebook', it was a copyrighted photo, being used in method not approved of my the owner.
Twice I have had to use copyright to make someone stop using the picture I use for my avatar (it is a picture of a pendent I made) as an avatar on a fake Cairenn page
Why ban something that doesnt exist-H.R.2977 - Space Preservation Act of 2001 107th Congress (2001-2002) section 7 part b line II:
This is a link to the library of congresses, Is this source credible enough?- http://beta.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/2977/text
Rep. Kucinich, Dennis J. [D-OH-10] (Introduced 10/02/2001)
04/19/2002 Unfavorable Executive Comment Received from DOD.
Major Recorded Votes:
There are no Roll Call votes for this bill
Debunk that and the fact that DOD did even allow this to get to roll call to be seconded for a vote. Im not saying chemtrailing is being done by regular airlines or at all to the scale conspiracy theorists believe but that does not mean its not being done. I doubt we would find proof beyond this if the DOD is censoring the bills in congress.
See explanation here:
Madisonstarmoon seems to be a major source of these photos. She has dozens on her FB page:
"Someone" took the time to search out these photos.
"Someone" took the time and effort to consciously edit out the airliners.net copyright logo at the bottom.
Who did this?
She says she won't tell where she got the photo. Maybe a google image search will give the timeline for the original source?
Kind of interesting they use ordinary 2 inch PVC plastic pipe between the ballast barrels. It looks like they are probably using bleed air at the top to press water through the PVC and send it where they want it.
She is passing around this DOD photo of a named serviceman from back in the deepwater horizon spill and now people are threatening him:
I find that she is the ONLY source for this photo, besides the above two.
I see that this Airbus photo is also being used by madisonstarmoon:
"Someone" got the photo here:
"Someone" knows who the people are, because they are clearly identified.
"Someone" didn't want "anyone" to know the provenance of the original, and didn't provide it.
The earliest source I find where this image was used appears to be this dutch page, from 2012 where the context was discussed:
Hey, maybe we did make a difference in John
He is still a true believer however
I can't really understand HOW they can keep ignoring the truth
Funny, if I click on the link to Madisonstarmoon's photos, I can only see them if I"m NOT logged in to FB.
I found this quite concerning. Madison blocked me some time ago. She asked about having her soil sampled and I gave her a methodology and possible costings in the US. After that I was blocked. She has been taken in hook, line and sinker with this it seems those around her just feed into it. She does a blogradio thing and one I heard essentially consisted of her ringing the EPA and getting an answerphone message. This went on for 15 or 20 minutes, and to be frank the host seems to mock her. I genuinely believed it was a crank call show or something. http://www.blogtalkradio.com/subdimension/2013/02/15/madison-star-moon-calls-to-the-epa Now it may be me but at times the host seems to mock her.
I know she has made accusations of FB stalking on other pages and comments like Massaria's can only feed into a feeling of paranoia. I just wonder what interest on Metabunk will do.
I will check that out tomorrow. She is 'true believer' . It looks like she has had problems with FB, she claims that she 'lost her account'. That rarely happens. If too many folks flag you, you can end in up in time out, first for a 3 days I think and it increases up to a month. I have had 3 one month time outs (twice for something someone else posted on a page I was admin for--the anti BP folks are nasty). In spite of that I have never lost my account. I understand that 'spam' type activity can cause problems, some of the dog rescuers ran into that issue (they post a LOT of pictures of dogs needing homes).
He does seem to be mocking her. He sounded like he was introducing a wrestler. The EPA doesn't have time to waste with folks like her.
I didn't know that EPA will test your soil for you, in fact, I don't think they do. It seems her real name may be Amanda 'Bayes' or something like this ?
You might be referring to me there (post 112) ; I'm the one referring to the picture there together with this one also from the same photoshoot it appears:
Of course the earliest source is airbus itself . The thread itself started out with some general search on 'chemtrail' (plane) images, and I was replying to somebody claiming the barrel photo's to be used for such purposes.
( nujij.nl ( would translate to something like nowyou.nl ) is a Dutch news forum where everything is discussed. (it tries to be news related, but on the forum everybody can open a new topic regarding everything.))
It is also obvious where photo's like this come from:
I actually don't think that a set up for dispersing a spray would look at all like these water ballast barrels. If you look at known spray equipment, such as the insect or dispersant tanks, you will see that these planes can carry far larger equipment than the small ballast barrels. Some of them are 10 times larger. If a spray set up were built, it would likely be designed for the maximum capacity possible, from an engineering standpoint.
These tanks do not appear to be sized for carrying anything near to a maximum cargo load. They do, however, appear to be sufficient to simulate the loads of passgengers and baggage.
I was wondering about this. What is the capacity of the ballast tanks? I've had a quick look but haven't really found anything.
The evergreen supertanker appears to be able to carry 20.000 gallon :
"Evergreen continues their road trip, uh, air trip, with the 20,000-gallon 747 air tanker they call a “Supertanker”."
Although they are also investigating for doing "Weather Modification" as they say on their own website, I would indeed say it isn't the most cost-effective approach they have with the supertanker. It seems to me the use of tanks is used for stability, since the main purpose is firefighting, where you would be "spraying" water in a very short time, but that is all a wild guess.
Separate names with a comma.