rezn8d
Jim Lee
http://rezn8d.com/chemtrails/
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
I think you should use some of the images provided here:
It seems as though you present mostly accurate information on that site regarding research into persistent contrails (and their potential effect on climate), geoengineering proposals, etc. - but then you inexplicably title it "chemtrails". Most of that page does not appear to be about chemtrails.
One gets the impression that the page is trying to legitimize the "chemtrails" idea by associating it with real science regarding the effects of persistent contrails - and just brushing over the fact that nowhere does it provide evidence that there is an ongoing program such as that claimed by chemtrails believers. In this way, it's much like the "Case Orange" report.
In the future they'll have diamond covered balloons to make these cloud walls, until then, they have HAARP, MIRAGE, and ..... planes laying down cover?create localized fog or stratus cloud formations shielding critical assets against attack from energy based weapons. The future of nanotechnology will enable creation of stratus cloud formations to defeat DEW and optically targeted attacks on United Sates assets.
A variety of US and USSR/Russian programs during the Cold War and into the 1990s sought to develop ground-based ASAT weapons employing conventional, nuclear, and directed energy capabilities. Both states successfully ground and air-based missile ASATs on their own satellites. The capability to launch a payload into space to coincide with the passage of a satellite in orbit is a basic requirement for conventional satellite negation systems. Twenty eight states have demonstrated suborbital launch capability; of those, 10 have orbital launch capability. Most states have directed energy capabilities able to laser dazzle sensitive optical satellite sensors. Over 30 states have access to high power laser systems that form one key ingredient to blind satellite sensors or even heat to kill a satellite. The US leads in the development of more advanced ground-based kinetic-kill systems with the capability to directly attack satellites. It has deployed components for a ground-based ballistic missile defense system and is developing an airborne laser system, both of which have inherent
LEO satellite negation capabilities.
2006: Advances in ionosphere reconfiguration
The US Air Force is funding a project that seeks to use plasma to reconfigure a part of the
ionosphere.
1
The modified ionosphere would have different radio frequency properties,
selectively blocking out radio transmission in an area while the surrounding areas are
unaffected. The Microwave Ionosphere Reconfiguration Ground based Emitter (MIRAGE)
project would employ microwave transmitters on the ground and a small rocket to dispense
chaff into the air at an altitude of 60-100 km.
2
About one litre of plasma is generated by the
microwave-chaff interaction, changing the number of electrons in that portion of the
ionosphere. The first phase of Mirage was recently completed by Research Support
Instruments
3
. Atmosphere modification may used as a method to conduct ground based
negation. As it would not directly interfere with satellite communication, this type of
disruption would be difficult to detect by conventional means or to distinguish from a
normal atmospheric event.
The "chemtrail forecast" page sits under the NWS water vapor charts. Any person who possesses any basic knowledge of contrail formation and a modicum of common sense will realize the bogus connection. My feedback, if you are truly intent on attempting to perpetuate this hoax, don't put those two charts in juxtaposition.
I think you should use some of the images provided here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/1007-Useful-Chemtrail-Debunking-Images-and-Infographics
And you might consider changing the font. For some reason on my older xp machine it looks all smeary:
I think you are trying to salvage something of your site. Got off on the wrong track.Sorry bout that.
Chemtrails are persistent contrails, because when conspiracy junkies point at them and freak out over the wrong reason, I still say they should point at them and freak out. I understand that a typical perception manager would simply change a couple of words in his press release, and magically his problems go away because people are distracted by side points.
[...]
Nonetheless, we all know what normal persistent contrails are. This however cannot explain some of the crazy ass formation sprayings caught on video repeatedly.
[...]
So to come full circle.... normal commerical airliner "no agenda attached" chemtrails are bad because they block out the sun, cause acid rain, and generally suck.
There was that NLE in colorado http://www.infowars.com/martial-law-drill-commences-as-economy-begins-descent/I'm going to come right out and say that I think it's dishonest to take the term "chemtrails" and use it as if it's interchangeable with "persistent contrails". There are legitimate reasons to be concerned about aircraft pollution, including the possible effects of persistent contrails in particular. But those reasons bear absolutely no connection to the claims that are being made about "chemtrails".
Regarding the bolded sentence above, specifically what "crazy ass formation sprayings" are you referring to, that you think can't be explained by contrail persistence and ordinary air traffic?
There was that NLE in colorado http://www.infowars.com/martial-law-drill-commences-as-economy-begins-descent/
I got first hand calls from friends in the area about the crosshatch patterns (multiple tic tac toe patters) and saw a few videos confirming it. May have been a military campaign associated with the NLE.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB8qSmGn6UI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-6P64YYDwM
Neither of these videos are the right one.... the one im talking about showed the eastern sky at sunset, and a massive grid pattern unlike any I've ever seen. But again, that is all speculation...
I stand by the comparison, today they look identical. Where the river is, there be chemtails! lol
Yes, it is dishonest to equate chemtrails with persistent contrails. That was the genesis of the hoax and always will be.
I suppose that we see so many god-awful chemtrail sites, seeing one that interposes a few factual scribblings along with 50% bunk is looking good these days. That is about where your site is, rezn8d. A half-bunked page.
The bottom line is that if there were no persistent contrails, there would be no chemtrails.
I'm not familiar with the abbreviation "NLE", and the video in the first link has been removed. Grid patterns do happen, but they are inevitable with ordinary persistent contrails given the huge volume of commercial air traffic in the sky. Even when planes are regularly traveling along the exact same paths, the fact that the trails are carried by wind at altitude causes "grid" patterns. See http://contrailscience.com/contrail-simulations/ for a simulation that Mick created to demonstrate this.
They look identical because one is based on the other. That's where the "chemtrail forecast" comes from. It's just a rough prediction of contrail formation based on the water vapor charts.
Jim, can you be very specific, and point to something that YOU think cannot simply be persistent contrails?
3. Explanation of Terms. Terms used in this regulation are explained as follows:
a. Surface ECM. All types of electronic
jamming, deception, or chaff dispensing done by
ground-based or shipboard equipment.
b. In-flight ECM: All types of electronic
jamming, deception, or chaff dispensing done by
aircraft or other vehicles in flight.
c. Small Scale ECM Mission. In-flight ECM
done by a single aircraft or by two to six
aircraft working as a unit.
d. Large Scale ECM Mission. In-flight ECM
done by seven or more aircraft working as a
unit.
e. Chaff. Strips of frequency-cut metal
foil, wire, or metalized glass fiber used to
reflect echoes for confusion purposes. It is
usually dropped from aircraft or expelled from
shells or rockets as a radar countermeasure.
f. Rope. An element of chaff consisting of
a long roll of metallic foil or wire designed
for broad, low-frequency response.
g. Rope Chaff. Chaff that contains one or
more rope elements.
h. Big Photo. An unclassified general call
sign for aircraft performing in-flight ECM.
(Big Photo is used by civilian contractors
during in-flight ECM when operating under
provisions of paragraph 2c).
i. Ground Photo. An unclassified general
call sign for ground radar stations
intentionally engaged in in-flight ECM.
j. Buzzer. An unclassified brevity code
word. It stands for electronic jamming or
deception by ECM.
k. Stream. An unclassified brevity code
word. It stands for chaff drops at short
intervals. These appear on a radar scope as a
continuous line of interference.
l. Burst. An unclassified brevity code
word. It stands for chaff drops at sufficiently
long enough intervals so they appear on a radar
scope as individual target returns. (For
purposes of this regulation, Burst is further
explained as single chaff drops of not more than
3 seconds spaced not less than 90 seconds apart,
with no more than four bursts in a 40 nautical
mile (NM) radius of other chaff drops.)
exactly, so you agree, they are one and the same.
words are so powerful aren't they
Agreed, I learned that on your site, so I put in on there to show people the truth.
This sure isn't http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJHPe1uUSgE
I'm not cool with disease vector spraying, aka "Skeeter bashin" sessions.
Same guys at WPAFB still spray Agent Orange like chems to clear fields to this day.
This sure isn't http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJHPe1uUSgE
I'm not cool with disease vector spraying, aka "Skeeter bashin" sessions.
Same guys at WPAFB still spray Agent Orange like chems to clear fields to this day.
I've also seen planes that appear to be running rope chaff, I live near an AFB in South Carolina.
exactly, so you agree, they are one and the same.
words are so powerful aren't they
And I am fully aware of the fact that the only reason you see an X in the sky is because two flights crossed each other. My 3D tracker on climateviewer shows more accurate flight paths than Mick's map, and can be overlaid with MODIS so you can see the accumulation of contrails in heavy traffic corridors (I call em Chemtrail Highways)
I would say because he wants to ride on the coat tails of Murphy, Tanner, Carnicom, Icke, and all the rest by capitalizing on the power of that word while attempting to garner some respectability by allying with the mainstream science view of the contrail phenomenon.
I find his posturing somewhat repugnant.
Again you seem just to be wanting to apply the "chemtrail" label to ordinary things. Why not simply call them what they are?
The word "chemtrail" has a very specific meaning to most people who use it. That is NOT crop dusting, or chaff, or insect abatement, or firefighting - it's those long white trails high in the sky - deliberate and covert high altitude spraying that leaves trails.
Why do you call them "chemtrail highways" when you know they are only contrails?
yet effective...
I find it highly ironic that what seems to be occurring here is that none of what is posted on the page can be debunked, you just take offense to my verbiage.
I also find it appalling that you all seem to be just A OK with never discussing the effects of contrails on flora and fauna while attacking anyone that claims to have seem a chemtrail.
I will add a note mentioning the fact that I included the images because the chemtrail map is based on vapor and IR maps, nothing more, and will link that to Mick's site.
Nonetheless, the word stays and I stand be it. Here's why:
Unlike you guys, I just started researching this crap a year or so ago. And I wasn't clued into all the global depop crap till I started to google chemtrails. When effectively trying to spread a message, keywords are important. That's what Google's robots hunt for, and unfortunately for you guys, people googling persistent contrails already know WTF is going on. I intend to not only dispel people's myths about chemtrails, but show them why they are bad anyways.
If all you got is your repulsion at my choice of word, get over it, everything there is fact.
Nonetheless, the word stays and I stand be it. Here's why:
Unlike you guys, I just started researching this crap a year or so ago. And I wasn't clued into all the global depop crap till I started to google chemtrails. When effectively trying to spread a message, keywords are important. That's what Google's robots hunt for, and unfortunately for you guys, people googling persistent contrails already know WTF is going on. I intend to not only dispel people's myths about chemtrails, but show them why they are bad anyways.
If all you got is your repulsion at my choice of word, get over it, everything there is fact.
because they are places where many planes fly the same route creating a chemical cloudy mess
Like in Advanced Dungeons and Dragons "Stinking Cloud"
=)
because they are places where many planes fly the same route creating a chemical cloudy mess
When effectively trying to spread a message, keywords are important. That's what Google's robots hunt for, and unfortunately for you guys, people googling persistent contrails already know WTF is going on. I intend to not only dispel people's myths about chemtrails, but show them why they are bad anyways.
Unlike you guys, I just started researching this crap a year or so ago. And I wasn't clued into all the global depop crap till I started to google chemtrails. When effectively trying to spread a message, keywords are important. That's what Google's robots hunt for, and unfortunately for you guys, people googling persistent contrails already know WTF is going on. I intend to not only dispel people's myths about chemtrails, but show them why they are bad anyways.
The visible part of the "chemical cloudy mess" is ICE crystals. Any actual nucleating soot or carbon dioxide, nitrogen compound pollutants are not visible so what you are referring to is actually ICE.
When planes fly and DON'T leave contrails they leave EXACTLY THE SAME amount of pollutants. On takeoff, even more.
When effectively trying to spread a message, keywords are important. That's what Google's robots hunt for, and unfortunately for you guys, people googling persistent contrails already know WTF is going on.
correctIs it fair to say you're trying to change the perception of the word 'chemtrail' amongst the advocates of the various theories connected to it?
So why not put a big "chemtrails are just persistent contrails" at the top of your page?
And, what "depop crap"?
The visible part of the "chemical cloudy mess" is ICE crystals. Any actual nucleating soot or carbon dioxide, nitrogen compound pollutants are not visible so what you are referring to is actually ICE.
If you want to be HONEST and logically consistent you should refer to ALL cirrus clouds and any form of ice cloud (or snow of any kind for that matter) because the nucleating particles necessary for them to form are not visible from the ground.
You have to choose.
When planes fly and DON'T leave contrails they leave EXACTLY THE SAME amount of pollutants. On takeoff, even more.
So the only thing that distinguishes between clear blue sky air routes and the contrail sky filled air routes is the WATER CONDENSATION.
So the only visible "chemical" you are referring to is the WATER, most of which was ALREADY in the sky from natural processes and sources
To be logically consistent and honest you have to call ice clouds, ALL clouds, snow, lakes and oceans "chemically cloudy messes" .