14 Years of Chemtrails, Comments and Suggestions

J

Joe

Guest
Joe, not my people, I voted for Bush, twice.

.
Yes, they think that because of a pack of lies. You know most of the lies right now. You don't care.



Joe you don't know how many I have succeeded with, but I can tell you it has been thousands, maybe tens of thousands. Some of them have become good friends. I get mail from former believers, that keeps me going. I know that Mick and others have gotten the same sort of appreciation.

If any chemtrail believer ever sent you thanks for bringing them into the world of chemtrails, you played a part in their deception.
I suppose that you can be proud of that and absolve yourself. You don't care. I understand. I'll let it go for now. I hate what you are doing, even if I must allow you to aid in destruction in more ways than you know. You aren't worth any more of my trouble at this point. You are dead to me.
Bye.
Then I guess the phone call is off ? I did delete that post Jay . and quite a few other ones . My point is your being rude from the beginning has never helped Im only trying to point out where you failed with me so it might help you in the future . Im also trying to play devils advocate and I guess Im just pissing people off . Why else would I be here ? To make friends ? The chemtrail theory is growing being on TV and in movies People are eating it up . Iv changed on a lot more things then you think . Maybe you can make a film of your own ? OK let me crawl back in my grave Bye Jay its been a blast :)
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Well, just because more folks are believing it, STILL doesn't make it TRUE. It is still a HOAX being pushed by a combination of true believers and scam artists and attention seekers.

They use you and others to promote their agenda.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
Well, just because more folks are believing it, STILL doesn't make it TRUE. It is still a HOAX being pushed by a combination of true believers and scam artists and attention seekers.

They use you and others to promote their agenda.

I wonder if it is such a bad thing to have more people believe in it? It may then get to a tipping point and attracting some real journalistic attention and the airlines may well have to address the issue.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
It was an EXPERIMENT, They did ONE test. Why are you continuing to insist that there are hundreds, if not thousands of such flights every day and that they were started before that ONE, SINGLE. LONE test.

You are promoting a hoax, you can kid yourself otherwise, but the fact is still there. What you are telling folks are 'chem trails' are just ordinary contrails
 
J

Joe

Guest
It was an EXPERIMENT, They did ONE test. Why are you continuing to insist that there are hundreds, if not thousands of such flights every day and that they were started before that ONE, SINGLE. LONE test.

You are promoting a hoax, you can kid yourself otherwise, but the fact is still there. What you are telling folks are 'chem trails' are just ordinary contrails
that wasnt a hoax it was a experiment . Geoengineering isnt a Hoax . I just save what I feel is relevent for the future . Kind of like saving peoples facebook post and YT post for something that hasnt happened but most likely never will .
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Then you admit that calling con trails, chem trails is wrong and inaccurate.

Just because something MIGHT could happen, is not a reason to tell folks it is happening.
 

RolandD

Active Member
that wasnt a hoax it was a experiment . Geoengineering isnt a Hoax . I just save what I feel is relevent for the future . Kind of like saving peoples facebook post and YT post for something that hasnt happened but most likely never will .

No, geoengineering isn't a hoax, at this point it is basically a theoretical science with a few small scale experiments testing the practicality of some initial hypotheses. To claim that there are any large scale operations, much less large scale experiments, going on, is propagating a hoax. Voicing opposition to the possible implementation of geoengineering is fine, and probably justified, but keep it in the realm of provable facts.
 

Rico

Senior Member.
A little more of this might help

Did you watch the entire interview with David Keith?

When I last saw that video, I thought David Keith raises some really valid points. He puts what theorists typically bring up into the perspective, such as the logistical and paper trails involved if there were ever a covert project. He explains how science works and how it operates, and he explains the relevance and irrelevance of patents. He also explains the science behind contrails and why they change. If anything, I think he admirably explains the misconceptions with the chemtrail theory. Without dismissing it entirely, he explains the implausibilities of some of the theories brought up, and as any neutral person of wisdom, this is the most rational way to approach the issue. He doesn't take sides.

I'm not sure if you actually watched it, but if you haven't watched it from start to finish, you should try. If you have, watch it again, and keep an open mind for David Keith. He may be a 'geoengineer' by his work, and I'm sure MJM's videos have painted him in a bad light, but if you only try to see things from his perspective, you might discover that he isn't exactly what some folks paint him to be. In fact, I think he is a pretty reasonable and nice guy.
 

pseacraft

Active Member
Sorry, as an ignorant old fool, I just do not see how the E-PEACE experiment on Aerosol-cloud-radiation interactions in stratocumulus clouds supports the chemtrail story. Yes, I read the report and in my layman's view its not much different, if really at all, from that of normal cloud seeding. Monitoring smoke generators and merchant shipping exhaust plumes and their affects on relatively low attitude clouds plus the seeding of same cloud types with granulated salt doesn't compare to the hype of chemtrails and the shady mysterious aerosols allegedly being ejected at over twice that altitude. I found the report interesting and informative.

Eric
 
J

Joe

Guest
Then you admit that calling con trails, chem trails is wrong and inaccurate.

Just because something MIGHT could happen, is not a reason to tell folks it is happening.
Yes because chemtrails sound like poison which is bad . Iv tried to steer away from anything that contains the word chemtrails on my site which gets very little traffic . Just over 10.000 hits in 2 years isnt much . Just because I think they are geoengineering now I dont feel threatened in anyway because of it . Thats why I posted the picure of Obama with the persistant contrails above his head . You would expose the POTUS to something harmful . To me Its just annoying living in the Sunshine state with less sunshine . If they arent geoengineering now then it will only get worse ? even less sunshine ? sucks if you have solar panels .
 
J

Joe

Guest
Sorry, as an ignorant old fool, I just do not see how the E-PEACE experiment on Aerosol-cloud-radiation interactions in stratocumulus clouds supports the chemtrail story. Yes, I read the report and in my layman's view its not much different, if really at all, from that of normal cloud seeding. Monitoring smoke generators and merchant shipping exhaust plumes and their affects on relatively low attitude clouds plus the seeding of same cloud types with granulated salt doesn't compare to the hype of chemtrails and the shady mysterious aerosols allegedly being ejected at over twice that altitude. I found the report interesting and informative.

Eric
It doesnt only weather modification .
 
J

Joe

Guest
Did you watch the entire interview with David Keith?

When I last saw that video, I thought David Keith raises some really valid points. He puts what theorists typically bring up into the perspective, such as the logistical and paper trails involved if there were ever a covert project. He explains how science works and how it operates, and he explains the relevance and irrelevance of patents. He also explains the science behind contrails and why they change. If anything, I think he admirably explains the misconceptions with the chemtrail theory. Without dismissing it entirely, he explains the implausibilities of some of the theories brought up, and as any neutral person of wisdom, this is the most rational way to approach the issue. He doesn't take sides.

I'm not sure if you actually watched it, but if you haven't watched it from start to finish, you should try. If you have, watch it again, and keep an open mind for David Keith. He may be a 'geoengineer' by his work, and I'm sure MJM's videos have painted him in a bad light, but if you only try to see things from his perspective, you might discover that he isn't exactly what some folks paint him to be. In fact, I think he is a pretty reasonable and nice guy.
Yes I did watch it and felt he sounded honest . Made him even likable . Which was why i posted it . Like I said if they had more open debates like this i might help .
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Salt particles seed clouds. These particles are made by surf, by breaking waves. They aren't the only sea-borne particles that do this. Dimethyl sulfide (DMS) is produced by plankton throughout the sea.*

In order to work out how effective these processes are, in order to quantify their effects on precipitation, someone somewhere has to run experiments.

Bearing in mind that the Earth is warming, this need may well be pressing.

Stephen Salter's proposal was to raise the albedo of the southern oceans, using a fleet of remote-controlled salt-spray trimarans, themselves wind-powered. That relied on creating salt particles from sea water and lofting them high enough to increase the cloud densities, and thus the solar radiation reflected back into space.

The reduction of the world's combustion of fossil fuels can be achieved slowly by such GEOENGINEERING means, the lowering of the earth's atmospheric carbon dioxide content down to a safe, pre-industrial, level of 350 parts per million may be carried out over decades. This combination of methods allows ease of decision-making and logistics to effect the smooth REMOVAL of a REAL nightmare. We will have swerved the earth to avoid a huge asteroid.

* The DMS is produced by living plankton. ALL ocean centers are nutrient-depleted and bare of these organisms. Feeding them will generate more DMS and increase cloud cover**. It doesn't surprise me that this idea is also resisted by "truthers". They instinctively and consistently choose the worst path for humanity.

It is quite possible to sufficiently increase the earth's cloud cover (over the southern oceans where there is virtually NO human activity, remember) sufficiently to bring the earth's average temperature back to its pre-industrial level.

Why these experiments haven't reached trials stage I cannot comprehend. Perhaps it's the fossil fuel industries' doing.



** And also greatly improve ocean productivity, as these creatures are at the bottom of the ocean food chain. They also fix atmospheric carbon dioxide as chalk. The only way to fix atmospheric problems is to get an ocean or two to work for you. There, there, nice oceans.

Rather than staring at a hardly-unemployed worldwide fishing industry, itself staring at an 80% reduction in fish stocks, then perhaps fishermen everywhere can be employed (by nations) as farmers for the oceans. Needs must, I think. But the time for action has arrived. Who is going to co-ordinate it, do you think?
 

Ross Marsden

Senior Member.
Wow! Thanks for the reference to the "Climate Change and Intergenerational Evil" video by Connie Barlow and Michael Dowd.
Very well worth the 49 minutes to watch. Now we gotta DO something about it.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
The reduction of the world's combustion of fossil fuels can be achieved slowly by such GEOENGINEERING means, .....


I am not sure that is what you meant to say?? Salt-seeding clouds does nothing at all to combustion of fossil fuels - that is an entirely different matter, IMO one that shuold be strongly persued regardless of other geoengineering.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
I am not sure that is what you meant to say?? Salt-seeding clouds does nothing at all to combustion of fossil fuels - that is an entirely different matter, IMO one that shuold be strongly persued regardless of other geoengineering.
Perhaps I expressed myself badly. I can't edit it now.

"The reduction of the world's combustion of fossil fuels can be achieved slowly by such GEOENGINEERING means of temperature mitigation*, the lowering of the earth's atmospheric carbon dioxide content down to a safe, pre-industrial, level of 350 parts per million may be carried out over decades."

The worst effects of AGW may be mitigated AS we struggle to burn less carbon, using more nuclear (perhaps thorium) reactors to generate power.

There are tremendous savings in primary energy consumption available if we employ LOW GRADE HEAT RECOVERY using AIR TO AIR HEAT EXCHANGERS in our homes, factories, offices and public buildings.

Combined heat and power stations should be de rigeur.

We really should produce a list of mitigating techniques.

The discarded NASA concept to "protect the Earth" (that was disgusting!) should be the PRIME DIRECTIVE of the UN CHARTER.

IMO "protecting the Earth" involves putting a hold on all aggressive geoengineering for fuel, followed by first stabilization, then reduction, then virtual removal of Man's footprint on the planet.

We really CAN farm both sea and land without obstructing, abducting, or extinguishing its wildlife. We just have to want to do it.

* The ocean gyre seeding acts to both cool the planet and remove CO2. For some reason that plan attracts special hatred. It is especially appealing to me because of the tremendous energy available to and expressed by living, reproducing Life, when ocean-sized. (Why people are suicidal when they don't think is interesting.)
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I was thinking the other night, that if one wanted to 'geoengineer' the climate, that it would have to be done over the oceans, not over the land. The oceans are where a lot of the 'weather' and thus climate 'starts. If there was anything to chem trails, they would be doing in far out at sea, not over Dallas or St Louis.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
I was thinking the other night, that if one wanted to 'geoengineer' the climate, that it would have to be done over the oceans, not over the land. The oceans are where a lot of the 'weather' and thus climate 'starts. If there was anything to chem trails, they would be doing in far out at sea, not over Dallas or St Louis.
Yes. The oceans cover more than two-thirds of the Earth. The southern oceans (especially far South) aren't within Man's domain, and large enough to be effective, yet inconveniencing very few people.

The centers of the oceans, where the gyres are, would be good places for floating cities, which could burn/recycle the plastic detritus which otherwise terminates there. They could be co-ordination centers for seeding the ocean, fishing (with large-mesh nets only), and servicing the salt-spray trimarans. They could also be served by deep ocean technology (OTEC) power stations doing their best to warm the 4 degree C deep ocean water. (That will take a million years). ...a job for the oil industry. If they want pioneers, then the armed forces would be handy.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
This is some very good recent telephoto video of several flights at cruise altitude, with good enough photography to recognize the company liveries:



I can see a good example of a lavatory mast drain 'trail' out of the fuselage on one shot, eat your heart out, Harold Saive!

The camera rig is a Canon EOS 5d Mark II Digital SLR Camera which runs about $1600.00 US, along with two 2x extenders and one 1.5x extender.
These extenders (teleconverters) run about $300 ea. and add to the magnification.
The idea of 'stacking' teleconverter extenders sounds very interesting and the results seem adequate.

Here is an example:
canon 7d astrophotography equipment.jpg
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
His full setup was: "Canon 5dMarkII + Canon 100-400 + Canon 2x Extender + Canon 2x Extender + Canon 1,5x Extender = 2400mm"

Not a cheap setup, as the 100-400 is $1500, the extenders are around $300 each.

There are also a bunch of much cheaper cameras now that have effective zooms in the 1200mm range, like the Canon SX50, just $390, 24mm to 1200mm zoom.

http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/the-best-superzoom-camera-is-the-canon-sx50/

That would be more that adequate to take photos that can identify the planes, and you can quickly zoom out to get photos or video of the contrail.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
What is money if you truly believed you are fighting "The Greatest Crime in History, a Crime Against Humanity!".

Dane Wigington claims he has spent over $50,000 on chemtrails,
he claims that hundreds of "chemtrails" flights pass overhead, but he steals photos from Airliners.net to show on his website......

Yeah, but at $390 there is REALLY no excuse. Here's some cropped shot from the SX50, handheld.




via: https://www.google.com/search?q=Canon+SX50+contrails&tbm=isch

Maybe we should start a fund raiser to send one to Dane :)
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Tips on using the SX50 to shoot planes:

http://forum.flightradar24.com/threads/2879-Aircraft-contrails?p=29115&viewfull=1#post29115
Hello, First and foremost turn off the feature for the 4x digital enhancement as the end result is way too noisy. I shoot RAW plus JPEG using AV mode and pretty much stick to F8 and ISO 80 settings.
Also dont try using the LCD use the viewfinder, I find you can steady yourself and track the trails much easier. Finally, you really need to do a little manipulation with the images crop and sharpen mainly and I use the Adobe Lightroom 4 product. I too have only had the camera fo about a month so am also on a learning curve but I have had quite a bit of experience with a Canon DSLR and a 400mm EX lens. I still find the results you can get from the little Canon SX amazing for the price. Hope that helps.
Content from External Source
His results (with lots more on his Flickr page)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/stevewalsh/8481969645/in/photostream



Again, from a camera you can get for $380, hand-held, no additional equipment.
 
Last edited:

pseacraft

Active Member
The Canon camera in the image is a 7D not a 5D Mark II, about $1k cheaper. Mine is a 5DMk III, don't ask (actually the prices have come down about ~600 recently) ...but it takes some unbelievably detail shots. I need a super telephoto, screw Dane, donate to me! haha
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
The BIG problem is that the CT is NOT open minded to the FACTS. They are open minded to theories and opinions and they closed their minds when the facts are shown to them. Otherwise, please explain all the times that someone challenging them get their comments deleted and then blocked. Can you explain that?
 
J

Joe

Guest
The BIG problem is that the CT is NOT open minded to the FACTS. They are open minded to theories and opinions and they closed their minds when the facts are shown to them. Otherwise, please explain all the times that someone challenging them get their comments deleted and then blocked. Can you explain that?
it was a joke ? its saturday nite relax . :)
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Maybe we should start a fund raiser to send one to Dane :)
Dane Wigington has more than enough money to buy any camera setup a person could ever wish for. He could set up a network of 100 people nationwide taking photos of planes and identifying them.

Dane Wigington accuses all 14,000 members of the American Meteorological Society of either being part of the chemtrail conspiracy and "afraid to take a stand", or people who "live in bubbles of their own creation".

Yet he has built his own bubble and won't dare it get pricked by staying vague on the identity of the 100+ planes which fly over his house every day. He knows that to begin identifying the planes will be the end for him.

That is why we need to press this point as hard as possible.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Dane Wigington has more than enough money to buy any camera setup a person could ever wish for. He could set up a network of 100 people nationwide taking photos of planes and identifying them.

Dane Wigington accuses all 14,000 members of the American Meteorological Society of either being part of the chemtrail conspiracy and "afraid to take a stand", or people who "live in bubbles of their own creation".

Yet he has built his own bubble and won't dare it get pricked by staying vague on the identity of the 100+ planes which fly over his house every day. He knows that to begin identifying the planes will be the end for him.

That is why we need to press this point as hard as possible.

Well, my suggestion of a fund-raiser was semi-serious, as it would be satirical - something along the lines of:
"Let's finally discover what those mysterious planes are. For fifteen years mysterious planes have left white lines in the sky, now at last advances in modern optics have resulted in the magnifications possible to identify those planes.

If we all club together we may be able to raise the $36.99 needed for a 15-40X spotting scope.


If we can attract the attention of a billionaire, we might be able to afford a digital camera with 50X zoom capability, which will let us prove to the world once and for all just what these plane actually are:
"


I would normally stay away from such cheeky sarcasm, as people can be very sensitive. Something like that might be a way of drawing attention to the issue, but then it might also backfire, and just get them all riled up ("See how they mock us!!!").
 
Last edited:
Top