You underestimate the complexity of flying into an air corridor.
You'd need an airplane that's pressurized (air corridors are 8 - 12 kms above the surface).
You need an approval to fly in the corridor.
Not sure about the instruments that would be needed, I suspect it goes into tens of thousands of dollars (equipment + installation). You'd probably need a couple of approvals for installing those instruments as well.
etc.
You don't just fly into one, effectively tailing a commercial flight and hope for the best. You'd probably get shot down by a military jet if you attempted to do it out of a whim.
I suspect it would be easier to get a weather balloon to cross a path of a commercial plane, or maybe constructing a solid fuel rocket, but damn, you'd probably get into a world of pain if that was done without approvals. Obviously the act of getting permits would alarm any agency that runs the chemtrails, so that you'd end up with no results.
I wonder if it's feasible to simply point a spectrometer at a contrail to see what it contains?
So, your argument boils down to "You need a permit! And I'd have to spend some money!" Neither should be a barrier to any genuinely committed proponent.
To me, that nobody has ever even tried, speaks volumes about the "reality" of chemtrails.
Yeah.....youre right. All of the patents mean nothing......the IPCC it talking out of their asses and all the hair and blood samples showing high levels of aluminum, barium and strontium mean there is nothing to this at all.
Is there a chance you personally just havent seen all of the information?
Hair and blood samples are equally meaningless WITH REGARD TO CHEMTRAILS. The air and water are simply more polluted than they have ever been. You don't need to fabricate a huge, remarkably airtight conspiracy involving thousands of people over decades.
So from sitting in your chair, you know it can only be the already polluted air and not anything to do with people's experiences seeing the skys being turned white over the course of a few years?
You're absolutely confident and positive there is no other source for this. You can prove that and show it in some kind of work, can you?
So, when you listen to these people they can only be talking out of their collective asses. Their combined hair and blood samples mean nothing?
So from sitting in your chair, you know it can only be the already polluted air and not anything to do with people's experiences seeing the skys being turned white over the course of a few years?
I know that chemtrails advocates have utterly failed to show any connection between hair/blood samples and chemtrails, have notably (and suspiciously) failed to take the obvious step of collecting direct samples, can't agree on who is spraying, why they are doing it, or even what is being sprayed, and won't acknowledge that the number of passenger air-kilometers per year has increased about 500% in the past 30 years.
And yes, it will take more than another shitty YouTube video of anecdotal "claims" to convince me otherwise. What about testimony from one of the tens of thousands of people needed to operate this world-wide program over the decades it has allegedly been running?
I'm sure there is work being done on geoengineering/weather modification, but I'm more inclined to look at projects like HAARP. Any weather changes resulting from contrails - and that is what Rosalind Peterson is ACTUALLY discussing - are incidental.
utterly failed to show any connection between hair/blood samples and chemtrails
Have you seen WITWATS? Dr. David Keith SPECIFICALLY says that aluminum has 4 times the reflective surface area per volume than any other material they can put into the air.
See, you know what we have here? You have an opinion, and I have one as well. I have huge concerns with these connections, and you're happy as a clam to claim there can be ZERO connection. As if you can somehow know better!
Geoengineers talk about this specifically and your opinion/bias keeps you thinking it can only be pollution because that is what you're comfortable with.
Roselind doesn't say there is no evidence for chemtrails, she specifically stated she has evidence that rocket programs have been dumping trimethyl aluminum into the atmosphere. She simple won't get behind anything because she doesn't believe there is sufficient facts on paper evidence to proceed with some kind of lawsuit. You don't have to speak for her, she knows what going on and just currently doesn't have the hard facts to prove it comes from planes. That's OK, because she is not the only source. That's what she's concerned with and you don't have to make it seem like she is not on board.
See, it's good to talk to people like you. Not because this post is actually for you. The more people who read this who are on the fence will see the difference between being apathetic and ignoring what has already been said by geoengineers, and looking up and seeing the obviousness of the sky above them. Ignoring those people in Arizona like you have, essentially claiming their testing is fiction or fraudulent to support your opinion is beyond disingenuous. You don't have anything to refute their claims except your opinion.
Have you seen WITWATS? Dr. David Keith SPECIFICALLY says that aluminum has 4 times the reflective surface area per volume than any other material they can put into the air.
Yes, let's see what Dr. David Keith SPECIFICALLY says on the topic of chemtrails. The following are all direct quotes from his website:
"I have not seen any credible evidence that chemtrails exist."
"I am very confident that there is no currently active program to actually test or implement geoengineering outdoors."
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The claim that there is a large-scale secret program to spray materials from aircraft is extraordinary. Yet all the evidence I have seen to date has been very weak."
So, the first man whose work you cite in support of chemtrails... doesn't actually think they exist. Address that....
Roselind doesn't say there is no evidence for chemtrails, she specifically stated she has evidence that rocket programs have been dumping trimethyl aluminum into the atmosphere. She simple won't get behind anything because she doesn't believe there is sufficient facts on paper evidence to proceed with some kind of lawsuit.
Yet, the title on this post by a chemtrailer is "The United Nations Exposes Chemtrails: 100% PROOF," Almost entirely nonsense. This goes to show how weak the real case for chemtrails is: its supporters need to fabricate and distort facts to try and support it.
S'funny, chemtrailers never mention this video by Peterson, in which she says, "In ten years of research, other than aluminum coated fiberglass, chaff releases by the US Military, I have no proof whatsoever that the jets are releasing anything but jet fuel emissions... I don't have a single study, I don't have a single solitary verifiable evidence that the jets are releasing anything."
So, another frequently cited "supporter" of chemtrails doesn't actually believe in them either! Address that...
See, it's good to talk to people like you. Not because this post is actually for you. The more people who read this who are on the fence will see the difference between being apathetic and ignoring what has already been said by geoengineers, and looking up and seeing the obviousness of the sky above them. Ignoring those people in Arizona like you have, essentially claiming their testing is fiction or fraudulent to support your opinion is beyond disingenuous. You don't have anything to refute their claims except your opinion.
I do genuinely appreciate your willingness to engage in a debate, and that's more than many have done - usually, by now, I've been called a "shill" for demanding objective evidence of the phenomena. But what you are doing is something I see quite often here: taking Case A, and extrapolating it as "proof" of X, Y and Z.
It's like the people who cite Operation Northwoods as evidence that the Boston Bombing was a hoax, failing to realize that they are entirely different things. A NASA rocket experiment or a theoretical concept offer absolutely no evidence for the existence of chemtraiils as they are claimed: The same goes for the people in Arizona. They fail completely to prove any connection to any atmospheric phenomena.
Dr. David Keith......4 times the reflective surface area per volume......address it.
Well, apart from the fact Dr. Keith himself doesn't believe in chemtrails, you omit the fact there's one other thing aluminum does very, very well. It's the main component of the chaff countermeasure used by military craft to confuse radar-guided missiles. Chemtrails, if they contain aluminum in the amount claimed, should light up on radar like a frickin' Christmas tree. Yet that doesn't seem to be happening at all.
Address that....
I agree, there's little hope in convincing a "True Believer" their views are incorrect. But I think anyone stumbling across this topic will realize that the evidence confirms what Dr. Keith and Rosalind Peterson have both EXPLICTLY said. Which is basically that chemtrails, as they are alleged, simply do not exist.
I linked to the specific sites. Some Googling e.g. search for "David Keith chemtrails" and his page is the first result, along with a lot of information I've remembered from previous discussions on the topic. Nothing special, but I have looked into it. I stay quiet on most topics, here because I haven't done the research.
YOu cited David Keith....a geoengineer who wants to put chemicals into the sky to reflect radiation back into space just like the IPCC says it wants to.....
They personally don't call it chemtrails because that's our term that people use because this kind of thing is not on anyone's radar, yet.
You're running on the ragged edge of your argument here. Remember a lawsuit failed to net anything related to "chemtrails" because they don't recognize that as their term.
It's like cheesy lawyer tricks. Legaleese. They claim they don't know anything about it when they're funding the issue but call it something else.
They claim they don't know anything about it when they're funding the issue but call it something else.
Wrong, yet again. As I already quoted him, Keith says, "I am very confident that there is no currently active program to actually test or implement geoengineering outdoors." And you have completely failed to prove otherwise, offering absolutely zero evidence of any such program being carried out.
Did you see this article?
Oh, look. Yet another purely theoretical concept with no actual basis in fact. What a surprise.
You have had your ass soundly kicked in this "debate" - I use quotes, because only one of us has been providing any actual facts, and it isn't you. You should probably quit before you embarrass yourself any further with your continued inability to distinguish science fiction from fact.
This would be trivial with a helium balloon. There is no excuse for not having this data except that this is all hogwash. The recent and current campaign of chemtrail posts on /r/conspiracy is telling that a small group of people want to push this topic on the sub for some reason or another.
You don't need to fly up there. You can just collect sample from the ground. This has been done regularly since 2004. Geoengineeringwatch.org has tons of the independent lab tests.
Which prove absolutely nothing. The allegation is not increased pollution, it's deliberate contamination. This is literally like claiming someone is poisoning a reservoir with an air sample collected on top of Mount Everest.
last time I checked the rich and powerful, can live and drive in homes/cars with air cleaning systems. Also can afford to buy filtered water. as well as pay for treatment to help them.
If youre talking about filtered water the important issue most will be talking about is fluoride and in which case your dollar store filters do not filter fluoride. Yeah, youre right if you only talk about removing bad tastes in your mouth. Fluoride, not so much.
Reverse osmosis is the name of the game here. You need a system under your sink and those arent at the dollar store.
They don't drink the same water. The British royalty avoid bottled water and only drink pure filtered water. They also refrain from normal food instead opting for organic products.
Could we also be collateral damage? Some health issues (even the death of a few) is a good payoff for extending the world's habitation (to save the many).
Sure. We honestly don't know for certain what all we are being sprayed with...I suspect there's multiple substances being sprayed, possibly for various studies.
Your argument is the criminally insane are far to reasonable and wise to cause their own destruction. I think if you looked closely you would see that isn't true.
Weather modification is known to be used regularly, that much is easy to prove without too much effort. It also seems likely that they wouldn't have tested these chemicals as thoroughly as they should have, as they're probably too focused on "saving the world from global warming" or "creating rain we desperately need" by doing all this spraying. Plus there's no regulation of it because they hardly admit they're doing it in the first place even though it's obvious it's happening.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as the saying goes.
Rosalind Peterson made a presentation to the UN on the effects of persistent contrails, which are starting to block out the skies and could be contributing to climate change. She is not talking about 'chemtrails' and she says that after 30 years of 'Looking up' she has never found any evidence for them.
YOu cited David Keith....a geoengineer who wants to put chemicals into the sky to reflect radiation back into space just like the IPCC says it wants to.....
They personally don't call it chemtrails because that's our term that people use because this kind of thing is not on anyone's radar, yet.
You're running on the ragged edge of your argument here. Remember a lawsuit failed to net anything related to "chemtrails" because they don't recognize that as their term.
It's like cheesy lawyer tricks. Legaleese. They claim they don't know anything about it when they're funding the issue but call it something else.
They claim they don't know anything about it when they're funding the issue but call it something else.
Wrong, yet again. As I already quoted him, Keith says, "I am very confident that there is no currently active program to actually test or implement geoengineering outdoors." And you have completely failed to prove otherwise, offering absolutely zero evidence of any such program being carried out.
Did you see this article?
Oh, look. Yet another purely theoretical concept with no actual basis in fact. What a surprise.
You have had your ass soundly kicked in this "debate" - I use quotes, because only one of us has been providing any actual facts, and it isn't you. You should probably quit before you embarrass yourself any further with your continued inability to distinguish science fiction from fact.
62 comments
7 burningempires 2015-10-23
So, why has no chemtrail advocate ever hired a plane, flown up into these "ever present" trails and obtained samples as they are being sprayed?
Oh, and Petersen is NOT "addressing the UN". That chemtrailers can't even tell the truth about that, shows just how credible they are.
3 DaneelR 2015-10-23
You underestimate the complexity of flying into an air corridor.
You'd need an airplane that's pressurized (air corridors are 8 - 12 kms above the surface).
You need an approval to fly in the corridor.
Not sure about the instruments that would be needed, I suspect it goes into tens of thousands of dollars (equipment + installation). You'd probably need a couple of approvals for installing those instruments as well.
etc.
You don't just fly into one, effectively tailing a commercial flight and hope for the best. You'd probably get shot down by a military jet if you attempted to do it out of a whim.
I suspect it would be easier to get a weather balloon to cross a path of a commercial plane, or maybe constructing a solid fuel rocket, but damn, you'd probably get into a world of pain if that was done without approvals. Obviously the act of getting permits would alarm any agency that runs the chemtrails, so that you'd end up with no results.
I wonder if it's feasible to simply point a spectrometer at a contrail to see what it contains?
2 nonorat 2015-10-23
This mirrors my own thinking. It should be possible, given they're already used for similar tasks.
1 burningempires 2015-10-23
So, your argument boils down to "You need a permit! And I'd have to spend some money!" Neither should be a barrier to any genuinely committed proponent.
To me, that nobody has ever even tried, speaks volumes about the "reality" of chemtrails.
0 bittermanscolon 2015-10-23
Yeah.....youre right. All of the patents mean nothing......the IPCC it talking out of their asses and all the hair and blood samples showing high levels of aluminum, barium and strontium mean there is nothing to this at all.
Is there a chance you personally just havent seen all of the information?
0 burningempires 2015-10-23
You're right. A patent doesn't mean in the slightest that something exists.
Hair and blood samples are equally meaningless WITH REGARD TO CHEMTRAILS. The air and water are simply more polluted than they have ever been. You don't need to fabricate a huge, remarkably airtight conspiracy involving thousands of people over decades.
2 bittermanscolon 2015-10-23
So from sitting in your chair, you know it can only be the already polluted air and not anything to do with people's experiences seeing the skys being turned white over the course of a few years?
You're absolutely confident and positive there is no other source for this. You can prove that and show it in some kind of work, can you?
So, when you listen to these people they can only be talking out of their collective asses. Their combined hair and blood samples mean nothing?
Confident in your armchair analysis?
0 burningempires 2015-10-23
I know that chemtrails advocates have utterly failed to show any connection between hair/blood samples and chemtrails, have notably (and suspiciously) failed to take the obvious step of collecting direct samples, can't agree on who is spraying, why they are doing it, or even what is being sprayed, and won't acknowledge that the number of passenger air-kilometers per year has increased about 500% in the past 30 years.
And yes, it will take more than another shitty YouTube video of anecdotal "claims" to convince me otherwise. What about testimony from one of the tens of thousands of people needed to operate this world-wide program over the decades it has allegedly been running?
I'm sure there is work being done on geoengineering/weather modification, but I'm more inclined to look at projects like HAARP. Any weather changes resulting from contrails - and that is what Rosalind Peterson is ACTUALLY discussing - are incidental.
2 bittermanscolon 2015-10-23
Have you seen WITWATS? Dr. David Keith SPECIFICALLY says that aluminum has 4 times the reflective surface area per volume than any other material they can put into the air.
See, you know what we have here? You have an opinion, and I have one as well. I have huge concerns with these connections, and you're happy as a clam to claim there can be ZERO connection. As if you can somehow know better!
Geoengineers talk about this specifically and your opinion/bias keeps you thinking it can only be pollution because that is what you're comfortable with.
Roselind doesn't say there is no evidence for chemtrails, she specifically stated she has evidence that rocket programs have been dumping trimethyl aluminum into the atmosphere. She simple won't get behind anything because she doesn't believe there is sufficient facts on paper evidence to proceed with some kind of lawsuit. You don't have to speak for her, she knows what going on and just currently doesn't have the hard facts to prove it comes from planes. That's OK, because she is not the only source. That's what she's concerned with and you don't have to make it seem like she is not on board.
See, it's good to talk to people like you. Not because this post is actually for you. The more people who read this who are on the fence will see the difference between being apathetic and ignoring what has already been said by geoengineers, and looking up and seeing the obviousness of the sky above them. Ignoring those people in Arizona like you have, essentially claiming their testing is fiction or fraudulent to support your opinion is beyond disingenuous. You don't have anything to refute their claims except your opinion.
Dr. David Keith......4 times the reflective surface area per volume......address it. Global dimming, turning our skies whiter....a geoengineering process.
Thank god those who care and fence sit will see this and know what you're basing your idea on.
1 burningempires 2015-10-23
Yes, let's see what Dr. David Keith SPECIFICALLY says on the topic of chemtrails. The following are all direct quotes from his website:
So, the first man whose work you cite in support of chemtrails... doesn't actually think they exist. Address that....
Yet, the title on this post by a chemtrailer is "The United Nations Exposes Chemtrails: 100% PROOF," Almost entirely nonsense. This goes to show how weak the real case for chemtrails is: its supporters need to fabricate and distort facts to try and support it.
S'funny, chemtrailers never mention this video by Peterson, in which she says, "In ten years of research, other than aluminum coated fiberglass, chaff releases by the US Military, I have no proof whatsoever that the jets are releasing anything but jet fuel emissions... I don't have a single study, I don't have a single solitary verifiable evidence that the jets are releasing anything."
So, another frequently cited "supporter" of chemtrails doesn't actually believe in them either! Address that...
I do genuinely appreciate your willingness to engage in a debate, and that's more than many have done - usually, by now, I've been called a "shill" for demanding objective evidence of the phenomena. But what you are doing is something I see quite often here: taking Case A, and extrapolating it as "proof" of X, Y and Z.
It's like the people who cite Operation Northwoods as evidence that the Boston Bombing was a hoax, failing to realize that they are entirely different things. A NASA rocket experiment or a theoretical concept offer absolutely no evidence for the existence of chemtraiils as they are claimed: The same goes for the people in Arizona. They fail completely to prove any connection to any atmospheric phenomena.
Well, apart from the fact Dr. Keith himself doesn't believe in chemtrails, you omit the fact there's one other thing aluminum does very, very well. It's the main component of the chaff countermeasure used by military craft to confuse radar-guided missiles. Chemtrails, if they contain aluminum in the amount claimed, should light up on radar like a frickin' Christmas tree. Yet that doesn't seem to be happening at all.
Address that....
I agree, there's little hope in convincing a "True Believer" their views are incorrect. But I think anyone stumbling across this topic will realize that the evidence confirms what Dr. Keith and Rosalind Peterson have both EXPLICTLY said. Which is basically that chemtrails, as they are alleged, simply do not exist.
2 bittermanscolon 2015-10-23
Where are you getting the information you base your opinion on?
0 burningempires 2015-10-23
I linked to the specific sites. Some Googling e.g. search for "David Keith chemtrails" and his page is the first result, along with a lot of information I've remembered from previous discussions on the topic. Nothing special, but I have looked into it. I stay quiet on most topics, here because I haven't done the research.
2 bittermanscolon 2015-10-23
YOu cited David Keith....a geoengineer who wants to put chemicals into the sky to reflect radiation back into space just like the IPCC says it wants to.....
They personally don't call it chemtrails because that's our term that people use because this kind of thing is not on anyone's radar, yet.
You're running on the ragged edge of your argument here. Remember a lawsuit failed to net anything related to "chemtrails" because they don't recognize that as their term.
It's like cheesy lawyer tricks. Legaleese. They claim they don't know anything about it when they're funding the issue but call it something else.
Have you heard of SRM before?
Did you see this article?
0 burningempires 2015-10-23
Wrong, yet again. As I already quoted him, Keith says, "I am very confident that there is no currently active program to actually test or implement geoengineering outdoors." And you have completely failed to prove otherwise, offering absolutely zero evidence of any such program being carried out.
Oh, look. Yet another purely theoretical concept with no actual basis in fact. What a surprise.
You have had your ass soundly kicked in this "debate" - I use quotes, because only one of us has been providing any actual facts, and it isn't you. You should probably quit before you embarrass yourself any further with your continued inability to distinguish science fiction from fact.
2 bittermanscolon 2015-10-23
OK, good luck out there.
2 SoCo_cpp 2015-10-23
This would be trivial with a helium balloon. There is no excuse for not having this data except that this is all hogwash. The recent and current campaign of chemtrail posts on /r/conspiracy is telling that a small group of people want to push this topic on the sub for some reason or another.
0 [deleted] 2015-10-23
You don't need to fly up there. You can just collect sample from the ground. This has been done regularly since 2004. Geoengineeringwatch.org has tons of the independent lab tests.
1 76one 2015-10-23
But that's of general air, not contrails. There's a lot of pollution in air besides what contrails add.
1 burningempires 2015-10-23
Which prove absolutely nothing. The allegation is not increased pollution, it's deliberate contamination. This is literally like claiming someone is poisoning a reservoir with an air sample collected on top of Mount Everest.
6 make_mind_free2go 2015-10-23
weather modification for decades
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/a-recomended-national-program-in-weather-modification-icas-report-10a/
4 IDoNotAgreeWithYou 2015-10-23
The rich and powerful breathe the same air we breathe. That's why this is fake.
2 Slipperybutterb 2015-10-23
But they have the antidote!
-6 IDoNotAgreeWithYou 2015-10-23
I bet.
0 br0wnb3rry 2015-10-23
last time I checked the rich and powerful, can live and drive in homes/cars with air cleaning systems. Also can afford to buy filtered water. as well as pay for treatment to help them.
-4 IDoNotAgreeWithYou 2015-10-23
Anybody can afford filtered water. Do they also filter air when they go outside?
2 bittermanscolon 2015-10-23
Anybody?
0 IDoNotAgreeWithYou 2015-10-23
You can buy filters at the dollar store.
2 bittermanscolon 2015-10-23
If youre talking about filtered water the important issue most will be talking about is fluoride and in which case your dollar store filters do not filter fluoride. Yeah, youre right if you only talk about removing bad tastes in your mouth. Fluoride, not so much.
Reverse osmosis is the name of the game here. You need a system under your sink and those arent at the dollar store.
0 IDoNotAgreeWithYou 2015-10-23
Ya they do.
2 bittermanscolon 2015-10-23
For a dollar?
-1 [deleted] 2015-10-23
[deleted]
-5 IDoNotAgreeWithYou 2015-10-23
They also drink the same water as us, do you think they poison that? I don't even watch tv.
3 holdingon4life 2015-10-23
They don't drink the same water. The British royalty avoid bottled water and only drink pure filtered water. They also refrain from normal food instead opting for organic products.
-4 IDoNotAgreeWithYou 2015-10-23
The Queen doesn't wear a gas mask when she goes outside though. She must have some super advanced filtration system inside of her.
11 grandmacaesar 2015-10-23
Perhaps the spraying is not for poisoning people. Perhaps it's for modifying the weather.
1 mysticrecluse 2015-10-23
Could we also be collateral damage? Some health issues (even the death of a few) is a good payoff for extending the world's habitation (to save the many).
3 grandmacaesar 2015-10-23
Sure. We honestly don't know for certain what all we are being sprayed with...I suspect there's multiple substances being sprayed, possibly for various studies.
But gov docs point to weather modification.
A Recommended National Program In Weather Modification - 1966 (NASA)
An Introduction to Weather Modification - US Air Force, September 1969
Weather Modification: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Oceans and International Environment of the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate - January 1, 1974
Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025
Atmospheric Aerosol Properties and Climate Impacts
And from the USCode: 15 USC Ch. 9A: WEATHER MODIFICATION ACTIVITIES OR ATTEMPTS; REPORTING REQUIREMENT
1 [deleted] 2015-10-23
[deleted]
-3 IDoNotAgreeWithYou 2015-10-23
No shit, you can go to a water treatment plant and watch flouride being poured into it. Yet, the rich and powerful still drink it.
3 Baron523 2015-10-23
Your argument is the criminally insane are far to reasonable and wise to cause their own destruction. I think if you looked closely you would see that isn't true.
-1 meat_for_the_beast 2015-10-23
They don't spray around the areas that the rich and powerful don't want them to... mostly around cities they do not occupy.
1 IDoNotAgreeWithYou 2015-10-23
You realize that wind carries pollutants for miles and miles, correct?
4 airiu 2015-10-23
The farther the distance from the initial trail the lower the exposure rate.
1 IDoNotAgreeWithYou 2015-10-23
But they're still exposing themselves.
2 airiu 2015-10-23
They could be exposed, but most likely to doses that have little to no effect on their health.
-1 IDoNotAgreeWithYou 2015-10-23
Except when they need to get to their private jets! What then!?
-1 Antiseed117 2015-10-23
In flight air purifiers.
3 IDoNotAgreeWithYou 2015-10-23
But they have to get out of their cars and walk into the tarmac in order to get to their jets.
1 Antiseed117 2015-10-23
Breathing mask then. Cha?
3 IDoNotAgreeWithYou 2015-10-23
Guess thats why i see so many people with masks on at the airport.
3 magnora7 2015-10-23
It's for weather modification and it's making everyone sick as a side effect.
2 [deleted] 2015-10-23
[deleted]
3 magnora7 2015-10-23
Weather modification is known to be used regularly, that much is easy to prove without too much effort. It also seems likely that they wouldn't have tested these chemicals as thoroughly as they should have, as they're probably too focused on "saving the world from global warming" or "creating rain we desperately need" by doing all this spraying. Plus there's no regulation of it because they hardly admit they're doing it in the first place even though it's obvious it's happening.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as the saying goes.
2 ASaDouche 2015-10-23
Could you not send a little drone into one of these chemtrails and collect a sample? Just wondering with todays technology why it hasnt happened?
0 MurrueLaFlaga 2015-10-23
Great post. Right now, NWS and NOAA employees are being gagged regarding the weather. This worldwide regime of lies needs to topple soon.
4 SoCo_cpp 2015-10-23
There is no citation for the "gag" accusation.
1 MurrueLaFlaga 2015-10-23
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/government-implements-illegal-gag-order-on-national-weather-service-and-noaa/?
3 SoCo_cpp 2015-10-23
They've provide no source for their claims or quotes.... and they are "geoengineeringwatch.org", not really a reputable source.
2 Ambiguously_Ironic 2015-10-23
Yes it does. It has multiple sources actually and they're all linked right there in the article.
1 MurrueLaFlaga 2015-10-23
1 King-Hell 2015-10-23
But this is a website notorious for its sensationalist reporting of paranoid conspiracy theories.
0 Antiseed117 2015-10-23
They cant go on lying to America & the world like this and still expect to come out clean. Great find OP.
Edit: by "they" I mean govt officals okaying these chemtrails. I felt as if I needed to clarify.
-5 King-Hell 2015-10-23
Rosalind Peterson made a presentation to the UN on the effects of persistent contrails, which are starting to block out the skies and could be contributing to climate change. She is not talking about 'chemtrails' and she says that after 30 years of 'Looking up' she has never found any evidence for them.
2 nonorat 2015-10-23
Indeed. And here's the 'Holy Grail' of evidentiary standards to show that - a Youtube video.
Rosalind Peterson: No Evidence for Chemtrails
2 SoCo_cpp 2015-10-23
Contrails contribute to Global Dimming which somewhat hide climate change.
2 bittermanscolon 2015-10-23
Where are you getting the information you base your opinion on?
2 bittermanscolon 2015-10-23
YOu cited David Keith....a geoengineer who wants to put chemicals into the sky to reflect radiation back into space just like the IPCC says it wants to.....
They personally don't call it chemtrails because that's our term that people use because this kind of thing is not on anyone's radar, yet.
You're running on the ragged edge of your argument here. Remember a lawsuit failed to net anything related to "chemtrails" because they don't recognize that as their term.
It's like cheesy lawyer tricks. Legaleese. They claim they don't know anything about it when they're funding the issue but call it something else.
Have you heard of SRM before?
Did you see this article?
0 burningempires 2015-10-23
Wrong, yet again. As I already quoted him, Keith says, "I am very confident that there is no currently active program to actually test or implement geoengineering outdoors." And you have completely failed to prove otherwise, offering absolutely zero evidence of any such program being carried out.
Oh, look. Yet another purely theoretical concept with no actual basis in fact. What a surprise.
You have had your ass soundly kicked in this "debate" - I use quotes, because only one of us has been providing any actual facts, and it isn't you. You should probably quit before you embarrass yourself any further with your continued inability to distinguish science fiction from fact.