CHEMTRAILS

Monty Burnz · 29-06-2011 02:03PM

lolo62 wrote: »

good questions! i cant answer those questions (and neither can anyone else) but it doesnt stop there for me and i cant simplify all of the evidence down using that kind of rationale

Fair enough. But that kind of rationale is usually where I would start with a problem like this: is it plausible?

To be plausible;

1. It has to be possible - is it physically, scientifically possible?
2. There has to be someone who wants it done
3. It has to be possible to be done in secret
4. There has to be a good reason why it would be kept secret
5. There has to be someone in a position to get it done, with all these restrictions in mind.

These are the sort of common-sense questions I approach any CT with. If the CT fails any on one of them, then you can more-or-less rule it out.

lolo62 wrote: »

from the research i have done it seems there are projects within the us military that the president/head of cia arent allowed access to....do you believe this to be true?

I don't know if it's true, but I do find it plausible that there are projects that the Pres and other agencies are not aware of.

Looking at this CT in the light of my common-sense test above:

1. It has to be possible - is it physically, scientifically possible? YES
2. There has to be someone who wants it done MAYBE
3. It has to be possible to be done in secret NO
4. There has to be a good reason why it would be kept secret NO?
5. There has to be someone in a position to get it done, with all these restrictions in mind. NO

lolo62 · 29-06-2011 03:22PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Fair enough. But that kind of rationale is usually where I would start with a problem like this: is it plausible?

To be plausible;

1. It has to be possible - is it physically, scientifically possible?
2. There has to be someone who wants it done
3. It has to be possible to be done in secret
4. There has to be a good reason why it would be kept secret
5. There has to be someone in a position to get it done, with all these restrictions in mind.

These are the sort of common-sense questions I approach any CT with. If the CT fails any on one of them, then you can more-or-less rule it out.

I don't know if it's true, but I do find it plausible that there are projects that the Pres and other agencies are not aware of.

Looking at this CT in the light of my common-sense test above:

1. It has to be possible - is it physically, scientifically possible? YES
2. There has to be someone who wants it done MAYBE
3. It has to be possible to be done in secret NO
4. There has to be a good reason why it would be kept secret NO?
5. There has to be someone in a position to get it done, with all these restrictions in mind. NO

thanks for that...its really interesting to see the methods you use.
i have to say though the ones you have answered no to are just your opinions...you cant prove them to be true.

RICHEE · 30-06-2011 12:09PM

Im not posting to enter into an argument with anyone, just to say that I have been following the chemtrail story for a while now and every few weeks it happens over kerry, the place is fu**in covered with chemtrails today, parallel trails all over the sky,

The last time I saw it happening 1 plane was leaving a chemtrail and at a certain point it started to leave a normal contrail, 20 mins later another plane flew parallel to the first chemtrail and resumed having a normal contrail at approx the same position, the chemtrails spread out over a massive area and lasted all evening, when I woke up the next morning the whole sky was covered in a milky ****e for the rest of the day,
the path of the chemtrails could clearly be seen.

This is the third time I have seen it happening, the first time the planes that were leaving the chemtrails seemed to be climbing after departing from shannon airport

30-06-2011 12:20PM

RICHEE wrote: »

The last time I saw it happening 1 plane was leaving a chemtrail and at a certain point it started to leave a normal contrail,

How do you tell the difference?

Monty Burnz · 30-06-2011 12:36PM

RICHEE wrote: »

The last time I saw it happening 1 plane was leaving a chemtrail and at a certain point it started to leave a normal contrail, 20 mins later another plane flew parallel to the first chemtrail and resumed having a normal contrail at approx the same position, the chemtrails spread out over a massive area and lasted all evening, when I woke up the next morning the whole sky was covered in a milky ****e for the rest of the day,
the path of the chemtrails could clearly be seen.

Can't you see that this is evidence that the phenomenon is natural? As the planes fly through more moisture-laded air, the low-pressure air over the wings condenses the water out of the atmosphere, basically trailing a cloud behind it. When it's in a part of the sky with less moisture, it stops. Two random planes at the same altitude, passing through the same stretch of sky, will hit the same patch of moist air.

Or is there a more likely explanation for this on/off effect that involves a global conspiracy?

RICHEE · 30-06-2011 01:18PM

A great documentary called "WHAT IN THE WORLD ARE THEY SPRAYING" should be watched by all, it contains hard scientific facts about chemtrails and whats going on.

Your explanation in the previous post is discussed in the documentary and dismissed as it can only happen at certain temperatures and dosen't explain the consistent presence
of chemtrails

30-06-2011 01:24PM

RICHEE wrote: »

A great documentary called "WHAT IN THE WORLD ARE THEY SPRAYING" should be watched by all, it contains hard scientific facts about chemtrails and whats going on.

No it doesn't. Not by any stretch of the words.

RICHEE · 30-06-2011 01:31PM

Just started to post on this thread to let people know what I observed,
not to get into any major discussion or argument.

take care all

30-06-2011 01:36PM

RICHEE wrote: »

Just started to post on this thread to let people know what I observed,
not to get into any major discussion or argument.

take care all

Yea, if you got into an argument you might have to examine what you believe.
And we can't have that on a discussion forum...

Monty Burnz · 30-06-2011 02:30PM

RICHEE wrote: »

A great documentary called "WHAT IN THE WORLD ARE THEY SPRAYING" should be watched by all, it contains hard scientific facts about chemtrails and whats going on.

Your explanation in the previous post is discussed in the documentary and dismissed as it can only happen at certain temperatures and dosen't explain the consistent presence
of chemtrails

The 'documentary maker' starts out by interviewing what he describes as his favourite documentary maker, a guy called G. Edward Griffin. This guy is clearly a model or mentor for him. So what do we know about Mr. Griffin?

Well, he found Noah's Ark in Turkey. Marvellous. He believes in the whole Noah's Ark fairytale. And he also is a proponent of a quack theory about how cancer is caused, and sold a book called 'World Without Cancer'.

Griffin founded The Cancer Cure Foundation "in December of 1976 as a non-profit organization dedicated to research and education in alternative cancer therapies".

But it seems that 35 years later, he still hasn't a shred of proof about his theory. Odd.

So this documentary has been made by a guy who models himself on another guy who has some 'out there' beliefs. Not that inspiring of confidence.

I'm not going to do a blow-by-blow critique of the film (I'm just looking for the bit where they deal with the massive logistical problems this CT involves) but a few things have jumped out at me while I skim through it. At 41.40 in this video the lady states that the air around her is 39,000 ppm aluminium. If you stop and think for a second, that means that she is claiming that the atmosphere where she lives is .4% solid metal. I think that you'd notice that without any fancy-schmancy tests, wouldn't you? You probably wouldn't be able to see your hand in front of your face. So something doesn't stack up there either.
Edit: I looked into this a little more and it's a reasonable assumption that this claimed atmospheric aluminium does not exist in a pure form, it exists as aluminium oxide. Aluminium oxide is composed of 2 aluminium atoms and 3 oxygen atoms. This would mean that the woman is claiming with her chart that the atmosphere around her is over 1% aluminium oxide. Total nonsense. You can read about the health effects of breathing aluminium oxide here.

Ok, back to the video to look for how they dismiss the huge common-sense logistical problems regarding this massive conspiracy...

Monty Burnz · 30-06-2011 02:59PM

RICHEE wrote: »

A great documentary called "WHAT IN THE WORLD ARE THEY SPRAYING" should be watched by all, it contains hard scientific facts about chemtrails and whats going on.

Your explanation in the previous post is discussed in the documentary and dismissed as it can only happen at certain temperatures and dosen't explain the consistent presence of chemtrails

Um, I've finished the documentary and I don't know if you deliberately misled me, but there was no mention of my explanation at all. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

Not only that - there was not a single piece of contrary evidence, and not a single dissenting view was expressed. No attempt was made to explain who would be behind this (other than vauge references to the rich and powerful, and references to genetic engineering of seed crops). No explanation was attempted of how this would be organised. No attempt was made to explain how it could be carried out in secret. No attempt was made to explain the mechanics of how these 'chemtrails' were generated by the planes.

It's an exercise in pure propaganda. The show has more holes than all the Swiss cheese on the planet. A total load of rubbish. If you are interested in a serious investigation of the theory, you won't find it there.

ed2hands · 30-06-2011 07:46PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The 'documentary maker' starts out by interviewing what he describes as his favourite documentary maker, a guy called G. Edward Griffin. This guy is clearly a model or mentor for him. So what do we know about Mr. Griffin?

Well, he found Noah's Ark in Turkey. Marvellous. He believes in the whole Noah's Ark fairytale. And he also is a proponent of a quack theory about how cancer is caused, and sold a book called 'World Without Cancer'. But it seems that 35 years later, he still hasn't a shred of proof about his theory. Odd.

So this documentary has been made by a guy who models himself on another guy who has some 'out there' beliefs. Not that inspiring of confidence.

I'm not going to do a blow-by-blow critique of the film (I'm just looking for the bit where they deal with the massive logistical problems this CT involves) but a few things have jumped out at me while I skim through it. At 41.40 in this video the lady states that the air around her is 39,000 ppm aluminium. If you stop and think for a second, that means that she is claiming that the atmosphere where she lives is .4% solid metal. I think that you'd notice that without any fancy-schmancy tests, wouldn't you? You probably wouldn't be able to see your hand in front of your face. So something doesn't stack up there either.
Edit: I looked into this a little more and it's a reasonable assumption that this claimed atmospheric aluminium does not exist in a pure form, it exists as aluminium oxide. Aluminium oxide is composed of 2 aluminium atoms and 3 oxygen atoms. This would mean that the woman is claiming with her chart that the atmosphere around her is over 1% aluminium oxide. Total nonsense. You can read about the health effects of breathing aluminium oxide here.

Ok, back to the video to look for how they dismiss the huge common-sense logistical problems regarding this massive conspiracy...

I've tried to get through this thread before a few times, but sort of lost interest after a few pages (no disresperct to the previous posters, it's just so long!!

). First of all to state that i'm still in the skeptical camp about this like yourself, and l admire your intrepid skills of looking at it as stated in your methods above. I haven't yet seen that movie so am not obviously going to comment on it's contents.

Just a few quick thoughts on the Chemtrails conspiracy, your post and firstly G. Edward Griffin and a few links at the end for you or someone else to get their teeth into and give their opinions on:

You said:
"The 'documentary maker' starts out by interviewing what he describes as his favourite documentary maker, a guy called G. Edward Griffin. This guy is clearly a model or mentor for him. So what do we know about Mr. Griffin?

Well, he found Noah's Ark in Turkey. Marvellous. He believes in the whole Noah's Ark fairytale. And he also is a proponent of a quack theory about how cancer is caused, and sold a book called 'World Without Cancer'."

I'm sorry now, (and this is just my personal opinion it goes without saying

) The Noah's Ark stuff he got into i feel was based on much good evidence at the time and was based in itself on other research. (By the way, am with Wiggs on the Atlantis theory and also Graham Hancocks theory as espoused in his awesome doc "Quest for the Lost Civilisation").

As for Griffins investigations into cancer, his stance on it is that it may be deficiency-related is valid for me, but his championing of Vitamin B16 as a possible cure is not something i want to associate myself with as such based on the evidence i've seen.
He and others espoused possible cures and started to look into this in the '70s and probably i suspect in response to the still unquestioning over-reliance on the Pharma/Medical industry (drug salesmen) to solve every ill. He was not alone in championing nutrition as a basic starting point and has some strong opinions on how nutrition has been ignored by the industry in favour of pill-popping profiteering.

What Griffin is most famous for is his work on The Fed, and his book "The Creature from Jekyll Island" is widely acclaimed as a bible on the subject.
He was a trail-blazer for the whole issue back in the day.

Am going to get rebuttal by some for all this no doubt...

Anyway!

. Just on Chemtrails (or lack thereof).

You won't see me agruing for it on this thread bar this response, as am with you on it for the moment. In saying that, there's no doubt that Geo-Engineering using aircraft is not a new concept and has been widely discussed by many institutions (links below). But of course there is a big difference between discussion and implementation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/13/geoengineering-coalition-world-climate

http://royalsociety.org/Stop-emitting-CO2-or-geoengineering-could-be-our-only-hope/http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/library/research%201970-2009/16%20Geoengineering%20Active%20Climate%20Stabilization%20-%20Teller%202002.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsWpSPBwA-w

WakeUp · 19-08-2011 04:49AM

This is an incredible video and very brave for this man to speak out in such a way. Nikola Aleksic, Director of the Ecological Movement of Novi Sad, issues a direct warning to Serbian President Boris Tadic and the Serbian government to stop the spraying of chemtrails in Serbian skies or he will call and personally lead the people of Serbia out onto the streets. He has also called for the Serbia army to defend the skies above Serbia. Fair play this man has balls.

Monty Burnz · 19-08-2011 09:51AM

WakeUp wrote: »

This is an incredible video and very brave for this man to speak out in such a way. Nikola Aleksic, Director of the Ecological Movement of Novi Sad, issues a direct warning to Serbian President Boris Tadic and the Serbian government to stop the spraying of chemtrails in Serbian skies or he will call and personally lead the people of Serbia out onto the streets. He has also called for the Serbia army to defend the skies above Serbia. Fair play this man has balls.

A few points:

1. How do we know the subtitles tally with what he is saying?
2. Why should we believe he isn't deluded, mentally ill, politically motivated (perhaps a puppet of the Serbian Masons) etc.?
3. Even if he believes what he is saying, why should we believe him any more than we believe the CTers on this forum who claim 'Chemtrails' are a fact?

Edit: In my opinion he's just some nutter sitting in front of some flags who has been watching too much guff on Youtube, and has a preoccupation with 'the biggest felonious organisation in the world' (which he never names).

jackiebaron · 19-08-2011 10:13AM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

A few points:

1. How do we know the subtitles tally with what he is saying?
2. Why should we believe he isn't deluded, mentally ill, politically motivated (perhaps a puppet of the Serbian Masons) etc.?
3. Even if he believes what he is saying, why should we believe him any more than we believe the CTers on this forum who claim 'Chemtrails' are a fact?

Edit: In my opinion he's just some nutter sitting in front of some flags who has been watching too much guff on Youtube, and has a preoccupation with 'the biggest felonious organisation in the world' (which he never names).

I don't buy into the whole chemtrail malarkey and I agree with you Monty that we don't know anything about this guy. Certainly need to get someone who speak his language to check the veracity of the subtitles. But I wish people would stop using that term "CTer". It's a defensive snub the same way as lazy-minded people dismiss environmentalists as tree-huggers or critics of Israel as anti-Semites (even though they have no clue what semitism is).

Anyway if the powers that be wanted to poison us all why would they use planes? Surely it would have been easier and cheaper to just strap a few gas canisters onto the car that did the Google streetview thing :pac:

Monty Burnz · 19-08-2011 10:30AM

jackiebaron wrote: »

But I wish people would stop using that term "CTer". It's a defensive snub the same way as lazy-minded people dismiss environmentalists as tree-huggers or critics of Israel as anti-Semites (even though they have no clue what semitism is).

I see what you mean, but when I use the term 'CTer' I mean the people who believe most or all CTs, rather than discriminating between those that make a good case and those that are clearly impossible.

We all know that many conspiracy theories have been proven correct over history, but most have not - and we've never had so many theories.

So I don't consider some who thinks that 9/11 was a hoax as a 'CTer' by my definition, but someone who also believes the moon landings were faked, the Illuminati rule the world, the world is ending in 2012, and chemtrails exist (or another large cocktail of CTs) is a CTer for my money.

WakeUp · 19-08-2011 10:56AM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

A few points:

1. How do we know the subtitles tally with what he is saying?
2. Why should we believe he isn't deluded, mentally ill, politically motivated (perhaps a puppet of the Serbian Masons) etc.?
3. Even if he believes what he is saying, why should we believe him any more than we believe the CTers on this forum who claim 'Chemtrails' are a fact?

For a start nobody is asking you to belive anything if you want to believe he is "deluded" or "mentally ill" or whatever or telling the truth thats fine knock yourself out. I cant prove he isnt "deluded" no more than you can prove that he is. I dont care what you believe to be honest Monty the video is pertinent to the thread and thats why I posted it, up to you what you make of it. Ive seen you mention delusion and make references to the mental state of people before on other threads and its weak at best, unless of course youre qualified to make such statements?? If you are not qualified then you are in no position at all to pass judgement on the mental state of anybody and are purely speculating from a position of total ignorance with regard to the mental state of another person. I dont see any political gain myself that this man could make from making such a claim maybe you could point one out for me if you see one yourself. This guy represents a recognised organisation of which he is the director who has had run ins with the Serbian government before. I dont speak Serbian so I have to take the translation at face value until given a reason not too which I havent come across yet. I see no reason for the translation to be false and Ive searched to see if indeed anyone has made such a claim but as of yet Ive found nothing. When somebody makes such a statement from an organisation thats involved in eco and environmental issues I think it at least deserves to be looked at and should not be dismissed outright as just being some "delusional" rant or some other weak & ignorant description. Again nobody is asking you to believe anything believe what you like.

Edit: In my opinion he's just some nutter sitting in front of some flags who has been watching too much guff on Youtube, and has a preoccupation with 'the biggest felonious organisation in the world' (which he never names).

Youre entitled to that opinion of course but how do you know he is a nutter?.

Monty Burnz · 19-08-2011 11:26AM

WakeUp wrote: »

Youre entitled to that opinion of course but how do you know he is a nutter?.

I don't know he's a nutter - I believe he is. Why? Because there still isn't a single shred of evidence for 'chemtrails', nor does he offer any. If he had any new 'information' or evidence pertaining to Serbia, I'm pretty sure he would have mentioned it - but there's nothing.

I could ask a Serb friend to have a look at it and ask what he thinks, I'll do it if I find the time.

And I wasn't criticising you for posting it, not in the slightest - you are right, it's 100% relevant to this thread. I was just asking questions about why we should give this guy any credence.

Obelisk · 19-08-2011 03:22PM

WakeUp wrote: »

Ive seen you mention delusion and make references to the mental state of people before on other threads and its weak at best, unless of course youre qualified to make such statements?? If you are not qualified then you are in no position at all to pass judgement on the mental state of anybody and are purely speculating from a position of total ignorance with regard to the mental state of another person.

Happens all to often that.

jargon buster · 19-08-2011 09:38PM

mmmm..chemtrails.
OK lets say I believe the conspiracy that the NWO is spraying us, so I ask..

Why are they spraying us?
Who actually is spraying us?
How are the people spraying us managing to miss their loved ones with the chemtrails?

afrodub · 19-08-2011 09:47PM

One observation I have is the `spraying` appears to start over population areas and ceases at the coastline,I even have taken the trouble to video on my phone these most unusual `trails` to alert family and friends to this issue.

jargon buster · 19-08-2011 09:51PM

Great observation, shame you didnt observe my questions.

Penn · 19-08-2011 10:20PM

Monty Burnz banned for a week.

This thread is about Chemtrails. Discuss Chemtrails

Obelisk · 19-08-2011 10:53PM

Chemtrails FTW

afrodub · 19-08-2011 10:57PM

jargon buster wrote: »

Great observation, shame you didnt observe my questions.

My bad point taken and excuse me::o

Why? it is under the phoney guise of weather modification connected to `global warming ` this I believe to be falsehood.The actual motive is to weaken/damage the immune system for pop.reduction/genocide.There is also a debatable issue of weapons testing connected to HAARP.

Who? those with the where withall and resources I can only conclude Military/Nato.

How are they missing their loved one`s with this ? excellent question,I assume with evil intent persons this is not a concern.A possible explanation though, they are given advance notification and therefore avoid areas targeted and they have access to antidotes for the detrimental affects of this spraying.

I like many am keen to have definitive answers to this issue,notably our `masters` are maintaining a radio silence, a 3 wise monkeys scenario persists !!

jargon buster · 19-08-2011 11:05PM

The actual motive is to weaken/damage the immune system for pop.reduction/genocide.

They have allegedly been spraying since the sixties, why are we living longer now than any other time in history?

Who? those with the where withall and resources I can only conclude Military/Nato.

Really, how many are involved, do the pilots know what they are doing?

How are they missing their loved one`s with this ? excellent question,I assume with evil intent persons this is not a concern.A possible explanation though, they are given advance notification and therefore avoid areas targeted and they have access to antidotes for the detrimental affects of this spraying.

antidotes ? mmm.... are the antidotes just for immediate family or does it include friends?
What about the scientists making the antidotes and all their family and friends , do they get some?

WakeUp · 20-08-2011 06:21PM

Barrington wrote: »

Monty Burnz banned for a week.

This thread is about Chemtrails. Discuss Chemtrails

Hi Barrington, not for a second do I want to argue with your decision in open but I just wanted to say I think banning Monty for a week is kinda harsh but its totally at your discretion I understand that. Anytime Ive engaged in a conversation with him he has always struck me as a reasonable guy I might not have agreed with his comments re his previous posts and some other ones but maybe a warning or something like that might have been fairer?? Im gona send you a pm but will leave it up to you as to whether or not the ban stands.

WakeUp · 21-08-2011 07:30AM

Former head of the LA FBI Ted Gunderson talking about chemtrails.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gR6KVYJ73AU

This satellite image of Ireland was taken on September 8, 2006. Very strange looking clouds I think to the West and North West of the country. ( off the coast )

You can click here and zoom in to have a closer look.. Just out of curiosity I went and had a look to see if I could find a weather report for Sept' 8th 2006'. I found this on the Met Eireann website...

6th to 10th " pressure rose as an anticyclone moved eastwards across the country. Apart from some showers near Atlantic coasts at first, this period was dry warm and sunny with light winds".. not sure if that has any relevance but sure no harm in including it.

Sparticle · 21-08-2011 09:11AM

WakeUp wrote: »

This satellite image of Ireland was taken on September 8, 2006. Very strange looking clouds I think to the West and North West of the country.

You can click here and zoom in to have a closer look.. Just out of curiosity I went and had a look to see if I could find a weather report for Sept' 8th 2006'. I found this on the Met Eireann website...

6th to 10th " pressure rose as an anticyclone moved eastwards across the country. Apart from some showers near Atlantic coasts at first, this period was dry warm and sunny with light winds".. not sure if that has any relevance but sure no harm in including it.

Looks like a bunch cirrocumulus clouds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrocumulus_cloud

Here's some good examples.
http://weather.cityu.edu.hk/~ksliu/obs/cloud/

WakeUp · 21-08-2011 09:26AM

Sparticle wrote: »

Looks like a bunch cirrocumulus clouds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrocumulus_cloud

Here's some good examples.
http://weather.cityu.edu.hk/~ksliu/obs/cloud/

Yeah the clouds over land for sure look like those cirrocumulus clouds but Im not so sure about the ones off the coast out to sea (West and North West) do you mean the clouds over land or the ones out to sea?...

CHEMTRAILS

Comments