Chem trails

meglome · 05-02-2008 8:21pm

kippy wrote: »

Any chance of a few logical answers to my logical questions?
Any of the pictures posted here prove nothing in my opinion. If people were as well equipped with cameras in the 60's,70's,80's and as well equiped with a method of displaying photos I'd say you'd see the same type of cloud formations/contrails.
Kippy

Now now don't be asking for logic where none exists.

kippy · 05-02-2008 8:23pm

iezuit wrote: »

there is more than enough info available to go on, if you don't see there is a conspiracy then you simply haven't looked (or it raises other issues that you can confront yourself). Why don't you attempt to contact Tim White as a start off, if you are actually serious in learning if there is in fact such a conspiracy, he is one source who is very accessible, there are numerous others. I assume from your tone you aren't really interested in learning, if not then I don't know why you bothered replying.

Tim White?
Oh yeah, the dude who writes in caps and doesn't seem to be able string a coherent sentence together. Will mail him and see what he answers to my questions.

I am well interested in learning my friend however the only thing I have learned (so far) in this thread is that there are a lot of people who believe in this chemtrails theory yet who do NOTHING about it. Writing on an internet message board does little to help the situation. And writing on an internet message board without any solid facts/evidence/lack of wanting to answer the tough questions does little to convince other people that the theory is true.
In my opinion there are enough theorists here who don't really want to change their opinion/learn either.
Kippy

rigormortis · 07-02-2008 9:19pm

I assume the chemtrails I see outside constantly are those alluded to in the house of representatives bill, HR2977

http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2001/hr2977.html

meglome · 07-02-2008 9:45pm

rigormortis wrote: »

I assume the chemtrails I see outside constantly are those alluded to in the house of representatives bill, HR2977

http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2001/hr2977.html

Em... Isn't this bill banning any such thing?

rigormortis · 07-02-2008 10:47pm

meglome wrote: »

Em... Isn't this bill banning any such thing?

Lets hope so.

meglome · 08-02-2008 11:48am

rigormortis wrote: »

Lets hope so.

So we're saying if such a thing existed it's banned. So what's the issue then?

Kernel · 09-02-2008 4:23pm

Germany admits to spraying small amounts of a non-harmful substance (chemtrail).

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread332930/pg1

humanji · 09-02-2008 9:09pm

Kernel wrote: »

Germany admits to spraying small amounts of a non-harmful substance (chemtrail).

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread332930/pg1

I'll wait until an non-biased website reports it.

Kernel · 10-02-2008 11:13am

humanji wrote: »

I'll wait until an non-biased website reports it.

Above top secret would not be biased. It allows free discussion, and has a great collection of experts who analyse the information (with an open mind). Hoaxers never last long. Anyway, watch it on German prime-time television if you like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVc9GX5K_As

rigormortis · 11-02-2008 11:46am

Taken over north dublin 11/02/08. First picture taken 9.58am, second 10.15am, third 10.33 am. So we have 30+ minute contrails that gradually spread out?

oscarBravo · 11-02-2008 12:17pm

Yes. That's what contrails do.

Eero · 11-02-2008 12:38pm

Alright Guys,

Just back from 10 days in Germany. Getting sprayed like bugs.

2257013389_d11103ce89.jpg?v=0

Eero

oscarBravo · 11-02-2008 1:40pm

More pictures of contrails and clouds. What a surprise.

meglome · 11-02-2008 4:48pm

Lads I'm really at a loss for how these pictures are showing Chemtrails. I used to live near Dublin airport when I was younger and every day planes would take off, fly right over our house (low) and leave contrails exactly like these behind. These were mostly ordinary Aer Lingus passenger planes and you could clearly see this. To dump large amounts of chemicals into the air from a plane (however ridiculously inefficient this would be), this plane would need to be a tanker. I can't say I ever saw a tanker fly overhead in the ten years we lived there. I can't see the point in posting pictures of contrails and clouds when you don't show any proof that they are anything but. And if there were planes spraying us would they leave the exact same vapour formations behind as every other plane, which is what your pictures are showing. And one last point, I'm the healthiest person you'll ever meet I don't even get colds and yet I lived directly under this for ten years, weird eh?

rigormortis · 11-02-2008 5:01pm

meglome wrote: »

Lads I'm really at a loss for how these pictures are showing Chemtrails.

It is often remarkable how those (not naming anyone in particular) receiving government grants, in the face of conclusive evidence, still deny the existence of certain activities.

rigormortis · 11-02-2008 5:07pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

More pictures of contrails and clouds. What a surprise.

A 30+ minute condensation trail? The reason I posted 3 pictures was to show that these were not clouds. The progression from chemical trail to gradual dispersion to the appearance of a cloud can be seen.

meglome · 11-02-2008 5:09pm

rigormortis wrote: »

It is often remarkable how those (not naming anyone in particular) receiving government grants, in the face of conclusive evidence, still deny the existence of certain activities.

I'll quote my last post here

meglome wrote: »

Lads I'm really at a loss for how these pictures are showing Chemtrails. I used to live near Dublin airport when I was younger and every day planes would take off, fly right over our house (low) and leave contrails exactly like these behind. These were mostly ordinary Aer Lingus passenger planes and you could clearly see this. To dump large amounts of chemicals into the air from a plane (however ridiculously inefficient this would be), this plane would need to be a tanker. I can't say I ever saw a tanker fly overhead in the ten years we lived there. I can't see the point in posting pictures of contrails and clouds when you don't show any proof that they are anything but. And if there were planes spraying us would they leave the exact same vapour formations behind as every other plane, which is what your pictures are showing. And one last point, I'm the healthiest person you'll ever meet I don't even get colds and yet I lived directly under this for ten years, weird eh?

How about not implying some sort of additional non existent conspiracy and rather addressing the fact that these pictures you're posting show exactly what every jet plane leaves behind.

And in case there's any clarity needed I can categorically state that I have never received a government grant of any kind for any reason.

meglome · 11-02-2008 5:12pm

rigormortis wrote: »

A 30+ minute condensation trail? The reason I posted 3 pictures was to show that these were not clouds. The progression from chemical trail to gradual dispersion to the appearance of a cloud can be seen.

So clouds only take 30+ minutes to appear/disperse? I think some of our meteorologists would be fascinated to hear this.

rigormortis · 11-02-2008 5:16pm

meglome wrote: »

So clouds only take 30+ minutes to appear/disperse. I think some of our meteorologists would be fascinated to hear this.

What are you talking about? Note the word "appearance".

rigormortis · 11-02-2008 5:22pm

meglome wrote: »

How about not implying some sort of additional non existent conspiracy and rather addressing the fact that these pictures you're posting show exactly what every jet plane leaves behind.

You must not be the observant kind. Only a small minority of planes leave behind a condensation trail, the conditions must be correct. I have seen planes flying virtually side by side, one leaving a huge chemtrail, similar to that shown in my image and the other leaving no trail whatsoever. As for a condensation trail lasting for periods of over 30 seconds, I have yet to see this phenomenon.

meglome · 11-02-2008 5:22pm

rigormortis wrote: »

What are you talking about? Note the word "appearance".

Em clouds appear... hot air meets cold air etc? Also you're still not addressing my point, every single jet plane leaves these contrails behind, exactly like the pictures you're showing. So your pictures show nothing of note whatsoever.

rigormortis · 11-02-2008 5:25pm

meglome wrote: »

Em clouds appear... hot air meets cold air etc? Also you're still not addressing my point, every single jet plane leaves these contrails behind, exactly like the pictures you're showing. So your pictures show nothing of note whatsoever.

Patience. See my post above (221).

meglome · 11-02-2008 5:25pm

rigormortis wrote: »

You must not be the observant kind. Only a small minority of planes leave behind a condensation trail, the conditions must be correct. I have seen planes flying virtually side by side, one leaving a huge chemtrail, similar to that shown in my image and the other leaving no trail whatsoever. As for a condensation trail lasting for periods of over 30 seconds, I have yet to see this phenomenon.

Ah give me a break I lived right under a flight path for ten years. And you're showing me exactly what I saw all that time. In practice not every plane will leave a contrail every time but they all will some of the time, obviously depending on the conditions, altitude etc.

rigormortis · 11-02-2008 5:27pm

meglome wrote: »

In practice not every plane will leave a contrail every time but they all will some of the time, obviously depending on the conditions, altitude etc.

Yes I agree with this. However when has a condensation trail lasted for a period of a few minutes, never mind for hours?

meglome · 11-02-2008 5:28pm

rigormortis wrote: »

Yes I agree with this. However when has a condensation trail lasted for a period of a few minutes, never mind for hours?

Yes they are clouds afterall, so depending on the conditions they will.

rigormortis · 11-02-2008 5:35pm

meglome wrote: »

Yes they are clouds afterall, so depending on the conditions they will.

Two planes are flying at roughly the same altitude, at the same time and in very close proximity, one leaving a trail and one not. Maybe you can explain this?

meglome · 11-02-2008 5:35pm

rigormortis wrote: »

Two planes are flying at roughly the same altitude, at the same time and in very close proximity, one leaving a trail and one not. Maybe you can explain this?

You answered this yourself, "roughly the same altitude".

rigormortis · 11-02-2008 5:41pm

meglome wrote: »

You answered this yourself, "roughly the same altitude".

Yeah, I could see that response a mile away. I would imagine that a couple of hundred feet at heights of 30,000 feet would make a world of difference altogether.

meglome · 11-02-2008 5:53pm

rigormortis wrote: »

Yeah, I could see that response a mile away. I would imagine that a couple of hundred feet at heights of 30,000 feet would make a world of difference altogether.

Well its the obvious flaw in what you're saying so fine. The point is you don't actually know what height either plane was at, or what speed they were travelling at, or what type of plane it was. There's no way to be sure from the ground, they could have had 5,000 feet between them. You're just showing pictures of contrails/clouds and have shown no proof whatsoever they're anything else.

rigormortis · 11-02-2008 6:50pm

meglome wrote: »

Well its the obvious flaw in what you're saying so fine. The point is you don't actually know what height either plane was at, or what speed they were travelling at, or what type of plane it was. There's no way to be sure from the ground, they could have had 5,000 feet between them. You're just showing pictures of contrails/clouds and have shown no proof whatsoever they're anything else.

True, and if I get shot from behind, I dont know the the velocity of the bullet, the piece which fired the bullet, the angle of the bullet, the caliber of the bullet, the person firing the bullet, their date of birth and so on.

Should I then ignore the bullet that ripped through my leg, for example.

I am not a product of the Irish education system maybe you can enlighten me on something. At what point did everyone leave the deliberation and decision making process to their betters? If chemtrails were mentioned in tomorrows paper we would have an influx of the "I have been telling people for ages, I knew something was up" gang. This is beyond debate for those with a working mind. The time of schoolboy arguments has long since passed.

Eero · 11-02-2008 7:17pm

More photos, it started off with a bright blue sky in the morning, they the guys got to work, laying down a lot of chemtrails. These lasted until after 1 then eventually fell to the ground, leaving a clear sky again. Around 4 (after refilling their tanks??) they were back at it laying down so massive chemtrails.

2257775191_8bf943798f.jpg?v=0

Eero

oscarBravo · 11-02-2008 7:19pm

rigormortis wrote: »

It is often remarkable how those (not naming anyone in particular) receiving government grants, in the face of conclusive evidence, still deny the existence of certain activities.

What government grants are you talking about? Straight answer now, y'hear?

oscarBravo · 11-02-2008 7:20pm

Eero wrote: »

These lasted until after 1 then eventually fell to the ground, leaving a clear sky again.

Got pictures of them "[falling] to the ground", have you?

rigormortis · 11-02-2008 7:22pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

What government grants are you talking about? Straight answer now, y'hear?

I know of a number of acquaintances who would sooner die than say a word against their masters. These people have accepted grants for research, mainly in the scientific field. Just my personal observations.

meglome · 11-02-2008 8:47pm

rigormortis wrote: »

I know of a number of acquaintances who would sooner die than say a word against their masters. These people have accepted grants for research, mainly in the scientific field. Just my personal observations.

What the hell are you taking about? I can only assume if someone disagrees with you they must have an agenda? other than a reality check.

rigormortis wrote: »

True, and if I get shot from behind, I dont know the the velocity of the bullet, the piece which fired the bullet, the angle of the bullet, the caliber of the bullet, the person firing the bullet, their date of birth and so on.

Should I then ignore the bullet that ripped through my leg, for example.

If we were talking about the possibility of you getting shot with a new type of gun which we wanted to prove, then those questions would need to be asked. You are stating these pictures show chemtrails but you have no proof whatsoever other than you want to believe it. I'll repeat this one more time... I lived under the flight path of the main runway at Dublin Airport and the pictures you're posting look exactly like the skies I saw for ten years?!?!? You are showing me how the sky should look when jets pass over nothing more. Why am I still so healthy, I should be near deaths door at this point?

rigormortis wrote: »

I am not a product of the Irish education system maybe you can enlighten me on something. At what point did everyone leave the deliberation and decision making process to their betters? If chemtrails were mentioned in tomorrows paper we would have an influx of the "I have been telling people for ages, I knew something was up" gang. This is beyond debate for those with a working mind. The time of schoolboy arguments has long since passed.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I was taught to question but never to believe, without checking, any old crap that someone decides to feed me as truth. In fact I'm a cynic but being cynical is very different to being paranoid which I see a lot of in here.

Gordon · 12-02-2008 12:12am

rigormortis wrote: »

Two planes are flying at roughly the same altitude, at the same time and in very close proximity, one leaving a trail and one not. Maybe you can explain this?

Are you honestly saying that you saw two planes at heights of 30,000 feet and could tell that they were 200 feet apart in altitude (ie: one is higher than the other)?

Have you seen this picture before?
Two_Airplane_Optical_Illusion.ashx

Gordon · 13-02-2008 12:23am

rigormortis wrote: »

Taken over north dublin 11/02/08. First picture taken 9.58am, second 10.15am, third 10.33 am. So we have 30+ minute contrails that gradually spread out?

Just to correct you there, and you aren't out by much but here are the actual times that those images were taken for transparency:

First image @ 10:06
Second image @ 10:14
Third image @ 10:27

21 minutes apart.

Oh, and you have altered the zoom setting for the third image which is why it looks like it could even be a different part of the sky.

rigormortis · 13-02-2008 10:48am

Gordon wrote: »

Just to correct you there, and you aren't out by much but here are the actual times that those images were taken for transparency:

First image @ 10:06
Second image @ 10:14
Third image @ 10:27

21 minutes apart.

Oh, and you have altered the zoom setting for the third image which is why it looks like it could even be a different part of the sky.

Yeah, I was looking for that information. How to you get it?, the camera will not allow me to imbed on the photo itself. As for the time and zoom, I have about 20 images over about an hour with different zooms. I also have videos, however it takes about 2 days to upload a few minutes to youtube. Forgot the camera yesterday, more pictures will be shown today.

Anyway, point backed up by the man. 21+ minute condensation trails, gradually spreading out, anyone have an explanation?

oscarBravo · 13-02-2008 10:57am

Yes. They're contrails. They do that. They've always done that.

Zulu · 13-02-2008 11:51am

rigormortis wrote: »

anyone have an explanation?

I sure do! Our government is investing billions into a huge undercover scheme to slowly poison us. I know it sounds a bit whacky, but they've been training a secret group within the air corp to pilot massive spraying tankers. These tankers where secretly bought from the US and imported into Shannon by the american army.
The government has agents in the airports authority naturally and air traffic control, so these flights are completely unaccounted for and covered up, and the planes are stored in a top secret complex of hangers hidden in Baldonnel, Dublin and Shannon airports.
The reason the government are doing this is so we'll all spend more money on healthcare, in particular the VHI (didn't you wonder why there is so much uproar over the VHI not being competitive???) That's also wh the government aren't spending these billions on the healthcare system here. Wake up people it's all a big scam so we'll spend more on big business.
Those pesky fat cats are at it again!!!!!

meglome · 13-02-2008 2:41pm

Zulu wrote: »

I sure do! Our government is investing billions into a huge undercover scheme to slowly poison us. I know it sounds a bit whacky, but they've been training a secret group within the air corp to pilot massive spraying tankers. These tankers where secretly bought from the US and imported into Shannon by the american army.
The government has agents in the airports authority naturally and air traffic control, so these flights are completely unaccounted for and covered up, and the planes are stored in a top secret complex of hangers hidden in Baldonnel, Dublin and Shannon airports.
The reason the government are doing this is so we'll all spend more money on healthcare, in particular the VHI (didn't you wonder why there is so much uproar over the VHI not being competitive???) That's also wh the government aren't spending these billions on the healthcare system here. Wake up people it's all a big scam so we'll spend more on big business.
Those pesky fat cats are at it again!!!!!

My sarcasm sense is tingling.

meglome · 13-02-2008 2:42pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes. They're contrails. They do that. They've always done that.

I keep saying this to you rigormortis they are exactly what you'd expect from contrails, nothing more. Are you going to keep going on with this fantasy?

rigormortis · 13-02-2008 3:27pm

meglome wrote: »

Are you going to keep going on with this fantasy?

What? are you suggesting the thread should be locked based on your personal opinions.

This is something I never understood, why do people attack subjects such as chemtrails, if they personally believe the problem does not exist.

I don't comment on aliens, I think the whole thing is a hoax, however i will not attack others who do believe. Let them believe what they wish because I know that the subject will not have a personal effect on me personally.

People here seem intend on "shattering" the personal opinions of myself and others, why bother?

oscarBravo · 13-02-2008 6:22pm

Speaking for myself, it's to satisfy my personal curiosity as to what drives someone to believe something without any evidence whatsoever.

Before you counter that, your photographs don't constitute evidence of anything whatsoever other than airplanes.

rigormortis · 13-02-2008 6:34pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Speaking for myself, it's to satisfy my personal curiosity as to what drives someone to believe something without any evidence whatsoever.

Before you counter that, your photographs don't constitute evidence of anything whatsoever other than airplanes.

You see I have perceptions, senses. I tend to put these into action, and the logical conclusion is that a widespread chemical spraying operation has been undertaken. Not everyone has to be lead by the media, although the majority are. You yourself seem to have far from a personal curiosity about others. Rather you seem to use any possible reason to silence the opinions of others.

Can you not accept other opinions? What is it with the conspiracy forum. People seem to have an intense interest in the various topics, why? Most of the other sheep happily post away in the sports forum. Why not let the crazy people debate away.

I am yet to hear of a non majority opinion from yourself, with the exception of your opposition to voting machines.

oscarBravo · 13-02-2008 6:58pm

rigormortis wrote: »

You see I have perceptions, senses. I tend to put these into action, and the logical conclusion is that a widespread chemical spraying operation has been undertaken.

Senses alone are not enough to inform you completely about the world. You also need to engage your rational faculties, and check the evidence presented to you by your senses.

For example: you look up and see vapour trails in the sky. Based on this - and only on this, by your own admission, you conclude that there is a widespread evil plot to spray everyone with chemicals. You don't seem too bothered about trying to figure out who and why, but let's leave that aside for a second.

I look up and see vapour trails in the sky. Based on my (less than encyclopaedic, but reasonably detailed) knowledge of aviation and meteorology, I conclude that they are contrails left by jet aircraft. Why? Because they look and behave exactly like contrails do and have always done. That's my perceptions and senses at work.

Then I read about "chemtrails" here. It's an interesting concept, so I've looked into the idea. There is no evidence whatsoever for it. There are dozens of websites bedecked with photographs of contrails and altocumulus clouds, and some poorly-researched and badly-reasoned stories about barium.

The logical conclusion is that there are no chemtrails. A plot of such magnitude, carried out brazenly in public view, couldn't reasonably be kept secret, and would (by definition) leave vast quantities of evidence. No such evidence exists.

Having concluded this, I'm curious about what leads other people to arrive at a different conclusion. I'm still at a loss, because those who appear to believe most strongly in the idea are the most coy about actually producing anything resembling evidence or reason.

rigormortis wrote: »

You yourself seem to have far from a personal curiosity about others. Rather you seem to use any possible reason to silence the opinions of others.

I don't know what you mean by this, and - true to form - you haven't explained (nor do I expect you to) what you mean.

Are you talking about the fact that I've banned several of your incarnations from the forums I moderate?

rigormortis wrote: »

Can you not accept other opinions? What is it with the conspiracy forum. People seem to have an intense interest in the various topics, why? Most of the other sheep happily post away in the sports forum. Why not let the crazy people debate away.

I don't see any reason to accept an ill-informed, badly-reasoned opinion as having the same validity as my own.

rigormortis wrote: »

I am yet to hear of a non majority opinion from yourself, with the exception of your opposition to voting machines.

Another case where I combined my existing knowledge with research into a subject, and arrived at a conclusion that I can logically justify.

You should try it some time.

rigormortis · 13-02-2008 7:05pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

. You don't seem too bothered about trying to figure out who and why, but let's leave that aside for a second.

I am presently looking very deeply into the area. I have written many government organisations, e mailed and phoned. As for evidence, you and others like you require a BBC reference before anything is believed.

oscarBravo wrote: »

.
I don't know what you mean by this, and - true to form - you haven't explained (nor do I expect you to) what you mean.

Are you talking about the fact that I've banned several of your incarnations from the forums I moderate?

Got it in one. The society ban yesterday seemed totally unjustified. But true to my word I have avoided all controversy.

Gordon · 13-02-2008 7:07pm

rigormortis wrote: »

Yeah, I was looking for that information. How to you get it?, the camera will not allow me to imbed on the photo itself. As for the time and zoom, I have about 20 images over about an hour with different zooms. I also have videos, however it takes about 2 days to upload a few minutes to youtube. Forgot the camera yesterday, more pictures will be shown today.

Anyway, point backed up by the man. 21+ minute condensation trails, gradually spreading out, anyone have an explanation?

It's automatically embedded into the photo. It's called EXIF data, can be found in image programs like Photoshop for example.

rigormortis · 13-02-2008 7:08pm

Gordon wrote: »

It's automatically embedded into the photo. It's called EXIF data, can be found in image programs like Photoshop for example.

Yeah I knew what it was called, extracting it proved to be the problem. I'll have a look into it.

oscarBravo · 13-02-2008 7:13pm

rigormortis wrote: »

I am presently looking very deeply into the area. I have written many government organisations, e mailed and phoned. As for evidence, you and others like you require a BBC reference before anything is believed.

Didn't take long to take the discussion ad hominem.

rigormortis wrote: »

Got it in one. The society ban yesterday seemed totally unjustified. But true to my word I have avoided all controversy.

That's a bare-faced lie. Your original ban from Green Issues was for posting conspiracy theories there. You re-registered to evade the ban, for which site policy is to siteban both accounts. You were given a chance by DeVore, which you squandered by...

(drumroll please, maestro)

...posting conspiracy theories in Green Issues.

There are lots of people on this forum I disagree with, and who are not banned from Soc or Politics.

Chem trails

Comments