Chem trails

My name is URL · 06-06-2009 11:24am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

ah but the atmosphere is a fluid thing

True

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXnkzeCU3bE

Undergod · 06-06-2009 11:28am

King Mob wrote: »

Nope, not by any stretch.

That's what I thought.

Mahatma coat wrote:

ah but the atmosphere is a fluid thing

But that makes the statement "It seems to be settling at the top of the atmosphere" meaningless. If it's at the top of the atmosphere, but jets aren't, then how is it affecting contrails?

So: is there more dust in the atmosphere than previous decades? If so is it settled at the top or is it distributed more widely? Have we any way of finding out?

I would think dust like that would contribute to global dimming, but the trend seems to be the reverse in recent years.

ilivetolearn · 06-06-2009 11:28am

My name is URL wrote: »

True

Visually enjoyable clip though it I can't but feel that it stimulates my bowel movement.

King Mob · 06-06-2009 11:35am

A wild guess is there is also more fine dust in the atmosphere, and I'm wondering if that's the real issue. Supposedly, because the solar wind has been at a record low for a while--even stopping dead a few years back (Unheard of before)--there is at least 3 times the usual amount of interstellar dust in the solar system. It seems to be settling at the top of the atmosphere and some think it's responsible for the also recent odd phenomenon of noctilucent clouds. The dust is micro-fine and an irritant too, and it's also interesting that asthma has also been on the increase.

IS there any evidence for the claim of 3 times the amount of interstellar dust or is this guy just making it up?

Mahatma coat · 06-06-2009 11:44am

anyway why does it have to be interstellar dust???

could it be back to the point of theresnothing really sinister, they hang around longer Because ther have been so many planes in or around these flight corridors forso longthatte atmosphere at that point is saturated with exaust partiles, so the new ones take a lot longer to dissipate than they did when we were kids.

sortof a critical mass reached with exhaust emissions from planes, dosent explain the patern flying tho, and thats the sinister bit, the layinout of huge grids ver populated areas like cropdustin, if thats true :eek:

Undergod · 06-06-2009 11:54am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

anyway why does it have to be interstellar dust???

could it be back to the point of theresnothing really sinister, they hang around longer Because ther have been so many planes in or around these flight corridors forso longthatte atmosphere at that point is saturated with exaust partiles, so the new ones take a lot longer to dissipate than they did when we were kids.

sortof a critical mass reached with exhaust emissions from planes, dosent explain the patern flying tho, and thats the sinister bit, the layinout of huge grids ver populated areas like cropdustin, if thats true :eek:

I don't think it has to be, exactly, just that this guy is saying that's where it's coming from. Any dust would work, but this is the specific source of the dust responsible.

Interesting idea about the increase in exhaust particles, but as regards flight patterns, I imagine that flight paths over populated areas are going to be in easily predictable patterns, to simplify safety of approach and all that. Do we have anyone who can tell us about the composition of exhaust (does it contain fine particles that would hang about in the atmosphere) and flight patterns around airports?

bonkey · 06-06-2009 12:34pm

Disky wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/5411412/New-type-of-cloud-found.html

Looks like the "experts" are covering their tracks.

Could it be any more obvious.

Experts classifying a new type of cloud, completely unlike the type which chemtrail-advocates suggest results from chemtrails...

...Yes, I believe it could certainly be more obvious.

King Mob · 06-06-2009 4:49pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

anyway why does it have to be interstellar dust???

could it be back to the point of theresnothing really sinister, they hang around longer Because ther have been so many planes in or around these flight corridors forso longthatte atmosphere at that point is saturated with exaust partiles, so the new ones take a lot longer to dissipate than they did when we were kids.

sortof a critical mass reached with exhaust emissions from planes, dosent explain the patern flying tho, and thats the sinister bit, the layinout of huge grids ver populated areas like cropdustin, if thats true :eek:

Because the guy makes the claim that there is 3 times more interstellar dust than usual in the solar system. Is there anything to support a claim like this?

studiorat · 06-06-2009 11:20pm

King Mob wrote: »

Because the guy makes the claim that there is 3 times more interstellar dust than usual in the solar system. Is there anything to support a claim like this?

Oh Man! Opened a can of fish here! Bit of a hurry right now but here's some of the info, I hope it's some what relevant. More coming...

As far as I can see it's more to do with the charge of the particles. I've a list of links as long as my arm so I'm trying to get through them...

This link has some nice photos though
http://www.spaceweather.com/nlcs/gallery2005_page1.htm

It stems from my mentioning half jokingly that maybe chem trails were an attempt to shield the earth from solar magnetic storms. To protect us from our atmosphere floating off into space!

Anyway the interstellar particles...

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v380/n6572/abs/380323a0.html

Also...

The solar wind is an extended ionized gas of very high electrical conductivity, and therefore drags some magnetic flux out of the Sun to fill the heliosphere with a weak interplanetary magnetic field. Magnetic reconnection—the merging of oppositely directed magnetic fields—between the interplanetary field and the Earth's magnetic field allows energy from the solar wind to enter the near-Earth environment. The Sun's properties, such as its luminosity, are related to its magnetic field, although the connections are still not well understood. Moreover, changes in the heliospheric magnetic field have been linked with changes in total cloud cover over the Earth, which may influence global climate. Here we show that measurements of the near-Earth interplanetary magnetic field reveal that the total magnetic flux leaving the Sun has risen by a factor of 1.4 since 1964: surrogate measurements of the interplanetary magnetic field indicate that the increase since 1901 has been by a factor of 2.3. This increase may be related to chaotic changes in the dynamo that generates the solar magnetic field. We do not yet know quantitatively how such changes will influence the global environment.

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=15049 read very carefully apparently it's all connected... (say's he)

afraid that's all I have time for right now, something's just come up
laterz

King Mob · 07-06-2009 12:09am

studiorat wrote: »

Oh Man! Opened a can of fish here! Bit of a hurry right now but here's some of the info, I hope it's some what relevant. More coming...

As far as I can see it's more to do with the charge of the particles. I've a list of links as long as my arm so I'm trying to get through them...

This link has some nice photos though
http://www.spaceweather.com/nlcs/gallery2005_page1.htm

It stems from my mentioning half jokingly that maybe chem trails were an attempt to shield the earth from solar magnetic storms. To protect us from our atmosphere floating off into space!

Anyway the interstellar particles...

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v380/n6572/abs/380323a0.html

Also...

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=15049 read very carefully apparently it's all connected... (say's he)

afraid that's all I have time for right now, something's just come up
laterz

But none of that supports the claim that there is 3 times more interstellar dust than usual.

And why would this be a problem if it were true?

And how would chemtrails do anything to interstellar dust?

And if that's the reason why is it a secret?

studiorat · 07-06-2009 12:50am

Like I said there's shed loads of articles in this guys research, it's kind of hard to sift through and remember. Anyway...

1.
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=33618

In the 1990s, this field, which is drawn out deep into space by the out-flowing solar wind, kept most of the stardust out. The most recent data, collected up to the end of 2002, shows that this magnetic shield has lost its protective power during the recent solar maximum. In an upcoming publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research ESA scientist Markus Landgraf and his co-workers from the Max-Planck-Institute in Heidelberg report that about three times more stardust is now able to enter the Solar System.

2&3.
"Chem trails" don't do anything to the dust, it's the other way around. Re-read how clouds are formed. The water vapour needs the particle to condense. (grab onto if you will)
The problem is the extra cloud cover is adding to the whole global warming thing as well as being a symptom of it. If you believe an effect similar to the Maunder Minimum is a contributing cause.

4.
It's not a secret. Just for the fun of it. Consider for a minute there is an natural disaster on a global scale impending. The US government for instance discover this and they decide it's better not to make it public knowledge. What better way to hide this fact than in plain view. And call it something else.

The original chemtrail hoax from the 90's used the following paper as citations http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v3c15/v3c15-1.htm

The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United States government.

Obviously the above quote was not one of those citations. It was nothing more than a college project really...

The trouble with conspiracists is that most will uncritically accept near any NEGATIVE story about their perceived enemies, almost no matter how ridiculous. What's most laughable is most are so convinced of his or her "information superiority" that they'll actually rationalize to the stratosphere before they'll admit to themselves that they can be duped. None would ever accept the notion that anyone in the military, the CIA, etc. could actually be leagues smarter than themselves. This is an important fact, if you are considering hiding something from them...

I mean surely if anybody seriously wanted to drug a nation they'd find a better way than spraying them from 50,000 feet. Personally I'd infect the money...

bonkey · 07-06-2009 8:24am

studiorat wrote: »

4.
It's not a secret. Just for the fun of it. Consider for a minute there is an natural disaster on a global scale impending. The US government for instance discover this and they decide it's better not to make it public knowledge. What better way to hide this fact than in plain view. And call it something else.

Disinformation, or COINTELPRO, in other words.

The problem with the idea is that in order for it to work, we almost certainly have to (re)define "the US government" to include the relevant scientific field on a global scale, or sufficient control of all media (including the "free" internet 'they' wish had never been invented) to be able to perpetrate such a coverup.

OK..there is the fringe case where some small, already-classified research project finds something out to do with a forthcoming natural disaster, but where there is good reason to believe that no-one else is likely to find such information (based, somehow, on the unspecified, classified research being carried out). Add in the ability to track everything online, some sort of capability to deal with any hints of someone else catching on, and the idea of disinformation to cloud any leaks and you've got some of the bigger holes "covered".

At this point, though, doesn't the theory already involve - as you put it yourself - rationalizing to the stratosphere?

I mean surely if anybody seriously wanted to drug a nation they'd find a better way than spraying them from 50,000 feet.

Personally, I'm not sold on the argument of motive. I don't believe it is a key factor in the argument either for or against the notion of chemtrails.

Lets assume for a second that something is being sprayed.

Unless we know something about what that is, then the argument of motive is entirely speculative. It doesn't change the fact that something is being sprayed. Asserted effects such as the trail expanding to cover the sky may be part of the effect, or may simply be a side-effect....again, without knowing something about what is being sprayed, we have to make assumptions there in order to bring us anywhere in terms of linking effect to motive.

"Why" is a result which we can derive from finding the "what". We don't need to know it in advance. Indeed, assuming it increases the risk of looking for the wrong thing in the wrong place. It may build a more complete narrative, which may be more appealing in some regards, but the reality is that its merely piling one assumption on top of another, rather than verifying the first one....is there something being "sprayed".

espinolman · 07-06-2009 12:06pm

bonkey wrote: »

.is there something being "sprayed".

Are you trying to insinuate that all the photos' and videos' that people take of chemtrails are done with paint shop or something

I don't understand you people , you need proof for everything , does'nt matter that it can be seen by people all over the world , no you need absolute proof for everything .

bonkey · 07-06-2009 12:28pm

espinolman wrote: »

Are you trying to insinuate that all the photos' and videos' that people take of chemtrails are done with paint shop or something

I'm trying to insinuate nothing of the sort.

I don't think there's a person involved in the discussion, here or anywhere else on the planet, who would claim that planes do not have exhausts, nor do not create contrails.

The non-conspiratorial explanation of what are generally referred to as chemtrails is that there are perfectly normal explanations as to how atmospheric conditions coupled with plane exhausts create contrails that persist for hours, just as there are perfectly normal explanations as to how atmospheric conditions coupled with plane exhausts create contrains that dissipate.

I believe that people see a perfectly normal effect and misinterpret it. The photos I've seen are a mix of contrails and clouds. I've yet to see one with something inexplicable. I've also posted before about how video taken over a period showing this evolution from contrail-to-complete-cloud-coverage would be a key piece of evidence....one which we don't see.

So no, I'm not insinuating that people photoshop anything.

I don't understand you people , you need proof for everything ,

I require evidence, not proof. There is observation that this phenomena exists. There is one explanation which says there are no additional factors required - the non-conspiratorial one. There is another which says that there are additional factors required - the conspiratorial one typically referred to as chemtrails.

I cannot find a flaw in the explanation as to why there are no additional factors required. This doesn't rule out it being wrong, but its impossible to prove a negative. Find nothing in every test, and you still can't prove that there's nothing to be found.

The claim that there is something added, however, can be tested. All you have to do is find something which shouldn't be there. OK...you have to find something that shouldn't be there, show how that something could cause the effects observed, and explain how it could be coming from planes...but first and foremost you have to find it.

does'nt matter that it can be seen by people all over the world , no you need absolute proof for everything.

To quote Hippocrates: Science begets knowledge; opinion, ignorance.

Using the modern scientific method, we test a hypotheses based on its predictions. The "spraying" argument says something is being sprayed. The obvious test to validate that is to look for something that is being sprayed.

You clearly feel that we don't need to gather evidence...that we can somehow arrive at the truth based on some other approach. Could you explain what that approach is?

espinolman · 07-06-2009 1:06pm

bonkey wrote: »

You clearly feel that we don't need to gather evidence...that we can somehow arrive at the truth based on some other approach. Could you explain what that approach is?

I prefer the theoretical approach , i would put together a theory and then try to find out if the theory is plausible or not through research .

So my latest theory is that there is a disaster occuring over a long period of time which is happening in slow motion and so is unnoticed by the general public or that it may be going to occur in the future and that the purpose of chemtrails is to try and gain control over this disaster , so i would research to see if there is anything to back up this theory .

bonkey · 07-06-2009 1:29pm

Such an approach can - at best - lead you to a position wher eyou say that if chemtrails exist and if they have certain properties, then they would support such a hypothesis.

It still leaves you in the position that to support your hypothesis, you would need to verify the existence of chemtrails (i.e. something beyond the conventional explanation for persistent contrails). Having done so, you would need them to have the right properties to match your hypothesis.

This isn't necessarily invalid, but imagine that you came up with your hypothesis, and had done all of this work and research, only to find that there was something being added, but it wasn't at all what would be necessary for your hypothesis.

In such a case, would you consider yourself vindicated ("I was right - chemtrails are real") or shown to be wrong ("I was wrong - my explanation doesn't fit the data")?

polishpaddy · 07-06-2009 1:36pm

Go to cork/dublin/etc airport and ask a worker for a sample of the fuel ,very simple.Throw him a few bob.
Sitting on your computer typing lovely/intelligent sounding posts won't get you answers.

studiorat · 07-06-2009 7:03pm

espinolman wrote: »

I prefer the theoretical approach , i would put together a theory and then try to find out if the theory is plausible or not through research .

I thought people were supposed to do that the other way around. Do the research and then put the theory together?

Anyway.

bonkey wrote: »

Disinformation, or COINTELPRO, in other words.

The problem with the idea is that in order for it to work, we almost certainly have to (re)define "the US government" to include the relevant scientific field on a global scale, or sufficient control of all media (including the "free" internet 'they' wish had never been invented) to be able to perpetrate such a coverup.

Ok, here's an example of such a project...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Geophysical_Year

This took place during the height of the cold war, China was involved, Russia, the US, UK there was even a Polish delegation working in North Korea. The most interesting bit was mapping the land beneath the Antarctic ice cap. It wasn't because they were worried about melt; it was because they needed to verify something really important--more cartographic.

The thing is, each participating group of scientists doesn't necessarily need to know why they are doing a specific piece of research.

Sputnik and Explorer 1 were also part of the IGY, there never was a space race. The Russians had no intention of sending people to the moon until the late 60's.

bonkey wrote: »

Lets assume for a second that something is being sprayed.

Unless we know something about what that is, then the argument of motive is entirely speculative. It doesn't change the fact that something is being sprayed. Asserted effects such as the trail expanding to cover the sky may be part of the effect, or may simply be a side-effect....again, without knowing something about what is being sprayed, we have to make assumptions there in order to bring us anywhere in terms of linking effect to motive.

No, I don't think there is anything being sprayed. But the apparent persistance of contrails and Noctilucent clouds are indicators of something else.
Noctilucent clouds were never observed before the industrial reveloution btw.
The chemicals asscoiated with "chemtrails" are in fact in the air anyway because they are used in so many chemical industrial activities.

For instance the reported levels of Barium found were mis-represented by the conspiracy guys. The Barium levels were actually only 3.4% of the maximum safe levels. They conviently moved a decimal place two spaces!!!

I used the previous analogies to illustrate sterility of the persuit of Chemtrails as a conspiracy theory. But I do think that the contrail issue is an indicator of something else. What exactly that is I suppose will come out over the next few years.

BTW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4nzvAIiUIQ
Here's an interesting talk on space weather that I believe is connected to this whole issue. This is a subject we are going to see more and more of in the coming years. The part early on in the talk about sun spots is very interesting.

espinolman · 07-06-2009 9:37pm

studiorat wrote: »

I thought people were supposed to do that the other way around. Do the research and then put the theory together?

Who said people were supposed to . I am not into 'supposed to's' '

espinolman · 07-06-2009 11:20pm

bonkey wrote: »

This isn't necessarily invalid, but imagine that you came up with your hypothesis, and had done all of this work and research, only to find that there was something being added, but it wasn't at all what would be necessary for your hypothesis.

If the hypothesis does not match reality then you drop the hypothesis and come up with another hypothesis .
If we are dealing with the known , well then its ok to look for evidence because we know what evidence to look for , however if we are dealing with the unknown then a theory can indicate what the unknown might be and what direction to look for evidence .
Lets presume there is unknown data , well we don't know what the data is , so then we don't know what evidence we are looking for .
I suspect there are unknown factors with regard to chemtrails , how would we find out what we don't know , well keep coming up with theories and some of these theories could possibly lead to uncovering what is unknown .

darkraverTC · 08-06-2009 6:43am

Ok.Get a telescope or binoculars and look at a chem-bus.The you will see the trails begining at the engines.Look at a normal plane.Where does the trail(s)
begin?BEHIND IT.NOT FROM IT.
Like ripples off a boat.

Mahatma coat · 08-06-2009 8:07am

Eh Casey, have you got any Video/Photos of what you're talkin about??

bonkey · 08-06-2009 10:38am

espinolman wrote: »

If the hypothesis does not match reality then you drop the hypothesis and come up with another hypothesis .

If we are dealing with the known , well then its ok to look for evidence because we know what evidence to look for , however if we are dealing with the unknown then a theory can indicate what the unknown might be and what direction to look for evidence .

Exactly.

There is an observation that contrails persist and a belief that this persistence is (sometimes) unusual.
There is a theory that this persistence is being caused by something being added to the fuel of planes.

We have an unknown - the cause of contrail persistence.
We have a theoretical cause - the addition of something to fuel.

So we have a number of directions in which to look for evidence - the fuel, the engines, the exhaust gases, the air quality, and so on.

My suggestion is that this is what should be looked at, rather than assuming that this theoretical cause is correct (that it is no longer an unknown) and proceeding to the next "level" of analysis....the reasons why this is being done.

I'm not targetting this at you specifically. I'm just asking why it is that virtually no-one who is interested in chemtrails does this. Of those that have, not one of them has actually found a "smoking gun"...evidence that there is anything unusual to be found at all.

I suspect there are unknown factors with regard to chemtrails ,

The first unknown factor is whether or not the non-conspiratorial explanation for persistent contrails is wrong. Until this question is answered, everything else is simply assuming the answer to an unknown, rather than trying to verify it.

how would we find out what we don't know , well keep coming up with theories and some of these theories could possibly lead to uncovering what is unknown .

Someone has to test the theories, right?

There's the theory that something is being added to the fuel...but there seems to be far more interest in assuming it to be true, and then theorising about why it might be true, rather than actually finding out whether or not it is true.

A cynic might suggest that trying to find out whether or not its true would run the risk of showing it to be false, hence its unattractiveness.

6th · 08-06-2009 11:22am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Eh Casey, have you got any Video/Photos of what you're talkin about??

I dont see anyone posting under the name Casey. If you have suspicions that, lets say, someone post is a re-reg of a banned poster then you report the post of bring it to a mods attention. What you dont do is refer to a poster by the name of a banned poster trying to look clever. After all you could be accusing someone in the wrong. Next time its a infraction/ban

espinolman · 14-12-2009 8:56pm

The following is from the Qur'an , are 44:10 and 44:11 referring to chemtrails !

Surah 44. Smoke

44:1 Ha-Mim.
44:2 By the Book that makes things clear;-
44:3 We sent it down during a Blessed Night: for We (ever) wish to warn (against Evil).
44:4 In the (Night) is made distinct every affair of wisdom,
44:5 By command, from Our Presence. For We (ever) send (revelations),
44:6 As Mercy from thy Lord: for He hears and knows (all things);
44:7 The Lord of the heavens and the earth and all between them, if ye (but) have an assured faith.
44:8 There is no god but He: It is He Who gives life and gives death,- The Lord and Cherisher to you and your earliest ancestors.
44:9 Yet they play about in doubt.
44:10 Then watch thou for the Day that the sky will bring forth a kind of smoke (or mist) plainly visible,
44:11 Enveloping the people: this will be a Penalty Grievous.
44:12 (They will say:) "Our Lord! remove the Penalty from us, for we do really believe!"
44:13 How shall the message be (effectual) for them, seeing that an Apostle explaining things clearly has (already) come to them,-
44:14 Yet they turn away from him and say: "Tutored (by others), a man possessed!"
44:15 We shall indeed remove the Penalty for a while, (but) truly ye will revert (to your ways).
44:16 One day We shall seize you with a mighty onslaught: We will indeed (then) exact Retribution!
44:17 We did, before them, try the people of Pharaoh: there came to them an apostle most honourable,
44:18 Saying: "Restore to me the Servants of God: I am to you an apostle worthy of all trust;
44:19 "And be not arrogant as against God: for I come to you with authority manifest.
44:20 "For me, I have sought safety with my Lord and your Lord, against your injuring me.
44:21 "If ye believe me not, at least keep yourselves away from me."
44:22 (But they were aggressive:) then he cried to his Lord: "These are indeed a people given to sin."
44:23 (The reply came:) "March forth with My Servants by night: for ye are sure to be pursued.
44:24 "And leave the sea as a furrow (divided): for they are a host (destined) to be drowned."
44:25 How many were the gardens and springs they left behind,
44:26 And corn-fields and noble buildings,
44:27 And wealth (and conveniences of life), wherein they had taken such delight!
44:28 Thus (was their end)! And We made other people inherit (those things)!
44:29 And neither heaven nor earth shed a tear over them: nor were they given a respite (again).
44:30 We did deliver aforetime the Children of Israel from humiliating Punishment,
44:31 Inflicted by Pharaoh, for he was arrogant (even) among inordinate transgressors.
44:32 And We chose them aforetime above the nations, knowingly,
44:33 And granted them Signs in which there was a manifest trial
44:34 As to these (Quraish), they say forsooth:
44:35 "There is nothing beyond our first death, and we shall not be raised again.
44:36 "Then bring (back) our forefathers, if what ye say is true!"
44:37 What! Are they better than the people of Tubba and those who were before them? We destroyed them because they were guilty of sin.
44:38 We created not the heavens, the earth, and all between them, merely in (idle) sport:
44:39 We created them not except for just ends: but most of them do not understand.
44:40 Verily the Day of sorting out is the time appointed for all of them,-
44:41 The Day when no protector can avail his client in aught, and no help can they receive,
44:42 Except such as receive God's Mercy: for He is Exalted in Might, Most Merciful.
44:43 Verily the tree of Zaqqum
44:44 Will be the food of the Sinful,-
44:45 Like molten brass; it will boil in their insides.
44:46 Like the boiling of scalding water.
44:47 (A voice will cry: "Seize ye him and drag him into the midst of the Blazing Fire!
44:48 "Then pour over his head the Penalty of Boiling Water,
44:49 "Taste thou (this)! Truly wast thou mighty, full of honour!
44:50 "Truly this is what ye used to doubt!"
44:51 As to the Righteous (they will be) in a position of Security,
44:52 Among Gardens and Springs;
44:53 Dressed in fine silk and in rich brocade, they will face each other;
44:54 So; and We shall join them to Companions with beautiful, big, and lustrous eyes.
44:55 There can they call for every kind of fruit in peace and security;
44:56 Nor will they there taste Death, except the first death; and He will preserve them from the Penalty of the Blazing Fire,-
44:57 As a Bounty from thy Lord! that will be the supreme achievement!
44:58 Verily, We have made this (Qur'an) easy, in thy tongue, in order that they may give heed.
44:59 So wait thou and watch; for they (too) are waiting.

humanji · 14-12-2009 9:13pm

In fairness that can be interpreted as anything. It can be a metaphorical smoke, fog, an actual mist, or it could refer to smoke plumes from distant war-camp fires. It just seems a bit of a reach to interpret that as chemtrails. Sure, they could even just be talking about seeing clouds or maybe hinting at a storm.

King Mob · 14-12-2009 9:21pm

Or debris from a volcano or meteor impact, or even (gasp) nuclear fallout.

espinolman · 14-12-2009 10:43pm

humanji wrote: »

In fairness that can be interpreted as anything. It can be a metaphorical smoke, fog, an actual mist, or it could refer to smoke plumes from distant war-camp fires. It just seems a bit of a reach to interpret that as chemtrails. Sure, they could even just be talking about seeing clouds or maybe hinting at a storm.

Yes but you see the Hopi know about chemtrails as well :

http://uk.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A1f4cfOksCZLeyQAOGVLBQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTByNGxmazk4BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2lyZAR2dGlkAw--/SIG=124e7c7p7/EXP=1260913188/**http%3a//worldgathering.net/stop/hopiwarnings.html

humanji · 14-12-2009 11:26pm

Again, it's an interpretation that can be warped so that chem trails fit. Just like the way you can say that the Hopi were talking about a nasty fog rolling in, or nasty cloudy sky, or a volcano spewing up ash, or warcamps etc. If you want it to fit a description then it's easy to make it fit.

espinolman · 15-12-2009 12:31am

humanji wrote: »

Again, it's an interpretation that can be warped so that chem trails fit. Just like the way you can say that the Hopi were talking about a nasty fog rolling in, or nasty cloudy sky, or a volcano spewing up ash, or warcamps etc. If you want it to fit a description then it's easy to make it fit.

I would take what the Hopi say seriously , time goes forward and also backwards and some people can percieve the future hence there are prophesies and i thinks thats how they knew and they know what chemtrails are about .

Chem trails

Comments