If you believe chemtrails are real . . . what source of information has reinforced your belief most?

I left my left over strawberry shortcake all in a bowl together in the fridge and it melted and it's ruined! ruined, I hope our entire planet isn't ruined.

Debunking the Debunkers first premise. . . .

WHY don't Chemtrails exist. . . Because there are logical explanations for what people see in the sky and people should accept these explanations because they have a long and accepted history . . . It is the simplest explanation, thereby, it should be accepted first until proven otherwise . . . All evidence to the contrary can be shown to be pure speculation and doesn't meet scientifically verifiable evidentiary standards . . .

1) All new concepts almost universally begin as speculation . . . Especially those that go counter to the prevailing mainstream opinions and established norms. .. 

2) Chemtrails are a conspiracy theory at this time. . . So it is logical to assume evidence is either limited or unaccepted by the mainstream. . . . Which doesn't make it false or invalid. . . .

3) The conspiracy is about the detection of the addition of tiny  amounts of pre-existing common substances into an ocean of similar substances which is the atmosphere . . . where millions of potential contamination sources exist . . A most difficult task to say the least 

4) Chemtrail believers have no leadership, organization or budget to attempt detection. . .so to mounting a well organized scientifically valid attempt at detection is problematic at best. . . 

5) No respected scientist or institution would dare to publicly  acknowledge or work with a group trying to prove chemtrails exist  . . .

6) If a covert atmospheric injection program exists . . . It is cloaked in secrecy by definition. . . .a problem few if no scientists have to contend with when engaged in scientific discovery. . . .

7) Debunkers' original premise of knowing "what people see" is speculation itself . . .because they cannot possibly know what everyone sees. . . .

1) Debunkers say they are simply, misidentified condensation trails from high flying aircraft in the sky . . . They are persistent contrails and contrail-induced cirrus cloud banks and disseminated haze. . . .

2) People became more aware of these persistent trails and cloud banks because they have increased significantly because of three main factors. . . . Along with significant scientific studies, publicity and curiosity by NASA, NOAA, DoE, and their British and European counterparts . . . Due to Global Warming all things atmospheric are now in vogue . . . 

      A.  Simply more air traffic. . . Increasing dramatically over the decades . . . Especially over certain air corridors 

      B.  In the last few decades the altitudes at which aircraft  . . . Especially long haul aviation has increased well into the 30,000 feet cruising altitudes making the likelihood that persistent contrail form statistically more likely  . . .

       C.  Engine efficiencies have increased from .20 to .30 and even higher over the last few decades  . . . Therefore, more and more efficient engines are being added every year. . . More efficient engines increase the relative humidity and lowers the plume temperatures of engine exhaust allowing persistent contrails to form in air that was suboptimal for such formation before. . . .

3) The above misidentifications happened due to lack of adequate atmospheric science awareness and the advent of alternative communication and information sources like the Internet, etc. Which created the proliferation of conspiracy mania. . . .

    A.  The publication of usually unknown and/or minimally known misadventures of the authorities has become sometimes viral. . . North wood Papers, Gulf of Tonkin incident, Watergate, 911 Conspiracy, etc. Failure and cover-ups from most institutions once trusted without question by most people now questioned by all . . . i.e. Sex scandals by the Church, the President, Congress, Presidential Candidates and celebrities . . .  Fraud by the financial, academic, medical, pharmaceutical and scientific institutions, the bail out on and on and on . . . 

   B. The hype from the Global Warming Advocates that something should and must be done as soon as possible. . . . Has skeptical people searching for alternative motives and gave fuel to the chemtrail advocates who jumped on every rational explanation for their position. . . 

   C. The media and entertainment industry through fiction, documentaries, and historical fiction has proliferated much concern about the potential demise of mankind . . . Further energizing the search to explain anything misunderstood . . . 

   D. The publication of well meaning but inaccurate or misinterpreted elevations of metallic ions in the environment such as Aluminum, Barium, etc. . . .these metals are very abundant in the natural environment and have multiple alternative sources which can concentrate dramatically due to: natural mineral deposits, disseminating winds, run off, acid rain, leaching, manufacturing, mining, transportation corridors, military activities, and agricultural practices, etc . . .

  E.  The existence of a few whistle blowers who appeared to give inside information but who have not been able to sustain through documentation or supportive evidence of anything but their own word or testimony. . . Their motives . . . Simply to fan the flames of mistrust . . . 

edward Teller quotes . . . my candidate for the Father of applied Geoengineering . . .

[link to www.brainyquote.com]


[link to www.wired.com]

Unlike many political conservatives in the late '90s, Wood and Teller took climate change seriously. But they doubted people would ever give up enough of their costly energy-consumption habits to prevent climate-associated risks (a cynical point of view that seems to have been borne out a decade later). Wood and Teller were just as dismissive of global greenhouse gas treaties like Kyoto as they had been of arms-control agreements during the '80s. They thought the only solution lay with technology: direct, aggressive intervention, either in the upper atmosphere or low Earth orbit, essentially to turn down the volume knob on solar radiation.
In Aspen, Wood didn't pull any punches. "He was being outrageous," Caldeira remembers with amusement. "He said something like, 'If we want to solve the global warming problem, we could just have a nuclear war.'" Even the title of his presentation was provocative: "Geoengineering and Nuclear Fission as Responses to Global Warming." By spending only about $1 billion per year, Wood argued, we could put enough particles in the stratosphere to reduce sunlight by about 1 percent — and that's all we'd need to start reversing global warming.

A fact is a simple statement that everyone believes. It is innocent, unless found guilty. A hypothesis is a novel suggestion that no one wants to believe. It is guilty, until found effective. 
Edward Teller 

Had we not pursued the hydrogen bomb, there is a very real threat that we would now all be speaking Russian. I have no regrets. 
Edward Teller 

I tried to contribute to the defeat of the Soviets. If I contributed 1%, it is 1% of something enormous. 
Edward Teller 

Life improves slowly and goes wrong fast, and only catastrophe is clearly visible. 
Edward Teller 

My experience has been in a short 77 years that in the end when you fight for a desperate cause and have good reasons to fight, you usually win. 
Edward Teller 

No endeavor that is worthwhile is simple in prospect; if it is right, it will be simple in retrospect. 
Edward Teller 

:Teller:
[link to www.fas.org]

Last Edited by George B on 04/03/2013 08:55 AM

If you read the report it says the planes were at an altitude of 500 feet, not 30,000. They also sprayed from a ship, in the underground, and from a truck.

In short, this has nothing to do with contrails so is just a red herring.

I never said it didn't take place.

My point is that there is no evidence that it as anything to do with the trails we now see in the sky, ignorant chemtard.

About #7..

Don't be stupid.

No one claims that they know what people see...

We claim that the chemtards don't know what they see..and are jumping to conclusions and making statements of fact about things they don't understand.

There is no evidence to the contrary, and evidence to support my claim in every chemtard video..even the long expensive ones, ever made.

#6, yet, the atmosphere would contain evidence, and someone would find it..,so far, nothing.

#5 bullshit assumption

#4 some chemtards have plenty of money, and prefer to make high budget chemtard videos featuring idiots who travel around the country to interview other idiots...instead of using the money to hire someone to take samples...probably because they don't trust anyone to do it.

#3 good luck with that!

#2 not false or invalid...just full of ignorant assumptions, paranoid speculation and outright stupidity. Oh, ok...false and invalid. Feel free to prove otherwise...chemtards have a 100% failure rate so far!

#1 chemtrails have been thoroughly debunked for a very long time. This isnt a new concept...it's old. But, give it another 80 years...maybe something new will pop up!

More interesting info on the connection between LLNL, Teller and Geoengineering and SECRECY. . . .

"In 1990, a year short of his doctorate, Caldeira went to Leningrad to study with Russian climate scientist Mikhail Budyko, one of the first champions of geoengineering. In the 1970s, Budyko had suggested an early version of the basic Teller-Wood idea — decrease the global temperature by shooting sunlight-scattering particles into the stratosphere. While he was in Leningrad, Caldeira's philosophical outlook still predisposed him to distrust such interventions, but years later that would change.

In 1993, the former peace activist accepted a research post at that haven of bombmakers, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Caldeira was running high-powered computer models to study the climate, but when he was offered a security clearance that would have allowed fuller access to the lab's resources, he tried to stay true to his old principles by declining. As a result, he didn't see much of Wood. "There's an outer fence at Livermore, and then there's an inner fence," Caldeira says. "Lowell worked inside the fence."

[link to www.wired.com]

Last Edited by George B on 04/03/2013 08:55 AM

So bottom-line there is significant circumstantial evidence that there are official secrets within the geoengineering and climate control research apparatus at LLNL going back to the same group who first computer modeled the effects of global warming and those who did the atomic research and research on SDI (Star Wars) . . .

Last Edited by George B on 04/03/2013 05:42 AM

:Feb 2013 sky1:

So if an Intentional COVERT Atmospheric Aerosol Injection Program were initiated . . . would we know it or detect it . . . ? Especially when designed and managed by the same people who brought us the Manhattan Project and SDI. . . .??

Since it could be accomplished through a slow build up over months or even years to increase the earth 's albedo by only ONE percent. . . .

"In Aspen, Wood didn't pull any punches. "He was being outrageous," Caldeira remembers with amusement. "He said something like, 'If we want to solve the global warming problem, we could just have a nuclear war.'" Even the title of his presentation was provocative: "Geoengineering and Nuclear Fission as Responses to Global Warming." By spending only about $1 billion per year, Wood argued, we could put enough particles in the stratosphere to reduce sunlight by about 1 percent — and that's all we'd need to start reversing global warming."
[link to www.wired.com]

Last Edited by George B on 04/03/2013 06:10 AM

What are you suggesting with this image?

And what does this have to do with "chemtrails"?

Chemtrails are the visible trails in all the chemtard video images and videos.

In case you didn't know.

What YOU are referring to is another subject that you seem to meld/link-to the chemtrail hoax for some reason.

What you are referring to doesn't require any visible trails whatsoever.

I think that, as you have stated, you understand that you have NO WAY of proving your individual theory about geoengineering/global warming mitigation, and such...so you piggyback your particular theory onto the "chemtrail" theory so that IF someone were to actually research the subject (which they do...continuously....not easily found through Google searches) you can use findings to support your little sub-theory.

But, at the same time, you are being disingenuous with your chemtard friends...because you full well know that the images/videos of trails they show are likely to be nothing more than contrails. And there is no evidence that they are anything else.

You are trying to USE these people to help spread your particular brand of "chemtrails" which has NOTHING to do with the "chemtrail" theory and what it's about!

Rather impressive Jorge...

Just an interesting sky. . . .

I have continually POSTED over and over that visibility has nothing to do with an aerosol injection program and that persistent trails in the sky are most assuredly persistent contrails and contrail induced cirrus cloud banks. . . . . . .I am hiding nothing. . . .however, that being said, to suggest that the people who run the show are not capable and willing ( if they thought it necessary ) to engage in geoengineering is false. . . . and it would be very difficult to detect if done properly. . . .

Last Edited by George B on 04/03/2013 07:22 AM

Visibility does, however, correlate with trapping long wave solar radiation (positive radiative forcing) . . . and thus increasing global warming potential . . . . which is contrary to the goal of reducing global warming potential. . . and would be opposite of the normal goals of geoengineering. . . .



:Radiative Forcin:
[link to spie.org]

Last Edited by George B on 04/04/2013 08:38 AM

Then why are you calling whatever it is you are worried about "chemtrails" when you KNOW it's the persistent contrails these people are talking about!

Why aren't you making geoengineering/global warming mitigation threads?! You are in the wrong section...so you suggest...even though your polls seems to suggest it's the VISIBLE trails you are discussing with the chemtards!

Well, which is it?!

The chemtards are OBVIOUSLY referring to the VISIBLE trails in the sky!

I stick by my previous statement..you are using these people.

I never suggested that anyone was incapable of, or unwilling, to do anything. I'm just pointing out that these are separate, unrelated issues.

I do find it convenient that someone is "doing something" on a supposed global scale, which no one in the world is able to detect. I admit a lack of evidence doesn't ALWAYS mean nothing is going on...but, so far, it's a good indicator.

You're a fucking waffler....

You can't even decide what you are whining about...

I don't think so . . .

"1. Introduction
1.1 2009 is a key moment in the history of attempts to tackle the urgent threat of climate
change. New science suggests its impacts will be even more severe and felt far sooner than previously
anticipated. The window of opportunity for avoiding dangerous levels of climate change is closing
fast. All sectors have a responsibility to act and to act quickly to reduce their GHG emissions
substantially. Bunker fuels, including those from international aviation, are in no sense an exception
and must be brought into global GHG reduction plans and the UNFCCC Agreement in Copenhagen
in December 2009. GIACC alongside ICAO, its member states and industry and civil society
observers, has a solemn responsibility at this 11th hour to agree to effective proposals to this end.

2. Aviation’s contribution to radiative forcing is 4.9% of the global total and exceeds shipping
by 75%

2.1 ICSA’s presentation to GIACC/3 highlighted aviation’s contribution to climate change.
Since the meeting, new evidence has been published by Lee et al which updates the IPCC’s Fourth
Assessment Report (4AR), providing results based on operational data for 2005 (IPCC 4AR was
based on 2000 data). The report shows that global emissions of CO2 from air transport grew over 45%
between 1992 and 2005, reaching an estimated 733 million tonnes a year by the end of the period.
Between 2000 and 2007 alone, aviation traffic grew at an annual average rate of 5.3%, leading to a
38% increase in passenger traffic. The European Environment Agency (EEA) moreover estimates that
EU15 CO2 emissions from aviation grew 102% between 1990 and 2006. Lee et al calculated that the
CO2 and non-CO2 radiative forcing (RF) attributable to aviation in 2005 was 4.9% of the total RF when best estimates for the effects of aviation induced cirrus cloud formation are included (Lee et. al.
– see Appendix B). Without cloud effects, the figure was
3.5%. Estimates of total aviation RF(excluding cirrus) in 2050, using fuel usage growth factors of 2.7 to 3.9 over baseline year 2000, are 3 to 4 times greater than the 2000 value.

[link to legacy.icao.int]

Last Edited by George B on 04/04/2013 08:38 AM

[link to legacy.icao.int]

In the future, contrail cloudiness and radiative forcing are expected to increase more strongly than global aviation fuel consumption because air traffic is expected to increase mainly in the upper troposphere, where contrails form preferentially, and because aircraft will be equipped with more fuel-efficient engines. More efficient engines will cause contrails to occur more frequently and over a larger altitude range for the same amount of air traffic. For the threefold increase in fuel consumption calculated for a 2050 scenario (Fa1), a fivefold increase in contrail cover and a sixfold increase in radiative forcing are expected. The contrail cover would increase even more strongly if the number of cruising aircraft increases more than their fuel consumption. For other 2050 scenarios (Fc1 and Fe1), the expected cirrus cover increases by factors of 3 and 9, respectively, compared to 1992. Higher cruise altitudes will increase contrail cover in the subtropics; lower cruise altitudes will increase contrail cover in polar regions. Future climate changes may cause further changes in expected aircraft-induced cirrus cover.

To make it even more complex . . . the sulfur content of jet fuel presently is too low to help increase sulfur injected into the stratosphere which would cool the planet but is also too high in sulfur content when injected into the troposphere to reduce the number and persistence of contrails and contrail induced cirrus clouds . . . the exact opposite strategy that should be followed in both cases . . .

[link to www.patentstorm.us]

US Patent Application 20100122519 - ULTRA-LOW SULFUR FUEL AND METHOD FOR REDUCED CONTRAIL FORMATION

"0011]The gas turbine engine 20 utilizes an ultra-low sulfur fuel 30 to manage contrail formation from the gas turbine engine 20 while flying through contrail-forming conditions 32. Typical aviation fuels include 30-3000 parts per million of sulfur. However, the ultra-low sulfur fuel 30 of the disclosed example includes a concentration of sulfur that is less than about one part per million to limit an amount of sulfur byproduct produced in the exhaust 28. In further examples, the ultra-low sulfur fuel 30 may have a concentration of sulfur that is less than 300 parts per billion or concentration that is below detectable limits (i.e., nominally zero). The sulfur byproducts (e.g., including SO3) may be in the form of particles, compounds, or other exhaust matter emitted in the exhaust 28. 

[0012]Sulfur byproducts may act as nucleation sites for condensation of water under contrail-forming conditions. For instance, sulfur byproducts are highly hydroscopic compared to carbon or other particles in an exhaust. The sulfur byproducts, including any sulfur byproduct associated with emitted soot particles, attract water vapor molecules more readily than other types of particles in the exhaust. The sulfur byproduct may rapidly accumulate water and form droplets that lead to contrails. The amount of sulfur byproduct in the exhaust 28 is limited by utilizing the ultra-low sulfur fuel 30. The ultra-low sulfur fuel 30 thereby limits or eliminates contrail formation because there is limited sulfur byproduct in the exhaust 28 to support nucleation and water droplet formation."

NOTE: the present average sulfur concentration of jet fuel is around 300-500 ppm with an upper limit mandate of 3,000 ppm. . . while the proposed ppm for cars (at a cost of $20 Billion and increased energy costs to produce) is 10ppm . . .

Last Edited by George B on 04/03/2013 10:05 AM

Leave it to the Government to make things too expensive and complex . . . Lesson on how to mitigate persistent contrails . . . see below


"At typical contrail-friendly altitudes, between about 28,000 and 40,000 feet, temperatures run from about -36 to -76 degrees. If the airplane leaves a long trail, the air is not only cold but humid, allowing the ice crystals to persist. If the contrail stops, then starts up again, creating a broken line, chances are the airplane flew through a dry patch.

In 1994 the government awarded a $63.5-million [other sources report $16 million] contract to the Northrop Corporation to fine-tune stealth bombers in a number of ways. One retrofit involved the installation of "contrail management systems." Ophir, an optical sensor manufacturer in Littleton, Colorado, saved the day. Its Pilot Alert System uses lidar (light detection and ranging) to differentiate contrails from clouds and tell the pilot to change his altitude when his aircraft is "conning."

[link to www.globalsecurity.org]

How about a $5 mirror or a $200 video camera?? . . . Yup . . . that is a contrail all right . . .

Last Edited by George B on 04/03/2013 09:45 AM

:B-2 Contrail:

STILL not "chemtrails".

Come on . . . you are saying persistent contrails are not what most Chemtrail Conspiracy Advocates are complaining about . . . ??

That is exactly what I am pointing out . . . these persistent trails in the sky along with the contrail induced cirrus cloud banks are a problem acknowledged by scientists world wide . . . they just don't call them Chemtrails . . .

Last Edited by George B on 04/04/2013 08:37 AM

Come on . . . you are saying persistent contrails are not what most Chemtrail Conspiracy Advocates are complaining about . . . ??

That is exactly what I am pointing out . . . these persistent trails in the sky along with the contrail induced cirrus cloud banks are a problem acknowledged by scientists world wide . . . they just don't call them Chemtrails . . .

Last Edited by George B on 04/03/2013 10:27 AM

These Poll results further support my point . . . people see the trails and think they are something other than simply contrails . . .

Thread: How were you introduced to the concept of the Chemtrail conspiracy?

POLL: How were you introduced to the concept of the Chemtrail conspiracy?

3) I notice them first in the sky and started to ask questions 51.6% (192)
2) I visited a website and they talked about them 15.6% (58)
1) Someone (a friend, family, etc.) told me about Chemtrails 10.5% (39)
4) I was reading about a different conspiracy and they mentioned them . . . 8.6% (32)
9) Other . . . please specify 7.8% (29)
5) I saw a discussion on a YouTube video 3.8% (14)
7) I was watching TV and I saw a documentary on the History Channel 1.1% (4)
8) I had a dream about them and just knew 0.8% (3)
6) I was watching TV and there was a news story about them 0.3% (1)
Blank (View Results) (55)

Non-Blank Votes: 372

Last Edited by George B on 04/03/2013 10:25 AM

But the long fluffies that cause the flu are chemtrails.