Climates of suspicion: 'chemtrail' conspiracy narratives & the int'l politics of geoengineering

quick off topic: so with this Turbo whatever engines... so, they don't produce contrails. BUT some produce chemtrails that dissipate quick and some produce chemtrails that persist. is the thinking because they are different chems?

You are confusing Wigington and Tanner. TANNER is the originator, afaik, of the HBTF engine claim. Wigington is just repeating it, with additions. AND... at this point, Tanner is claiming that ALL trails are chemtrails, even the short or invisible ones. I'm not kidding.
 
You are confusing Wigington and Tanner. TANNER is the originator, afaik, of the HBTF engine claim. Wigington is just repeating it, with additions. AND... at this point, Tanner is claiming that ALL trails are chemtrails, even the short or invisible ones. I'm not kidding.
is Tanner that one who got poisoned from his mercury tooth fillings?
but my point is, what are THEY saying is the explanation why some turbo bypass chem sprayers produce short chemtrails and some produce long persistent chemtrails?
 
is Tanner that one who got poisoned from his mercury tooth fillings?

Yes, I think so.

but my point is, what are THEY saying is the explanation why some turbo bypass chem sprayers produce short chemtrails and some produce long persistent chemtrails?

They don't go into those details. Tanner thinks there are lots of different formulae of chemtrails and he can smell/taste the difference.
 
Some of Tanner's delusions:

http://globalskywatch.com/stories/m...l-information/plumes-change.html#.U4_Re3KwJcQ

In April 2010, chemtrails disappeared on all but a few days each month. We are actually having clear-blue skies on many days throughout the month. Compared to the day-after-day barrage of non-persistent chemtrails, this is truly a dramatic change.

There are still non-persistent chemtrails visible on many days throughout the month. There are even persistent chemtrails still visible a few days each month, but most/many days are perfectly clear, and after years of daily non-stop spraying, this is profound change. Of couse, the sky is filled with chemtrail fallout ("geoengineering artifacts") that is caused when higher-altitude spraying condenses into lower layers of warmer air.

At exactly the same time that the interspersed clear days began to appear, there was a new type of chemtrail taste/odor in the air. This new taste was very similar to the "chemical" type of chemtrail that had been so common for the past several years (especially during rain), but this new type had a more bitter taste to it. It also caused a few new symptoms including a scratchy, sore throat and minor—but continuous—sinus and respiratory infections. It seemed that there was a biological component to this new chemtrail type (click here to find out how I detected the biological component). We also found that it suppressed the immune system.

We have named this new chemtrail type the "Swamp Water" type, based on its taste and odor, which was something like a mix between mushrooms and algae.

During this same period of time, I began receiving reports that clear skies began appearing in several eastern states on several days each month. Chemtrail watchers began hailing, "Chemtrails have stopped!"

Unfortunately, chemtrails had not stopped. The continued taste and odor of chemtrails on clear days made it obvious to me that they were still being sprayed. The only question was, "Why can't we see them?"

High-Altitude Spraying
There are 3 factors that led me to believe that the reason we could not see chemtrails on these clear days was because they were being sprayed at high altitudes:

1. Plume Size

2. Edge Resolution

3. Geoengineering Artifacts (artificial clouds, or "chemtrail fallout")

Below, I discuss these in detail.


Content from External Source
 
Some of Tanner's delusions:

http://globalskywatch.com/stories/m...l-information/plumes-change.html#.U4_Re3KwJcQ

In April 2010, chemtrails disappeared on all but a few days each month. We are actually having clear-blue skies on many days throughout the month. Compared to the day-after-day barrage of non-persistent chemtrails, this is truly a dramatic change.

There are still non-persistent chemtrails visible on many days throughout the month. There are even persistent chemtrails still visible a few days each month, but most/many days are perfectly clear, and after years of daily non-stop spraying, this is profound change. Of couse, the sky is filled with chemtrail fallout ("geoengineering artifacts") that is caused when higher-altitude spraying condenses into lower layers of warmer air.

At exactly the same time that the interspersed clear days began to appear, there was a new type of chemtrail taste/odor in the air. This new taste was very similar to the "chemical" type of chemtrail that had been so common for the past several years (especially during rain), but this new type had a more bitter taste to it. It also caused a few new symptoms including a scratchy, sore throat and minor—but continuous—sinus and respiratory infections. It seemed that there was a biological component to this new chemtrail type (click here to find out how I detected the biological component). We also found that it suppressed the immune system.

We have named this new chemtrail type the "Swamp Water" type, based on its taste and odor, which was something like a mix between mushrooms and algae.

During this same period of time, I began receiving reports that clear skies began appearing in several eastern states on several days each month. Chemtrail watchers began hailing, "Chemtrails have stopped!"

Unfortunately, chemtrails had not stopped. The continued taste and odor of chemtrails on clear days made it obvious to me that they were still being sprayed. The only question was, "Why can't we see them?"

High-Altitude Spraying
There are 3 factors that led me to believe that the reason we could not see chemtrails on these clear days was because they were being sprayed at high altitudes:

1. Plume Size

2. Edge Resolution

3. Geoengineering Artifacts (artificial clouds, or "chemtrail fallout")

Below, I discuss these in detail.


Content from External Source
http://globalskywatch.com/stories/m...ling-and-tasting-chemtrails.html#.U4_T2vRDtac. From the link Ham provided. I'm sorry but I couldn't stop laughing when I clicked on the link "how he can detect biological components", and I know that isn't appropriate for this thread. Appropriately titled;
Why Can I Taste and Smell Chemtrails?

For me, the taste and smell of chemtrails are overwhelming because my senses of taste and smell areextremely sensitive. I believe there is a perfectly sound scientific reason for this.
Content from External Source

  • [*]Racing thoughts and looping songs or melodies in your mind—very common today as is mercury toxicity.
    [*]Quickly-changing thoughts resulting in the inability to stay focused or to concentrate or to finish projects. This may also contribute to a loss of short-term memory so you often forget why you went into thekitchen.
    [*]Sensitivities to sounds so that they interfere with thought processes. For example, a dog barking in the distance may irritate you or prevent you from getting to sleep.
    [*]Sensitivities to sensations so that clothes that touch your neck may be very irritating. You may find that a pillow touching your neck prevents you from getting to sleep.
    [*]Sensitivities to emotions that can result in depression, moodiness, irritability, rage, and sudden outbursts. This also results in general fear and negative thoughts which manifests as a fear of the dark, fear of car crashes, fear of confrontation, and many other various fears and phobias.
    [*]Sensitivities to light that make you squint in bright sunlight.
    [*]Sensitivities to scents and tastes leading to MCS-like symptoms.
    Content from External Source
 

  • [*]Racing thoughts and looping songs or melodies in your mind—very common today as is mercury toxicity.
    [*]Quickly-changing thoughts resulting in the inability to stay focused or to concentrate or to finish projects. This may also contribute to a loss of short-term memory so you often forget why you went into thekitchen.
    [*]Sensitivities to sounds so that they interfere with thought processes. For example, a dog barking in the distance may irritate you or prevent you from getting to sleep.
    [*]Sensitivities to sensations so that clothes that touch your neck may be very irritating. You may find that a pillow touching your neck prevents you from getting to sleep.
    [*]Sensitivities to emotions that can result in depression, moodiness, irritability, rage, and sudden outbursts. This also results in general fear and negative thoughts which manifests as a fear of the dark, fear of car crashes, fear of confrontation, and many other various fears and phobias.
    [*]Sensitivities to light that make you squint in bright sunlight.
    [*]Sensitivities to scents and tastes leading to MCS-like symptoms.
    Content from External Source
hhmm. if I recall, that is Exactly how Lestat described being a vampire in Interview with a Vampire ; )
 
hhmm. if I recall, that is Exactly how Lestat described being a vampire in Interview with a Vampire ; )
OT; love the avatar by the way, fitting considering the topic. Love the movie by the way, and I only wished they could geoengineer meatballs to fall from clouds, or pizza...
 
You keep telling people how intelligent they are, but the fact remains that many people are unfamiliar with various topics, and so explanations DO need to be "dumbed down". It's not about people being dumb, it's about effective communication. Another type of common ground - you need to build from shared understanding, so you need to know the level of understanding the other person has.

Same goes for my experience in desktop support. I've worked with people right from the warehouse to CEOs, you need to judge your audience and adjust your language accordingly and not just assume they're stupid because they don't understand what you do. Not always easy to show restraint though but thankfully most, if not all, users think I'm there to help them rather than being sent by the NWO
 
Remember though there's a spectrum of believers. We are never going to convince those who are in too deep, like Russ Tanner. But there are those more in the middle that will listen to reason.

I'm not talking about some radical adjustment in debunking methodology here. I think the basic idea of polite focussed debunking of specific claims of evidence has been very productive - and continues to be so, with literally thousands of people visiting Metabunk every day, and many of them reading these focussed debunks. I don't want to change that.

What I'm think here is if there are some adjustments, or more specifically additions, to the approach that will make it more effective - allow it to reach more people.

Specifically: is there something we can to to counter the feeling people get that they are being casually dismissed as irrational or stupid? Can we get them to see that "we are not so different, you and I"? And can you do it without them thinking you are playing some kind of mind game?

Instead of just debunking, why not put it back on the believers, and ask them to explain how the operation would be carried out. Have them explain how the airplanes are being loaded with chemicals. Ask them where the chemicals are being kept at the airports. Ask them why it would be done in plain sight. Show them that you can now identify every airplane in the sky using a smart phone, then ask them how a flight, which can be tracked from beginning to end, is somehow refilled with chemicals in plain sight of passengers, ground crews, etc.

That's the part of the discussion I rarely see. It's usually just one side yelling at the other side. When you make the other side explain how the operation would be carried out, I think you open a door.
 
Instead of just debunking, why not put it back on the believers, and ask them to explain how the operation would be carried out. Have them explain how the airplanes are being loaded with chemicals. Ask them where the chemicals are being kept at the airports. Ask them why it would be done in plain sight. Show them that you can now identify every airplane in the sky using a smart phone, then ask them how a flight, which can be tracked from beginning to end, is somehow refilled with chemicals in plain sight of passengers, ground crews, etc.

Hinge, I have tried this. Often when I bring it up ( I usually add, "Show photos of 'chemicals' being loaded" and not only where these 'chemicals' are being "stored", but also where are the "manufactured"...and I ask for the believers to track these alleged shipments from a "manufacturing facility", to any airports, for storage and delivery. (I ask for more photos, too).

Getting more deep into the reality of airplane and aeronautics, I try to explain to them weights, payloads, limitations and Center of Gravity concerns (that ALL flying machines are subject to).

The sheer scope of the illogic, when they are faced with these questions? Usually, I never get any replies back, after that. Dunno if that means I have actually made a point, or not.....
 
a couple more issues that probably relate to chemtrail debunking.
1. this is a chat forum and people want to chat and argue their side. even if they are open. saying the same things over and over and over again probably tends to make the debunkers 'cranky'. where as the new 'chemtrailers' don't know this is most likely the cause of the abruptness or 'being dismissed' feelings. Perhaps the debunk crew can take shifts.. ex you 5 on this month, next 5 next month. etc. To avoid burn out.

I think it might be productive to also really look over each 'teams' strengths and play more like a hockey team...if someone else is better equipt against a certain 'opponent', pass the puck and let them take the shot.

2. another thing that happens (and was pointed out to me accidentally a few times in my work) when you talk about a subject SO often or you know a subject so well, we tend to skip things- seeing them as so common place/common knowledge that we assume the person we are talking to already knows these things. As Mick was saying, find the baseline of understanding. **This is true of you @WeedWhacker planes are so common place to you (and interesting apparently) I think you assume quite often that people are following you when a lot of what you say is overwhelming... (to a layman..well, to me) .. I can follow you but it takes an extra effort. I'm not sure a lot of people are interested enough to make that effort. especially if you are debunking. Maybe bullets, like above you could write

"Physical Limitations to chem spraying from commercial airlines are:
• weight of chemicals/ weight limitations of planes
• payloads
• Center of gravity <whatever that means

a lot of block text is confusing to novices ; )
 
**This is true of you @WeedWhacker planes are so common place to you (and interesting apparently) I think you assume quite often that people are following you when a lot of what you say is overwhelming... (to a layman..well, to me) .. I can follow you but it takes an extra effort.

I will endeavor to keep that in mind. Perhaps (and this may veer OT, but is pertinent) it's a case where after TOO long in a profession, and skill, the very, very basics that I used to use in my capacity as a Primary, and even Commercial/Instrument Flight Instructor (lo, these many years ago)...those basics are buried under layers of complexity, due to subsequent years of being surrounded by colleagues, where we often KNEW what we were saying, sometimes in "shorthand".

NOT to diminish the many CFIs (Certified Flight Instructors) out there, in the USA and other jurisdictions, but when I look back (sometimes) to that phase of my career...I know I was qualified, and competent (I trained a lot of people), but knowing what I know now?

Yeah, "back to basics" might be the best 'mantra', and often that is difficult to achieve.
 
Yeah, "back to basics" might be the best 'mantra', and often that is difficult to achieve.
seriously. you know that exercise: write ALL the steps of washing your hands . aint that easy ; )

we had a test: how to use the fire extinguisher... I got one wrong... cause "point it at the fire" was apparently a step. I mean...come on!!
 
where as the new 'chemtrailers' don't know this is most likely the cause of the abruptness or 'being dismissed' feelings
Definitely, having recently discovered mind-blowing knowledge simply dismissed as 'yeah, we know, been debunked already, see here...' is bound to come off as condescending and will create blowback. But what else can you say?
 
Definitely, having recently discovered mind-blowing knowledge simply dismissed as 'yeah, we know, been debunked already, see here...' is bound to come off as condescending and will create blowback. But what else can you say?
that sounds ok to me. then they can chat on that thread about what they don't agree with in the debunk if they still need to chat. ?
 
"Physical Limitations to chem spraying from commercial airlines are:
• weight of chemicals/ weight limitations of planes
• payloads
• Center of gravity <whatever that means

a lot of block text is confusing to novices ; )



I do try to avoid blocks of text. Not always successfully, though.

Now, thanks for the "Bullet Points"....I think the first two are clear?

Specifically, though...."Center of Gravity" seemed to add confusion.

Lemme try this: ALL aircraft fly by "balancing" certain forces, some that are (simplified) in opposition. Gravity, that is Earth's gravity, is an obvious force that we all experience, and must deal with. To counter-act gravity (and sticking with airplanes, to remain simple), a wing is designed to produce Lift, when it is moved through the air. So, TWO forces in opposition: Gravity vs. Lift.

Next, every airplane's wing must move forward to make the Lift, and this is accomplished by the use of a Thrust force....think of it as horizontal, for the moment. BUT, as you move an object through the air, the air imparts an opposite force, we call this Drag.

These are the "Four Forces":
  • Lift
  • Gravity (Weight)
  • Thrust
  • Drag


The "Center of Gravity" of an airplane refers to the fact that all objects have someplace within their mass that can be considered as a "central balance" point, and in equations, this is where Gravity is considered to be acting upon that mass.

Distributing weight within an object can "unbalance" it...it is a type of "leverage". SO, basically, for any airplane to remain "in balance", it cannot be loaded "willy nilly" without regard to these aspects of leverage, and the way weight distribution affects the Center of Gravity. Every airplane has defined limits, based on its specific design.
 
Lemme try this
that's for someone who falls between space cowboy and me. < note , as sexist as this sounds, boys might be more inclined to that explanation.

because (well I know what center of gravity is to start) I couldn't really follow and relate to chem sprays. I know boats. and if cargo lets lose and slides to the other side the ship can topple.
 
it cannot be loaded "willy nilly" without regard to these aspects of leverage, and the way weight distribution affects the Center of Gravity.
cant they just space out the chems tanks in the cargo hold where the luggage goes? which is the whole length of the plane, right? I mean how come the gas tanks don't topple the plane?
 
cant they just space out the chems tanks in the cargo hold where the luggage goes? which is the whole length of the plane, right? I mean how come the gas tanks don't topple the plane?

Well....any so-called "chem" tanks take up volume, and thus there is no room for cargo and baggage, anymore.

Fuel tanks, on the other hand, are designed to be NEAR the Center of Gravity (or, C/G) in most cases anyways.....thus as fuel is consumed (or, "burned"), then the C/G is altered very little....the overall Gross Weight decreases of course, but C/G is affected minimally.

Since you mentioned boats (and/or ships) in the water then I take it you are very familiar with LATERAL balance. This too is a concern with airplanes. Since (in the case of large commercial passenger jets) much of the fuel capacity is carried in the wings, usually out to very near the wingtips, that weight does exist, and MUST remain in balance "side-to-side" (which is laterally, or more correctly, along the imaginary longitudinal axis which is a line drawn from the nose, to the tail, of the airplane).

Every large airplane has a "limitation" for any lateral fuel imbalances....the number that pops into my head is generally 2,000 pounds (using USA units, and Boeing figures, as a common rule-of-thumb). These specifics WILL vary by airplane type, however. Most modern airplanes ALSO have software within the many on-board computers to help alert pilots of any impending, or actual fuel imbalance, again depending on specific type.
 
cant they just space out the chems tanks in the cargo hold where the luggage goes? which is the whole length of the plane, right? I mean how come the gas tanks don't topple the plane?
I agree, I never understand this part of the debunking agrument, for a laymen as myself. I mean we have planes that can drop tanks and heavy machinery out of them via parachute and they recover nicely after the center of gravity shifts in the plane. If a plane has a max capacity of load, then the tanks could be distributed to hold that capacity. You would need to use the same measures that are used for fuel, to ensure one tank isn't fuller than the other tank. It could be done I would imagine..
 
I agree, I never understand this part of the debunking agrument, for a laymen as myself. I mean we have planes that can drop tanks and heavy machinery out of them via parachute and they recover nicely after the center of gravity shifts in the plane. If a plane has a max capacity of load, then the tanks could be distributed to hold that capacity. You would need to use the same measures that are used for fuel, to ensure one tank isn't fuller than the other tank. It could be done I would imagine..


I answered in the PM....stand by....

[bringing my comments in PM to this thread, for clarity]:

In those situations, the "cargo" is being unloaded "dropped" one-at-a-time. Each individual box/vehicle etc.

They are moved aft, and the pilots can compensate because nothing exceeds the Aft C/G limits of that airplane, for that moment.

Do you recall this B-747 crash in Afghanistan, last year?:


Captured by sheer chance on a dash-cam. It is clear to any pilot that the airplane pitched up violently, and stalled....a severe load shift aft, during the takeoff and climb caused this....and, there was NOTHING that crew could do to recover from that.

Investigation discussion:
 
I think this "Chemtrail tanks would upset the GOG" argument is a bit of a non-starter. Not only is it a little technical, the obvious objection is that "they" would simply engineer around it. So people either don't understand it, or it will lead into intractable technical discussions where you are ultimately arguing from authority.
 
I think this "Chemtrail tanks would upset the GOG" argument

You meant "CoG".

But still, as mentioned, there is a problem with OVERALL gross weight limits, and of course, volume placement problems. ("volume" meaning WITHIN the structure of the airplane, there simply is NO ROOM for "Chemtrail Tanks").
 
You meant "CoG".

And that's something else you might want to dial down a little. It might seem like a minor point, but correcting people for its vs. it's, and other common errors, might seem like jocular avuncular persnicketiness to you and I, but it can come across as arrogant condescension to the recipient - like a passive-aggressive "get some education".

If you know what they mean, then best let it be.
 
Although in this case you were quite correct to correct me, as I thought you were just correcting my capitalization.
:oops:

Well...not trying to seem "persnickety". IF I use an acronym in a posted comment, and don't include a full English explanation of the acronym, then I have failed at communicating my intent.

IF I also mis-type the acronym? Then, this might add to the confusion, by others (even IF those who already are familiar with...say, aviation acronyms....will already infer the typo, and just move on).
 
Instead of just debunking, why not put it back on the believers, and ask them to explain how the operation would be carried out. Have them explain how the airplanes are being loaded with chemicals. Ask them where the chemicals are being kept at the airports. Ask them why it would be done in plain sight. Show them that you can now identify every airplane in the sky using a smart phone, then ask them how a flight, which can be tracked from beginning to end, is somehow refilled with chemicals in plain sight of passengers, ground crews, etc.

That's the part of the discussion I rarely see. It's usually just one side yelling at the other side. When you make the other side explain how the operation would be carried out, I think you open a door.

I have done that many, many, many times. I have mostly gotten no response at all. I'm not sure what internal reaction it creates in them. Maybe it makes them think. Maybe they decide it's all some sort of trick questions. Maybe they just don't allow any of it to enter their consciousness in any way.
 
I think this "Chemtrail tanks would upset the GOG" argument is a bit of a non-starter. Not only is it a little technical, the obvious objection is that "they" would simply engineer around it. So people either don't understand it, or it will lead into intractable technical discussions where you are ultimately arguing from authority.

I have seen it claimed, several times, that the extra weight is put in the "center wing tank" to solve that problem.
 
I have seen it claimed, several times, that the extra weight is put in the "center wing tank" to solve that problem.

Except.....the Center Wing Tank is where much of the FUEL is!!!

Please also (and this is easy enough to verify, just ask pilots who fly them), the Center Tank(s) (at least for most Boeing models, I presume it's similar with Airbus) can hold the majority of a fuel load, for flights that are fueled for long-range trips (meaning, long hours....over two hours, usually).

The fuel, loaded as it is, MUST be burned firstly from the Center Tank(s)...this is due to structural design limitations, and also the weight & balance factor....the CoG, or C/G, or Center of Gravity concerns.
 
I have seen it claimed, several times, that the extra weight is put in the "center wing tank" to solve that problem.
How much extra weight are we talking about? Does anyone know how much weight would be needed in order to spray. Because if its a thousand pounds, then thats like the weight of 8 people which seems easy enough. Just curious
 
Thanks, but I was referring to the chemtrailer theories. How large would the tanks need to be and how heavy would they be in order to make their theories work? I'm trying to understand the CoG obstacle, and if its achievable. My thinking is as I try to understand this is, you would only need a sufficient amount of spray to mix in with the outside water vapour. Let the climate outside the plane do all the work, so to speak.
 
Thanks, but I was referring to the chemtrailer theories. How large would the tanks need to be and how heavy would they be in order to make their theories work? I'm trying to understand the CoG obstacle, and if its achievable. My thinking is as I try to understand this is, you would only need a sufficient amount of spray to mix in with the outside water vapour. Let the climate outside the plane do all the work, so to speak.

Sufficient for what though? The chemtrail theory tends to work on the lines that the trails are all aluminium, barium, strontium, red blood cells, mold, cancer, nano bots......
 
Back
Top