Chem trails

squod · 07-01-2010 5:03pm

Zulu wrote: »

Eh, you think the Irish government has the resourses to carry out a campaign of spraying us with chemicals?

Are you aware of our "aerial" might?

Are you aware of how many weather modification companies there are in the world? Are you aware of how many contractors, commercial organisations there are involved in weather modification.

And why would the Irish government need to purchase said 'resourses to carry out a campaign of spraying us with chemicals'? I do not know of any other Government agency that owns a weather modification company. Governments don't generally run commercial companies.

http://www.weathermodification.org/archives.htm

mysterious · 07-01-2010 5:09pm

I remember seeing weird non commerical planes flying over my house down the country at 4am. It was so weird because of the noise, they are very noiesy type planes and fly a little lower than commericial jets and there were at least 100 of them flying over from a Northwest direction to Southeast which is never a commerical traffic direcdtion either.

The air to did feel toixious and dirrty about 5am. Either way the air didn't feel good to me. I'm not someone who looks out of chemtrails, but down the country they are more easier to spot than in the cities, because cities are and traffic makes them more easier to be dimissed as commerical planes.

squod · 07-01-2010 5:18pm

mysterious wrote: »

I remember seeing weird non commerical planes flying over my house down the country at 4am. It was so weird because of the noise, they are very noiesy type planes and fly a little lower than commericial jets and there were at least 100 of them flying over from a Northwest direction to Southeast which is never a commerical traffic direcdtion either.

The air to did feel toixious and dirrty about 5am. Either way the air didn't feel good to me. I'm not someone who looks out of chemtrails, but down the country they are more easier to spot than in the cities, because cities are and traffic makes them more easier to be dimissed as commerical planes.

I've been looking at flight maps, can't find them for this country. Many other countries do publish them online. Try email one of them near you for the next flight time and then avoid breathing for the following few hours!

Zulu · 07-01-2010 5:19pm

Of course "weather modification" companies.

Dublin customs: "So, what in the hold."
Company pilot: "Some chemicals and stuff."
Dublin customs: "Ok, where are you taking them?"
Company pilot: "No where, I'm just heading out for a little spin."
Dublin customs: "You're taking a plane full of chemicals out for a spin over dublin city?"
Company pilot: "Yup"
Dublin customs: "Right so ted, away with you."

Company pilot: "Request permission to take off"
Dublin air traffic control: "Rodger, whats your destination?"
Company pilot: "Eh, dublin"
Dublin air traffic control: "Whats your final destination?"
Company pilot: "Eh, dublin. Just gonna take her up & fly her about for a bit. Back in an hour."
Dublin air traffic control: "Cool no worries then."

<sprays dublin and lands>

Dublin customs: "Welcome back. Lets see the chemicals."
Company pilot: "What chemicals?"

Really folks.

mysterious · 07-01-2010 5:24pm

squod wrote: »

I've been looking at flight maps, can't find them for this country. Many other countries do publish them online. Try email one of them near you for the next flight time and then avoid breathing for the following few hours!

I think I know its not an air traffic route, because it was coming from the NW going to SE, the nearest airport to me is Shannon and Im NE of that, so that directions of the planes were coming from the Greenland direction. Also there were at least a hundred planes heading towards a SE and East direction. There were a hundred planes flying all within an hour. Shannon woldnt have this much plains in half the day never mind at 4am in the middle of winter....

Oh and if I did prove that this isn't a flight path, it wouldnt be a conspiracy would it. I know its not a conspiracy because its a fact and it happens. Some people want some leader to tell us in words what it is. But we tend not trust what we see ourselves. But all in all they werent commerical passnger jets!

squod · 07-01-2010 5:25pm

Zulu wrote: »

Of course "weather modification" companies.

Dublin customs: "So, what in the hold."
Company pilot: "Some chemicals and stuff."
Dublin customs: "Ok, where are you taking them?"
Company pilot: "No where, I'm just heading out for a little spin."
Dublin customs: "You're taking a plane full of chemicals out for a spin over dublin city?"
Company pilot: "Yup"
Dublin customs: "Right so ted, away with you."

Company pilot: "Request permission to take off"
Dublin air traffic control: "Rodger, whats your destination?"
Company pilot: "Eh, dublin"
Dublin air traffic control: "Whats your final destination?"
Company pilot: "Eh, dublin. Just gonna take her up & fly her about for a bit. Back in an hour."
Dublin air traffic control: "Cool no worries then."

<sprays dublin and lands>

Dublin customs: "Welcome back. Lets see the chemicals."
Company pilot: "What chemicals?"

Really folks.

What are you on about? Why would customs be talking to a weather mod company?

http://www.weathermod.com/index.php

squod · 07-01-2010 5:30pm

mysterious wrote: »

I think I know its not an air traffic route, because it was coming from the NW going to SE, the nearest airport to me is Shannon and Im NE of that, so that directions of the planes were coming from the Greenland direction. Also there were at least a hundred planes heading towards a SE and East direction. There were a hundred planes flying all within an hour. Shannon woldnt have this much plains in half the day never mind at 4am in the middle of winter....

Oh and if I did prove that this isn't a flight path, it wouldnt be a conspiracy would it. I know its not a conspiracy because its a fact and it happens. Some people want some leader to tell us in words what it is. But we tend not trust what we see ourselves. But all in all they werent commerical passnger jets!

I expect they would just need directions from satellites, following up on info from radar also.

Zulu · 07-01-2010 5:33pm

squod wrote: »

What are you on about? Why would customs be talking to a weather mod company?

Do you live in Ireland?
Why would customs be talking to cargo planes taking off & landing at Dublin airport?
Are you serious?

bonkey · 07-01-2010 5:37pm

squod wrote: »

Does it not make sense to you to use the resources at hand efficiently? Most of these companies have many aircraft. Previous posters have said that more than one aircraft can be seen spreading chemtrails.

I guess its a matter of how you approach the question...

If we assume that chemtrails are real, and that its happening over Cork city (or wherever), and that what people are claiming to have seen is the generation of chemtrails, then yes...it makes sense to also conclude that whoever is behind it will be doing whatever they are doing efficiently.

If we further make assumptions on what they are trying to achieve, and how that would be efficiently achieved, we can conclude that it makes sense to use formation flying.

This seems somewhat back-to-front, though. We've started by assuming all of our conclusions...and are concluding that formation flying would be consistent with them. The problem is that we've already assumed all of our conclusions.

You then seem to be taking this a step further, and suggesting that the onus is now to provide evidence to show that these conclusions are wrong....that there isn't formation flying, or (presumably) that there isn't something being added, or (presumably) that chemtrails don't exist. Of course, its impossible to prove non-existence....which is ultimately why this line of reasoning is flawed.

As an admittedly trivial parallel...

Dragons exist. They like flying behind planes, invisibly, and it is actually smoke from their nostrils that is being confused for chemtrails. For this to be considered a credible theory, is the onus on me to provide any sort of evidence and reasoning other than "I've seen stuff behind planes that doesn't look like contrails to me"? Alternately, is the onus on someone else to provide evidence that I'm wrong?

Note the bit I highlighted. Everyone is free to believe what they want. I'm not saying people can't or shouldn't believe in chemtrails (or dragons). I'm merely suggesting that if you're trying to build a credible argument for your position, starting by assuming the conclusions to be true, then challenging others to provide evidence that they're wrong would seem to be the wrong way to go about it.

squod · 07-01-2010 5:38pm

Zulu wrote: »

Do you live in Ireland?
Why would customs be talking to cargo planes taking off & landing at Dublin airport?
Are you serious?

Then put your case accross. What is the legal obligation for weather modification companies in this country and how do they relate to customs specifically?

squod · 07-01-2010 5:40pm

bonkey wrote: »

I guess its a matter of how you approach the question...

If we assume that chemtrails are real, and that its happening over Cork city (or wherever), and that what people are claiming to have seen is the generation of chemtrails, then yes...it makes sense to also conclude that whoever is behind it will be doing whatever they are doing efficiently.

If we further make assumptions on what they are trying to achieve, and how that would be efficiently achieved, we can conclude that it makes sense to use formation flying.

This seems somewhat back-to-front, though. We've started by assuming all of our conclusions...and are concluding that formation flying would be consistent with them. The problem is that we've already assumed all of our conclusions.

You then seem to be taking this a step further, and suggesting that the onus is now to provide evidence to show that these conclusions are wrong....that there isn't formation flying, or (presumably) that there isn't something being added, or (presumably) that chemtrails don't exist. Of course, its impossible to prove non-existence....which is ultimately why this line of reasoning is flawed.

As an admittedly trivial parallel...

Dragons exist. They like flying behind planes, invisibly, and it is actually smoke from their nostrils that is being confused for chemtrails. For this to be considered a credible theory, is the onus on me to provide any sort of evidence and reasoning other than "I've seen stuff behind planes that doesn't look like contrails to me"? Alternately, is the onus on someone else to provide evidence that I'm wrong?

Note the bit I highlighted. Everyone is free to believe what they want. I'm not saying people can't or shouldn't believe in chemtrails (or dragons). I'm merely suggesting that if you're trying to build a credible argument for your position, starting by assuming the conclusions to be true, then challenging others to provide evidence that they're wrong would seem to be the wrong way to go about it.

Could you please retype this piece, I don't mean to be rude but none of this makes a lick of sense.

mysterious · 07-01-2010 5:47pm

bonkey wrote: »

I guess its a matter of how you approach the question...

If we assume that chemtrails are real, and that its happening over Cork city (or wherever), and that what people are claiming to have seen is the generation of chemtrails, then yes...it makes sense to also conclude that whoever is behind it will be doing whatever they are doing efficiently.

If we further make assumptions on what they are trying to achieve, and how that would be efficiently achieved, we can conclude that it makes sense to use formation flying.

This seems somewhat back-to-front, though. We've started by assuming all of our conclusions...and are concluding that formation flying would be consistent with them. The problem is that we've already assumed all of our conclusions.

You then seem to be taking this a step further, and suggesting that the onus is now to provide evidence to show that these conclusions are wrong....that there isn't formation flying, or (presumably) that there isn't something being added, or (presumably) that chemtrails don't exist. Of course, its impossible to prove non-existence....which is ultimately why this line of reasoning is flawed.

As an admittedly trivial parallel...

Dragons exist. They like flying behind planes, invisibly, and it is actually smoke from their nostrils that is being confused for chemtrails. For this to be considered a credible theory, is the onus on me to provide any sort of evidence and reasoning other than "I've seen stuff behind planes that doesn't look like contrails to me"? Alternately, is the onus on someone else to provide evidence that I'm wrong?

Note the bit I highlighted. Everyone is free to believe what they want. I'm not saying people can't or shouldn't believe in chemtrails (or dragons). I'm merely suggesting that if you're trying to build a credible argument for your position, starting by assuming the conclusions to be true, then challenging others to provide evidence that they're wrong would seem to be the wrong way to go about it.

This is a real sign of where discussion becomes really confusing. Why would anyone make a really long post that does not make sense and it appears thats the only thing I can see in this post.

We are discussing chemtrails, we don't want to make it a complicated topic. Chemtrails exist and I don't think people are assuming it's "probable they exist" Most people know they exist.

07-01-2010 5:48pm

I don't understand how you think bonkey's post doesn't make sense. He's pointing out the logical fallacies (i.e. assuming the conclusions, and arguing from there) in an argument. You can't argue with logic, folks.

mysterious · 07-01-2010 5:51pm

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I don't understand how you think bonkey's post doesn't make sense. He's pointing out the logical fallacies (i.e. assuming the conclusions, and arguing from there) in an argument. You can't argue with logic, folks.

Logic is flawed. Like logic cant see deception;)

Needs physical proof someone hid something without you know eh. Logic wnats to know why people lie, but can't find out why.

This is why it's important to use discernment. We are not onesided beings or one sided left brained! we have both a right and left brain. We need less obsessive logic and more balanced use of intellegence. It's like schools that program us to use mostly are left brains. It's like Einstien said you only really learn things when you leave school.

My name is URL · 07-01-2010 5:55pm

Conspiracies etc aside for a minute.. does anyone know what causes the particular contrails to behave in the way they do? It's happening now while it's extremely cold and it happened last summer while it was very much warmer

I've seen normal trails around the same times as I've seen the trails that expand etc. How can such a fluctuation in behavior occur so rapidly and without any real change in weather?

IrelandSpirit · 07-01-2010 6:00pm

My name is URL wrote: »

I've seen normal trails around the same times as I've seen the trails that expand etc. How can such a fluctuation in behavior occur so rapidly and without any real change in weather?

Ha! Happened again, took the post right out of my type!

07-01-2010 6:01pm

mysterious wrote: »

Logic is flawed. Like logic cant see deception;)

Needs physical proof someone hid something without you know eh. Logic wnats to know why people lie, but can't find out why.

This is why it's important to use discernment. We are not onesided beings or one sided left brained! we have both a right and left brain. We need less obsessive logic and more balanced use of intellegence. It's like schools that program us to use mostly are left brains. It's like Einstien said you only really learn things when you leave school.

I honestly don't know what you're talking about mysterious. I'm not arguing about the validity of logic with you. I'm saying that an argument that assumes its conclusions and argues from there is illogical.

mysterious · 07-01-2010 6:03pm

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I honestly don't know what you're talking about mysterious. I'm not arguing about the validity of logic with you. I'm saying that an argument that assumes its conclusions and argues from there is illogical.

I'm saying logic isn't all it's cracked up to be, if you don't use the other side of your brain also. Absaloute logic would mean we become robots. I'm sorry but logic can be very flawed. Its why we have this forum (thank god)

IrelandSpirit · 07-01-2010 6:06pm

I've watched normal trails forming at the same time as chemtrails, in stable weather conditions, (and have pointed this out to sceptics present too), and as yet I've not found an explanation...

Edit: a 'mainstream' explanation.

humanji · 07-01-2010 6:11pm

My name is URL wrote: »

Conspiracies etc aside for a minute.. does anyone know what causes the particular contrails to behave in the way they do? It's happening now while it's extremely cold and it happened last summer while it was very much warmer

I've seen normal trails around the same times as I've seen the trails that expand etc. How can such a fluctuation in behavior occur so rapidly and without any real change in weather?

Airspeed, altitude, geographic location, wind, air pressure, fuel mixes, plane engine type etc etc.

It's too hard to claim anything definitive since there's so many variables even when similar planes fly similar routes at similar times. I'd almost go as far as claiming that I doubt you'll ever see two contrails/chemtrails that are identical.

IrelandSpirit · 07-01-2010 6:18pm

humanji wrote: »

Airspeed, altitude, geographic location, wind, air pressure, fuel mixes, plane engine type etc etc.

It's too hard to claim anything definitive since there's so many variables even when similar planes fly similar routes at similar times. I'd almost go as far as claiming that I doubt you'll ever see two contrails/chemtrails that are identical.

With all due respect, I think you need go back and look at the photos again or look up at the sky more often. They are in general pretty much identical, except on some (admittedly rare) occasions where the two types of trails - i.e chemtrails and contrails, are present simultaneously.

humanji · 07-01-2010 7:21pm

I think you're missing what I'm saying. Every single particle in every single trail will not react in the exact same way as every other partical. Follow a trail for it's entire length and you'll see different parts spread out at different speeds.

squod · 07-01-2010 7:23pm

My name is URL wrote: »

Conspiracies etc aside for a minute.. does anyone know what causes the particular contrails to behave in the way they do? It's happening now while it's extremely cold and it happened last summer while it was very much warmer

I've seen normal trails around the same times as I've seen the trails that expand etc. How can such a fluctuation in behavior occur so rapidly and without any real change in weather?

http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/Count/Oct2005/ConEdNews_p8.pdf

Tetsudo · 07-01-2010 9:06pm

Zulu, i do not need to rxemaine my uednrtnasding of sulmibnial msesgaenig. The hmaun mnid deos not raed erevy lteter of a wrod and can sitll raed thnigs almsot perfcetly as lnog as the fisrt and lsat ltteers are in the rihgt plcae.

Con(tact lense free)trial
Contrail

Wroks the smae for a sentence.

So explain me this, why did specsavers produce an ad which is done in CGI graphics that has a sky covered in cehmtirals? Why would somone sit down at a computer and instead of making a blue sky with clouds, intentionally graphic a sky destroyed with chemtrials? Why do the flying glasses touch specifically on the 'Con' and then 'trial'? Because the viewer is watching the glasses, and the viewers brain can see the chemtrails. The glasses then spell out Contrail to the mind of the viewer, then the viewer goes on boards.ie and says "guys its just contrials, um, i mean contrails".

This ad is a filthy piece of chemtrail propaganda and its so painfully obvious. I dare anyone to try and debunk and explain it.

RoboClam · 07-01-2010 9:38pm

Tetsudo wrote: »

Zulu, i do not need to rxemaine my uednrtnasding of sulmibnial msesgaenig. The hmaun mnid deos not raed erevy lteter of a wrod and can sitll raed thnigs almsot perfcetly as lnog as the fisrt and lsat ltteers are in the rihgt plcae.

Con(tact lense free)trial
Contrail

Wroks the smae for a sentence.

So explain me this, why did specsavers produce an ad which is done in CGI graphics that has a sky covered in cehmtirals? Why would somone sit down at a computer and instead of making a blue sky with clouds, intentionally graphic a sky destroyed with chemtrials? Why do the flying glasses touch specifically on the 'Con' and then 'trial'? Because the viewer is watching the glasses, and the viewers brain can see the chemtrails. The glasses then spell out Contrail to the mind of the viewer, then the viewer goes on boards.ie and says "guys its just contrials, um, i mean contrails".

This ad is a filthy piece of chemtrail propaganda and its so painfully obvious. I dare anyone to try and debunk and explain it.

Contrary to what you may think, our brains are not capable of picking up every little detail.

Contr(ary to what you may think, our brains are not capable of picking up every little det)ail.

Contrail.

See what I did there?! All i need is flying glasses and I'm set. Seriously, you've already made up your mind about "chemtrails" and are simply looking for ways to prove what you have already concluded.

Why are there contrails in the sky in the ad? Because it makes pretty funky pattern I guess, I was never a fan of Specsavers advertisements.

Why don't they just put chemicals in the "chemtrails" to make us subservient (which I think is what's being claimed)? It would certainly be less hassle.

Zulu · 07-01-2010 10:14pm

Why would Specsavers be trying to convince us of contails?

namloc1980 · 07-01-2010 10:30pm

Zulu wrote: »

Why would Specsavers be trying to convince us of contails?

So that you'll buy those reaction lenses to lessen the effects of course

Tetsudo · 07-01-2010 11:14pm

But, the question remains, why did the producers of the add graphic in a sky covered in white lines? Because its funky just dosent cut it im afraid. People should not be naive enough to believe that sinister things dont happen on planet earth everyday. If you are going to spray the sky with chemtrials world wide for decades, you are going to have to implement some form of psycological operation to lessen any potiential scandal and to make people passive towards what they see. The human mind takes in everything it looks at, even if its only focused on minor part of the big picture.

The specsavers ad is only one of many.

namloc1980 · 07-01-2010 11:23pm

Tetsudo wrote: »

But, the question remains, why did the producers of the add graphic in a sky covered in white lines? Because its funky just dosent cut it im afraid. People should not be naive enough to believe that sinister things dont happen on planet earth everyday. If you are going to spray the sky with chemtrials world wide for decades, you are going to have to implement some form of psycological operation to lessen any potiential scandal and to make people passive towards what they see. The human mind takes in everything it looks at, even if its only focused on minor part of the big picture.

The specsavers ad is only one of many.

The ad is highly stylised. I mean it also features flying pairs of glasses and cartoon fish....the fact that there are some white lines in the sky is the least weird thing in the ad to be honest. It's a stylised ad....I think you're reading way too much into this.

IrelandSpirit · 07-01-2010 11:54pm

Tetsudo wrote: »

Zulu, i do not need to rxemaine my uednrtnasding of sulmibnial msesgaenig. The hmaun mnid deos not raed erevy lteter of a wrod and can sitll raed thnigs almsot perfcetly as lnog as the fisrt and lsat ltteers are in the rihgt plcae.

Con(tact lense free)trial
Contrail

Wroks the smae for a sentence.

So explain me this, why did specsavers produce an ad which is done in CGI graphics that has a sky covered in cehmtirals? Why would somone sit down at a computer and instead of making a blue sky with clouds, intentionally graphic a sky destroyed with chemtrials? Why do the flying glasses touch specifically on the 'Con' and then 'trial'? Because the viewer is watching the glasses, and the viewers brain can see the chemtrails. The glasses then spell out Contrail to the mind of the viewer, then the viewer goes on boards.ie and says "guys its just contrials, um, i mean contrails".

This ad is a filthy piece of chemtrail propaganda and its so painfully obvious. I dare anyone to try and debunk and explain it.

Dead right. Same thing's happening in the film industry, especially with children's animations but only relatively recently, since the chemtrails began in earnest Disney and so on have been painting them in, on skies in the background - big long streaky chems. There's a few vids on youtube showing examples... hold on, i'll try and source them in a mo....

IrelandSpirit · 08-01-2010 12:30am

humanji wrote: »

I think you're missing what I'm saying. Every single particle in every single trail will not react in the exact same way as every other partical. Follow a trail for it's entire length and you'll see different parts spread out at different speeds.

Oh I have followed them for their entire length, believe me. And I understand what you say, that not every single particle in every single trail will react in the exact same way. But contrails are short and don't do much, they last for mere minutes, at most, whereas chemtrails go on, and on, and on in long streaks across the sky... and gradually widen, over hours, expanding to cover the entire sky.

I've seen both these types of trails (as have others) being formed on the same day and in stable weather conditions.

That is just too big a difference in effect to be initiated by the same cause.

IrelandSpirit · 08-01-2010 12:50am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXeB4lBkBDs&feature=related

Not the ones I was looking for but some good examples of subliminal (and outright blatant) Chems in children's animations, and advertising.

uprising · 08-01-2010 1:15am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okB-489l6MI

Millions were in germ war tests

Much of Britain was exposed to bacteria sprayed in secret trials
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/apr/21/uk.medicalscience

namloc1980 · 08-01-2010 1:15am

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXeB4lBkBDs&feature=related

Not the ones I was looking for but some good examples of subliminal (and outright blatant) Chems in children's animations, and advertising.

Most of that video is just ridiculous and there is even fake stuff in there.

The Hedi part is blatantly faked. The 'chemtrail' background has been misleadingly put in there replacing the original background. Here's the original with natural looking clouds:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_faResJiio

It's incredible that whoever put together the video was so desperate for 'evidence' of them 'chemtrails' in childrens cartoons that they faked it. Pathetic if you ask me. Do you have any comment to make that someone with a 'chemtrail' agenda blatantly faked the Hedi images?

Endwar is a game based on a future world war. The sky in the game is filled with military aircraft - aircraft which create contrails. It would be pretty weird if that game had no contrails given the number of aircraft involved.

The next one is just plain stupid. A series of ads by airline companies showing off their aircraft flying high with contrails. Yeah that's really suspicious :rolleyes:

IrelandSpirit · 08-01-2010 1:28am

namloc1980 wrote: »

Most of that video is just ridiculous and there is even fake stuff in there.

The Hedi part is blatantly faked. The 'chemtrail' background has been misleadingly put in there replacing the original background. Here's the original with natural looking clouds:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_faResJiio

Do you have any comment to make that someone with a 'chemtrail' agenda blatantly faked the Hedi images?

Endwar is a game based on a future world war. The sky in the game is filled with military aircraft - aircraft which create contrails. It would be pretty weird if that game had no contrails given the number of aircraft involved.

The next one is just plain stupid. A series of ads by airline companies showing off their aircraft flying high with contrails. Yeah that's really suspicious :rolleyes:

They're faked? Ok, if you say so, I've personally no way of knowing. But what "chemtrail agenda" are you talking about, what agenda could somebody have to paint in chemtrails over the original skies?

I don't get it...

And if it is faked, by who exactly, the guy who uploaded that compilation?

Tetsudo · 08-01-2010 1:31am

I know im harping on like a crazy man, but just to make the point

(1) There is absolutely no reason, none what so ever, for putting a load of chemtrails/contrails graphics in the sky in a random advertisement other than trying to manipulate people psycologically about what they see in the sky everyday.

(2) The focus of the viewer is on the flying glasses. The glasses follow the curve of the first chemtrail, then touch on both other chemtrails, then jump on the guys face, he looks up and smiles in amazement at what hes sees. Then the glasses the touch on 'Con', then skip to the other end of the sentence and touch on 'trial'. This is not silly chain of coincedences. This is carefully choreographed manover to scam your subconcious mind into thinking that what you are looking at is a contrail. The glasses are the catalyst of the manuver, flying around the screen distracting you, meanwhile saying to your subconcious "This, this and this are contrails". But ofc, it is not contrails, it is chemtrails.

I feel it is good to rant about this particular ad because its a smoking gun on the issue.

IrelandSpirit · 08-01-2010 1:33am

uprising wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okB-489l6MI

Millions were in germ war tests

Much of Britain was exposed to bacteria sprayed in secret trials
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/apr/21/uk.medicalscience

Exactly, thanks for bringing that up again, I posted that link too and was conveniently ignored by the so-called sceptics here, in particular the chilling statement at the end of that article . Those trials are on going.

namloc1980 · 08-01-2010 1:35am

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

They're faked? Ok, if you say so, I've personally no way of knowing. But what "chemtrail agenda" are you talking about, what agenda could somebody have to paint in chemtrails over the original skies?

I don't get it...

And if it is faked, by who exactly, the guy who uploaded that compilation?

Open your eyes please! Look at the video I posted of the real Hedi show. There are no contrails, no 'chemtrails', just natural clouds. The video you posted has the 'chemtrails' pasted into the background by someone. If you can't see that or you choose not to see that then that's you're choice. But that is faked in the video in an attempt to show 'evidence' of 'chemtrails' in cartoons. Obviously the person who put this together was so desperate for evidence that they faked it. Pathetic.

mcmoustache · 08-01-2010 1:37am

There are definitely cloud seeding aircraft out there, no doubt about it. But using the same technique to give plants and animals a dose of bad stuff would be stupid.

First of all it would be terribly ineffective. These things fly mostly between 5 and 12 Km up in the sky. There's a lot of volume there and there's only so much poison you can put on a plane. The concentrations of poison in the air by the time that stuff has mixed with all that sky as it came down (as well as all the other spacial dimensions) would be minuscule.
Now, you might be thinking that someone could just use lots of planes. In theory that could be done. But you'd need to have every plane in existence flying around the clock dumping that stuff and global warming would kill us all first anyway.

There's much easier ways to get bad stuff into a population. Vaccination programs and the water supply are fairly obvious examples and I'm sure the users of this forum could easily think of more. Any lizard king who chooses chem-trails as a means to control people is a moron. His advisers who dreamt up the idea are bat-**** crazy. There's just no way an organisation so supposedly powerful would ever be dumb enough to do something this.

namloc1980 · 08-01-2010 1:39am

Tetsudo wrote: »

I know im harping on like a crazy man, but just to make the point

(1) There is absolutely no reason, none what so ever, for putting a load of chemtrails/contrails graphics in the sky in a random advertisement other than trying to manipulate people psycologically about what they see in the sky everyday.

(2) The focus of the viewer is on the flying glasses. The glasses follow the curve of the first chemtrail, then touch on both other chemtrails, then jump on the guys face, he looks up and smiles in amazement at what hes sees. Then the glasses the touch on 'Con', then skip to the other end of the sentence and touch on 'trial'. This is not silly chain of coincedences. This is carefully choreographed manover to scam your subconcious mind into thinking that what you are looking at is a contrail. The glasses are the catalyst of the manuver, flying around the screen distracting you, meanwhile saying to your subconcious "This, this and this are contrails". But ofc, it is not contrails, it is chemtrails.

I feel it is good to rant about this particular ad because its a smoking gun on the issue.

Again it's a stylised ad. What are we meant to think about the cartoon fish....is that another conspiracy?? Or the flying glasses.....the flying glasses conspiracy??

IrelandSpirit · 08-01-2010 1:40am

Tetsudo wrote: »

I know im harping on like a crazy man, but just to make the point

(1) There is absolutely no reason, none what so ever, for putting a load of chemtrails/contrails graphics in the sky in a random advertisement other than trying to manipulate people psycologically about what they see in the sky everyday.

(2) The focus of the viewer is on the flying glasses. The glasses follow the curve of the first chemtrail, then touch on both other chemtrails, then jump on the guys face, he looks up and smiles in amazement at what hes sees. Then the glasses the touch on 'Con', then skip to the other end of the sentence and touch on 'trial'. This is not silly chain of coincedences. This is carefully choreographed manover to scam your subconcious mind into thinking that what you are looking at is a contrail. The glasses are the catalyst of the manuver, flying around the screen distracting you, meanwhile saying to your subconcious "This, this and this are contrails". But ofc, it is not contrails, it is chemtrails.

I feel it is good to rant about this particular ad because its a smoking gun on the issue.

Spot on, again. It's a smoking gun alright, it proves intent and a level of sophistication which goes far beyond mere 'accident' - it's a perfect example of a psyops on action.

namloc1980 · 08-01-2010 1:43am

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Spot on, again. It's a smoking gun alright, it proves intent and a level of sophistication which goes far beyond mere 'accident' - it's a perfect example of a psyops on action.

What about the faked youtube video you posted? That is a smoking gun! Someone had little evidence for 'chemtrails' in cartoons so they faked it. It's pathetic. Of course if it was the government who faked a video in this manner the CT crowd would be all over it, but when it's a CT video that is faked it's conveniently ignored. :rolleyes:

uprising · 08-01-2010 1:50am

mcmoustache wrote: »

There's just no way an organisation so supposedly powerful would ever be dumb enough to do something this.

You can bury your head in the sand, live in lala land, but the truth will be waiting when you get over your bout of denial. Look at the evidence.

namloc1980 wrote: »

Again it's a stylised ad. What are we meant to think about the cartoon fish....is that another conspiracy?? Or the flying glasses.....the flying glasses conspiracy??

Do you 100% think there is absolutely nothing, could be nothing, was never nothing sprayed from airoplanes, because there's evidence which says it has happened, I say it still is happening.

mcmoustache · 08-01-2010 1:50am

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

They're faked? Ok, if you say so, I've personally no way of knowing. But what "chemtrail agenda" are you talking about, what agenda could somebody have to paint in chemtrails over the original skies?

I don't get it...

Jesus H Christ! The poster wished to demonstrate that the video was faked so he found a more original version without the chem-trails. That's pretty good evidence.

Also there are lots of reasons why people would have an agenda. Generating blog hits, selling books, geeky kids being geeky kids for three. Chem-trails are the new crop-circles.

uprising · 08-01-2010 1:52am

"The Ministry of Defence turned large parts of the country into a giant laboratory to conduct a series of secret germ warfare tests on the public.

A government report just released provides for the first time a comprehensive official history of Britain's biological weapons trials between 1940 and 1979.
Many of these tests involved releasing potentially dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms over vast swaths of the population without the public being told. While details of some secret trials have emerged in recent years, the 60-page report reveals new information about more than 100 covert experiments."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/apr/21/uk.medicalscience

Wake up and smell the coffee.

IrelandSpirit · 08-01-2010 1:53am

namloc1980 wrote: »

Open your eyes please! Look at the video I posted of the real Hedi show. There are no contrails, no 'chemtrails', just natural clouds. The video you posted has the 'chemtrails' pasted into the background by someone. If you can't see that or you choose not to see that then that's you're choice. But that is faked in the video in an attempt to show 'evidence' of 'chemtrails' in cartoons. Obviously the person who put this together was so desperate for evidence that they faked it. Pathetic.

Hey, hey, calm down! I do have my eyes open. And I'm prepared to admit they were faked, I was only asking who faked them, and what agenda you think somebody might have to fake them, that's all.

Are you sure that the original wasn't doctored later, and then shown on tv as a re-run with the chemtrails painted in?

Though as to your reasoning for it, "so desperate for evidence that they faked it. Pathetic"... hmmm, pathetic. There's a lot of evidence for chemtrails used in advertising and cartoons, that's what we've been talking about.Read Tetsudo's posts, for starters.

Tetsudo · 08-01-2010 1:56am

Nah, the fish is kool tbh. The real message is seen through the lense of the glasses all the way through the ad. Very symbolic also, since glasses represent your sight.

There are people in advert production that know things about the human mind that the rest of us dont.

namloc1980 · 08-01-2010 1:59am

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Hey, hey, calm down! I do have my eyes open. And I'm prepared to admit they were faked, I was only asking who faked them, and what agenda you think somebody might have to fake them, that's all.

Are you sure that the original wasn't doctored later, and then shown on tv as a re-run with the chemtrails painted in?

Though as to your reasoning for it, "so desperate for evidence that they faked it. Pathetic"... hmmm, pathetic. There's a lot of evidence for chemtrails used in advertising and cartoons, that's what we've been talking about.Read Tetsudo's posts, for starters.

It's clear that the video with the chemtrails is the fake version. It even has a big plane flying in the background in one image

. Also you can see the seams in the images where the original sky was cut out and the faked 'chemtrail' sky was pasted in. The agenda of course is to show that there are 'chemtrails' in children's cartoons and whoever put the video together faked the Hedi images as 'proof'.

I read Tetsudo's post and have already responded to it.

namloc1980 · 08-01-2010 2:02am

Tetsudo wrote: »

Nah, the fish is kool tbh. The real message is seen through the lense of the glasses all the way through the ad. Very symbolic also, since glasses represent your sight.

There are people in advert production that know things about the human mind that the rest of us dont.

It's a specsavers ad so it's pretty reasonable that the glasses are prominent in it. I can see the white lines in the sky but the entire scene in the ad is pretty crazy. Now if it was someone walking through a real park, with real fish and non-flying glasses and there was a shedload of 'chemtrails' in the sky fair enough. But in a stylised ad like this which is set in a bit of a crazy world I think you're reading too much into it.

IrelandSpirit · 08-01-2010 2:05am

Tetsudo wrote: »

Nah, the fish is kool tbh. The real message is seen through the lense of the glasses all the way through the ad. Very symbolic also, since glasses represent your sight.

There are people in advert production that hat the rest of us dont.

There are people in advertising and in the military who know do know how the human mind works, yes, the two go hand in glove since the WW2. The Nazi propaganda machine gave birth to modern concepts of advertising - they were obsessed with subliminal ('occult') imagery. When we look at pre-war adverts they are laughable, stone-age by comparison.

Chem trails

Comments