Chem trails

I hope for your sake you kept breathing through a damp cloth over for the day?

oh my... ...the antichrist?
Can I ask why a biblical all powerful enemy such as satan would need to develop a overly complex method to take over the world? Surly (s)he'd just open the gates of hell and release all and sundry onto the earth. I'd imagine the initial shock/fear would would be the pinnical of what "shock and awe" could achieve.

I hear lidle are doing a special on gas masks next tuesday, in case your interested.


I love it though "according the the reports we have received" - care to produce these reports?

What do you expect poeple to understand "well thought out theory" to mean?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

This
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/19/2249568.htm

pops up on telly.

better explanation here
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23724410-29277,00.html

interestin

Yeah, I've heard that one before. Absolutely crazy idea if you ask me.

ulysses1 wrote: »

While I don't side that chemtrails are afforded as a means to depopulate the world as some would believe, the very fact that chemtrails exist shouldn't be in question. The German Air Force admits they are spraying portions of the atmosphere here: http://www.chycho.com/?q=Chemtrails

If you take an admission that chaff was deployed during war-games as an admission of "spraying portions of the atmosphere", then yes, you're completely right.

However, problems arise when such spraying is linked to "secret agendas". None of us will truely ever know why and what they are spraying up there and I for one wouldn't like to hazard a guess because that's where the conspiracy lies.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that there isn't actually much mystery about why planes would deploy chaff in military manouevers.

trails that simply do not dissipate as they should. And "as they should" is relatively basic science.

Indeed. Its so relatively basic that I'm willing to bet you won't go into detail about it.

jeremyquinn wrote: »

I tell you something, I use my own judgement. I do not look for government supplied figures as the starting point for research.

So you freely admit that your "research" is biased? You only look for info that supports what you want to believe? I would bet that when asked to prove some thing you would use the old "google/search for x/y/z yourself and you'll see" routine.

jeremyquinn wrote: »

Bonkey will now reply will a four page "scientific" explanation of chemtrails, where does he get the time???

The more important question should be to ask why we should trust any opinion which comes from someone who doesn't take the time to understand the subject they are offering an opinion on.

ulysses1 wrote: »

The problem with being both pedantic and sarcastic at the same time is that you appear to contradict your own rule.

What rule?

Not only that, but you're way off the mark.

If I am, its because I deliberately limited myself to the information I asked you to provide, in order to show that this information was insufficient.

If you took five mintues to think about what you were writing you will understand that cloud (hey, I can use italics too) and contrails are not the same. They differ not just in terms of their formation (masses etc.), but also in the alititude that they form.
If you still believe they are one and the same, then by your reckoning clouds will freely form at all given altitudes, from the ground up.

I never said anything about what levels cloud forms at. Seeing as you mention it though, yes, cloud can form at ground level (e.g. fog) up to a maximum of well over 10,000m.

Contrails typically only form at a far narrower range of altitudes - typically those of so-called "high altitude clouds" - from about 7,000m upwards.

So I would question your assertion that cloud and contrails form at differing altitudes, unless we were talking about ultra-high altitude contrails, where cloud formation is rare.

I'd also point out that if this were true then simply measuring the altitude that thse "persistent contrails" form at and showing that cloud doesn't form at that level would be an easy way for chemtrailers to prove their correctness. That not one of them has engaged in this activity should suggest that something is wrong here. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that its your claim that they form at different altitudes which is wrong.

Let me explain why....

You mentioned earlier that you have seen "many occasions of low flying aircraft zig-zagging across the sky in this country leaving behind them trails that simply do not dissipate as they should".

Given that you claim to understand contrails, you should know that contrails typically don't form at low altitudes at all, but your comment suggested that they can and should form at these levels and should have a calculable dissipation rate at those altitudes.

Now, given that cloud can also form at low levels, you're either suggesting that there's an altitude-band below and above which cloud can form, but within which it cannot...or you're contradicting yourself. You're certainly not referring to contrails above (say) 12,000m or 15,000m, unless by "low flying" you mean in comparison to something like the space shuttle.

Based on this "low level" comment, I decided to ask you about your simple dissipation formula, primarily to see if it had any reference to altitude. Unsurprisingly, it didn't. Not only that, but the only part of the equation which is limited to the contrail and not to the external influences was the water-particle size - a feature common to both cloud and contrail.

Hence my previous comment - your theory applies to cloud dissipation just as equally as to contrail dissipation because there are no elements in your equation which are inapplicable to both.

I'm quite capable of deciphering a contrail at low, medium and high altitude.

Most chemtrailers rely on just that type of logic to one degree or another : "it doesn't look right to me". I'm not questioning that you believe it to be true. I'm trying to determine the basis on which you form that belief.

You have a theory about dissipation. You compare that to results. When the results do not match the theory, you apparently conclude that the conclusion must be that the observations are not what they appear to be, rather than consider that the theory is wrong.

Until you have physical evidence to support the notion that "these are not normal contrails", you're discarding scientific reasoning in order to argue a scientific position.

If thats the basis for your belief, then thats fine. I'm happy to point out that no matter how much scientific verbiage you wrap around that belief, you're still throwing out the basic principle of falsifiability in order to reach your conclusion.