chemtrails

[[email protected]]

well if anyone knows you guys should! what is this phenomena all about?
we all can see normal contrails but the other sort - the ones that just
hang in the air and spread wider and wider forming fake cirrus clouds,
are we being poisened, are they reflecting back sunlight? and who is
involved with it.
this is a genuine request for information and I would be very grateful
for your comments.

[Peter Duniho]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> well if anyone knows you guys should! what is this phenomena all about?

http://www.google.com/search?q=chemtrails

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=chemtrails+group%3Arec.aviation.piloting

It's amazing how much information is already out there for someone who
bothers to look.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article om>,
wrote:

> well if anyone knows you guys should! what is this phenomena all about?
> we all can see normal contrails but the other sort - the ones that just
> hang in the air and spread wider and wider forming fake cirrus clouds,
> are we being poisened, are they reflecting back sunlight? and who is
> involved with it.
> this is a genuine request for information and I would be very grateful
> for your comments.

No mystery, no conspiracy.

It is all due to atmospheric conditions. Supersaturated air at altitude
allows contrails to promote further cloud formation.

[RK Henry]

On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 03:40:37 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>> well if anyone knows you guys should! what is this phenomena all about?
>
>http://www.google.com/search?q=chemtrails
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=chemtrails+group%3Arec.aviation.piloting
>
>It's amazing how much information is already out there for someone who
>bothers to look.

Yeah, but is the information true? Most of those hits are kook sites.

I think the Wikipedia might be considered a better source. Sure, the
Wikipedia has its faults, but I think it makes a good-faith effort to
get it right eventually.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrails

I guess a reader could compare all the sites and decide for himself.

RK Henry

[Alan]

Chemtrails are no laughing matter. Experimental chemicals are
secretly added to jet fuel by the NSA working in concert with the UN
special ops agency and released into the atmosphere to test the effect
on the general population. Many of these chemical compounds were
developed from substances found in the cargo hold of the UFO kept in
Area 51. I avoid chemtrails whenever possible and if I am in the
general vicinity I make a point of putting on my tin foil hat.




On 9 Jun 2006 03:03:59 -0700, wrote:

>well if anyone knows you guys should! what is this phenomena all about?
>we all can see normal contrails but the other sort - the ones that just
>hang in the air and spread wider and wider forming fake cirrus clouds,
>are we being poisened, are they reflecting back sunlight? and who is
>involved with it.
>this is a genuine request for information and I would be very grateful
>for your comments.

[Peter Duniho]

"RK Henry" > wrote in message
...
>>It's amazing how much information is already out there for someone who
>>bothers to look.
>
> Yeah, but is the information true? Most of those hits are kook sites.

As with all things Internet, you need to judge your sources. A person who
can presumably sift the wheat from the chaff in a Usenet newsgroup (if he
can't he has no business asking the question here...we are notoriously
unreliable) should have no trouble figuring out what among the Google search
hits are legitimate information and which are just full of crap.

> I think the Wikipedia might be considered a better source. Sure, the
> Wikipedia has its faults, but I think it makes a good-faith effort to
> get it right eventually.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrails

Wikipedia is usually pretty good. But a person should never trust just one
source, even if that source is something more socially accepted
(Encyclopedia Brittanica, etc.)

> I guess a reader could compare all the sites and decide for himself.

Well, yes. Any reader asking for information on the Internet needs to be
able to do that. Furthermore, one of the two links I provided was a search
in this very newsgroup. It's highly unlikely this thread will generate
subsantially different information today than it did the several times it's
already come up before.

Pete

[Casey Wilson]

"Alan" > wrote in message
...
>
> Chemtrails are no laughing matter. Experimental chemicals are
> secretly added to jet fuel by the NSA working in concert with the UN
> special ops agency and released into the atmosphere to test the effect
> on the general population. Many of these chemical compounds were
> developed from substances found in the cargo hold of the UFO kept in
> Area 51. I avoid chemtrails whenever possible and if I am in the
> general vicinity I make a point of putting on my tin foil hat.
>
>
Alan, you are a gas.... pun absolutely intended. You had me going
right down until the last five words.


ROFLMAO!!

[AJ]

Contrails, Chemtrails explained by condensation

May 19, 2006

Since the skies have been mostly sunny over the last couple weeks, I
thought I'd share an e-mail from a reader who wondered about the
"mostly" part of it. Although I almost hate to do it.

Tim writes, "I woke up this morning with nothing but clear skies and
now all day long there were planes that were flying together spraying a
white substance out of the back that is definitely not water
condensation trails. These trails have lingered around all day and made
a haze in the sky, and lately more and more I have seen these and I
thought I would like your opinion." First of all, Tim didn't explain
why he thinks they were "definitely not water condensation trails,"
because I think that's exactly what they were. If it looks like a duck,
acts like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. The same
goes for clouds, and contrails are just clouds. But I think where he
was trying to get me to go was in the direction of "chemtrails."
Chemtrails. Why did I open that can of worms?

Before I start in on this, let me say that I love a good conspiracy
theory as well as the next guy. But I also like good science. And there
is just something about looking up at the sky and seeing "jets spraying
a milky white chemical into the sky" that is irresistible to conspiracy
theorists everywhere. Now having said that, please don't inundate me
with e-mails and letters, complete with pictures, diagrams and links to
web sites in an attempt to "open my eyes to the truth" about
chemtrails. Every picture of a "chemtrail" I have seen turns out to be
a nice picture of a contrail.

Clouds are fascinating objects. For one thing; one person will view the
ever-changing shapes and colors and see the government poisoning the
atmosphere, while others will see a horsey and a duckie.

When the subject of chemtrails comes up, many who believe that it is
something more than just contrails point to all kinds of evidence to
suggest it is anything from governmental weather modification to
controlling population. But most of their issues stem from an ignorance
of cloud physics. Some wonder why on one clear day, the skies are
crisscrossed with contrails, while on the next they are almost
non-existent. The difference is how much humidity is in the air up at
jet level.

While clouds can form when the air is saturated with water vapor, they
don't have to. Sometimes the air can get super-saturated, but if there
isn't a nucleation site upon which the water vapor can condense, then
the skies can still be clear. If you send a jet through this air,
depositing exhaust, a thick contrail can form and stay up there all day
in a saturated environment. If the air is drier a contrail can form,
but it evaporates and disappears almost immediately. That's why some
"clear" days stay clear, and others get muddied up with a tapestry of
contrails.

Space doesn't allow me to go into all the explanations for "weird
contrail" formation, but I have never received a picture of one that
couldn't be explained by perfectly natural atmospheric conditions"»
and I've seen an awful lot of them.

So please don't feel led to send me any more.

"Catch Mike Alger's forecast on KTVN Channel 2 News at 5, 5:30, 6:30
and 11 p.m. Monday through Friday. Ask Mike a question at
."

[Robert M. Gary]

One of the more dangerous compounds in Chemtrails is DHMO (Dihydrogen
Monoxide). More information on this chemical that kills thousands every
year can be found at
http://www.dhmo.org/
-Robert

Alan wrote:
> Chemtrails are no laughing matter. Experimental chemicals are
> secretly added to jet fuel by the NSA working in concert with the UN
> special ops agency and released into the atmosphere to test the effect
> on the general population. Many of these chemical compounds were
> developed from substances found in the cargo hold of the UFO kept in
> Area 51. I avoid chemtrails whenever possible and if I am in the
> general vicinity I make a point of putting on my tin foil hat.

[Steve Foley]

I'm pretty sure Pratt & Whitney specifically designed some jet engines to
allow injection of DHMO into the combustion chamber. I'm sure they have some
innocent-sounding reason for this.


"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> One of the more dangerous compounds in Chemtrails is DHMO (Dihydrogen
> Monoxide). More information on this chemical that kills thousands every
> year can be found at
> http://www.dhmo.org/
> -Robert
>
> Alan wrote:
> > Chemtrails are no laughing matter. Experimental chemicals are
> > secretly added to jet fuel by the NSA working in concert with the UN
> > special ops agency and released into the atmosphere to test the effect
> > on the general population. Many of these chemical compounds were
> > developed from substances found in the cargo hold of the UFO kept in
> > Area 51. I avoid chemtrails whenever possible and if I am in the
> > general vicinity I make a point of putting on my tin foil hat.
>

[Jim Macklin]

This chemical is very dangerous. It can cause death if
there is too much of it and none at all. It destroys crops
when it is in solid form, as crystals, it looks pretty but
often collects and causes suffocation.
As a liquid, this dangerous chemical can transport poisons,
heavy metals and pollution. In large measure this chemical
has destroyed rivers, dams, dykes and even mountains and
cities.

It is the most prevalent greenhouse gas on the planet and
is a major cause of global warming. We need to call our
Congreepersons and demand that they do something about the
easy availability of this chemical. There have even been
cases of mothers with immediate access to large quantities,
often on a Saturday night for a special occasion, have
killed their children when they did not have to wait five
days to obtain enough chemical to kill their babies.
When pure this chemical is odorless, colorless and
tasteless. When it is not pure it may be almost any color,
the taste may be bitter, sweet, which does not indicate
whether it is safe.



"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
| One of the more dangerous compounds in Chemtrails is DHMO
(Dihydrogen
| Monoxide). More information on this chemical that kills
thousands every
| year can be found at
| http://www.dhmo.org/
| -Robert
|
| Alan wrote:
| > Chemtrails are no laughing matter. Experimental
chemicals are
| > secretly added to jet fuel by the NSA working in concert
with the UN
| > special ops agency and released into the atmosphere to
test the effect
| > on the general population. Many of these chemical
compounds were
| > developed from substances found in the cargo hold of the
UFO kept in
| > Area 51. I avoid chemtrails whenever possible and if I
am in the
| > general vicinity I make a point of putting on my tin
foil hat.
|

[Skylune]

by "Peter Duniho" > Jun 9, 2006 at 03:40 AM



It's amazing how much information is already out there for someone who
bothers to look

<<

I agree, especially when it comes to the aviation trust fund.

[Casey Wilson]

"AJ" > wrote in message
ps.com...
Contrails, Chemtrails explained by condensation

<< nonessential stuff deleted >>


<Space doesn't allow me to go into all the explanations for "weird
<contrail" formation, but I have never received a picture of one that
<couldn't be explained by perfectly natural atmospheric conditions"»
<and I've seen an awful lot of them.


Oh Yeah, says you!!!

[Skywise]

wrote in news:1149847439.715196.323230
@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> well if anyone knows you guys should! what is this phenomena all about?
> we all can see normal contrails but the other sort - the ones that just
> hang in the air and spread wider and wider forming fake cirrus clouds,
> are we being poisened, are they reflecting back sunlight? and who is
> involved with it.
> this is a genuine request for information and I would be very grateful
> for your comments.

Step number one, learn how to recognize psuedoscience.

I have a page on my website that will help,
http://www.skywise711.com/Skeptic/WPBWT/index.html

There is also Carl Sagans Baloney Detection Kit,
http://www.carlsagan.com/revamp/carlsagan/baloney.html

Once you have these skills mastered then you can answer the
questions for yourself.

Another item of interest is the following article, "Unskilled
and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments"

A PDF version can be found here,
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

But a google search on that title will yield many sources.

From the abstract,

"Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make
unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the
metacognitive ability to realize it."

This article will help you to understand why kooks and nutjobs
can't see their own stupidity.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Darkwing]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> One of the more dangerous compounds in Chemtrails is DHMO (Dihydrogen
> Monoxide). More information on this chemical that kills thousands every
> year can be found at
> http://www.dhmo.org/
> -Robert
>


Oh sweet God! We are all dooooooommmmmmeeeedddd!!!!! Glad it isn't in
bottled water.

------------------------------------------------
DW

[Casey Wilson]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
news:AMiig.1085$OQ2.430@trndny08...
> I'm pretty sure Pratt & Whitney specifically designed some jet engines to
> allow injection of DHMO into the combustion chamber. I'm sure they have
> some
> innocent-sounding reason for this.
>
>
I personally know a mechanical engineer that worked in a US Navy
research lab who designed a DHMO manifold injector for internal combustion
engines. I even witnessed a demonstration of it.

[John Gaquin]

> wrote in message

> well if anyone knows you guys should! what is this phenomena all about?

Oh, God...........

[Morgans]

"Casey Wilson" <N2310D @ gmail.com> wrote

> I personally know a mechanical engineer that worked in a US Navy
> research lab who designed a DHMO manifold injector for internal combustion
> engines. I even witnessed a demonstration of it.

Works great for engines running at high power levels, and nearly constant
loads and RPM. It has been around since at least WW II.
--
Jim in NC

[cjcampbell]

Darkwing wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > One of the more dangerous compounds in Chemtrails is DHMO (Dihydrogen
> > Monoxide). More information on this chemical that kills thousands every
> > year can be found at
> > http://www.dhmo.org/
> > -Robert
> >
>
>
> Oh sweet God! We are all dooooooommmmmmeeeedddd!!!!! Glad it isn't in
> bottled water.

A survey of bottled water found that 100% of samples taken were
contaminated with DHMO.

[Matt Whiting]

cjcampbell wrote:

> Darkwing wrote:
>
>>"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>
>>>One of the more dangerous compounds in Chemtrails is DHMO (Dihydrogen
>>>Monoxide). More information on this chemical that kills thousands every
>>>year can be found at
>>>http://www.dhmo.org/
>>>-Robert
>>>
>>
>>
>>Oh sweet God! We are all dooooooommmmmmeeeedddd!!!!! Glad it isn't in
>>bottled water.
>
>
> A survey of bottled water found that 100% of samples taken were
> contaminated with DHMO.
>

And worse yet, they were 100% contaminated!

Matt

[Casey Wilson]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> cjcampbell wrote:
>
>> Darkwing wrote:
>>
>>>"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>
>>>>One of the more dangerous compounds in Chemtrails is DHMO (Dihydrogen
>>>>Monoxide). More information on this chemical that kills thousands every
>>>>year can be found at
>>>>http://www.dhmo.org/
>>>>-Robert
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh sweet God! We are all dooooooommmmmmeeeedddd!!!!! Glad it isn't in
>>>bottled water.
>>
>>
>> A survey of bottled water found that 100% of samples taken were
>> contaminated with DHMO.
>>
>
> And worse yet, they were 100% contaminated!
>
Still more astounding -- every person who has died in the last 50 years
has ingested DHMO orally!! That is 100%, worldwide!! And not one single
government is trying to ban the molecular compound.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"AJ" > wrote in message
ps.com...
Contrails, Chemtrails explained by condensation

I bet you think that the moon landings were real, the alien autopsies were
fake, and the pyramids were built by Egyptians.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote in message
news:KdGdnc5ry4yPOxHZnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@wideopenwest .com...
> "AJ" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> Contrails, Chemtrails explained by condensation
>
> I bet you think that the moon landings were real, the alien autopsies were
> fake, and the pyramids were built by Egyptians.
>
> --
> Geoff
> The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
> remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
> When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.
>

oops, forgot the :-)

--
--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[[email protected]]

Thank you all who replied to my post, of course i have spent time
looking at many sites claiming to know about chemtrails and some of
your posts were really quite believable but the question i put to you
now is, given that the laws of physics are set ,why have C.T's only
been seen in the last few years ( since the mid nineties) surley they
should have been seen for as long as we have had jets in the sky- what
has changed ??
RK Henry wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 03:40:37 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> > wrote:
>
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >> well if anyone knows you guys should! what is this phenomena all about?
> >
> >http://www.google.com/search?q=chemtrails
> >
> >http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=chemtrails+group%3Arec.aviation.piloting
> >
> >It's amazing how much information is already out there for someone who
> >bothers to look.
>
> Yeah, but is the information true? Most of those hits are kook sites.
>
> I think the Wikipedia might be considered a better source. Sure, the
> Wikipedia has its faults, but I think it makes a good-faith effort to
> get it right eventually.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrails
>
> I guess a reader could compare all the sites and decide for himself.
>
> RK Henry

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

> Thank you all who replied to my post, of course i have spent time
> looking at many sites claiming to know about chemtrails and some of
> your posts were really quite believable but the question i put to you
> now is, given that the laws of physics are set ,why have C.T's only
> been seen in the last few years ( since the mid nineties) surley they
> should have been seen for as long as we have had jets in the sky- what
> has changed ??

I routinely saw them in the 60s and 70s. Where have you been?

Matt

[Dan Luke]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Thank you all who replied to my post, of course i have spent time
> looking at many sites claiming to know about chemtrails and some of
> your posts were really quite believable but the question i put to you
> now is, given that the laws of physics are set ,why have C.T's only
> been seen in the last few years ( since the mid nineties) surley they
> should have been seen for as long as we have had jets in the sky- what
> has changed ??

It's starting to sound like you *want* to believe in "chemtrails."

Condensation trails have been around since airplanes have been flying high
enough to make them--since World War Two at least.

You're chasing a unicorn.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Alan]

On 12 Jun 2006 03:08:20 -0700, wrote:

>.................................................. .....................,why have C.T's only
>been seen in the last few years ( since the mid nineties) surley they
>should have been seen for as long as we have had jets in the sky- what
>has changed ??


The ozone layer was originally created to conceal the true nature of
Chemtrails in the past. One of the unforseen benefits of global
warming/cooling that is not reported by Al Gore was the opening of the
hole in the ozone layer. The protective ozone shield was breached
allowing gamma nutrino waves to reveal the chemtrails as they were
spread.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article . com>,
wrote:

> Thank you all who replied to my post, of course i have spent time
> looking at many sites claiming to know about chemtrails and some of
> your posts were really quite believable but the question i put to you
> now is, given that the laws of physics are set ,why have C.T's only
> been seen in the last few years ( since the mid nineties) surley they
> should have been seen for as long as we have had jets in the sky- what
> has changed ??

Contrails have been with us ever since airplanes have regularly attained
high-altitude flight. WW-II films show them behind B-17 formations and
from patrolling fighters.

On a humid day, I can pull contrails off my propeller tips on the ground.

The "chemtrail" hoax is simply the product of the overactive imagination
of ignorant conspiracy kooks.

[Casey Wilson]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Thank you all who replied to my post, of course i have spent time
> looking at many sites claiming to know about chemtrails and some of
> your posts were really quite believable but the question i put to you
> now is, given that the laws of physics are set ,why have C.T's only
> been seen in the last few years ( since the mid nineties) surley they
> should have been seen for as long as we have had jets in the sky- what
> has changed ??

Gavin, Gavin, Gavin, you poor kid. Nothing has changed. Contrails have been
around since BEFORE jets. Certainly in chasing your conspiracy theory about
poisoning the planet you have done a google search for "B-17 contrail" or
have you.

You don't need an airplane to leave contrails. You can leave a contrail.
Next winter when it is really cold, go outside, rund backwards, and breathe
out. Voila! -- contrail.

[Skywise]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in news:128qofdqg1fe2f0
@news.supernews.com:

>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Thank you all who replied to my post, of course i have spent time
>> looking at many sites claiming to know about chemtrails and some of
>> your posts were really quite believable but the question i put to you
>> now is, given that the laws of physics are set ,why have C.T's only
>> been seen in the last few years ( since the mid nineties) surley they
>> should have been seen for as long as we have had jets in the sky- what
>> has changed ??
>
> It's starting to sound like you *want* to believe in "chemtrails."
>
> Condensation trails have been around since airplanes have been flying high
> enough to make them--since World War Two at least.
>
> You're chasing a unicorn.

Or perhaps a carnicom? Chemtrailers will get the joke.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Skywise]

wrote in news:1150106900.897058.168590
@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

> Thank you all who replied to my post, of course i have spent time
> looking at many sites claiming to know about chemtrails and some of
> your posts were really quite believable but the question i put to you
> now is, given that the laws of physics are set ,why have C.T's only
> been seen in the last few years ( since the mid nineties) surley they
> should have been seen for as long as we have had jets in the sky- what
> has changed ??

http://www.archive.org/details/CombatAm1945_4

Go download the above video and you will see contrails formed by
Flying Fortresses during combat operations in World War II. You
will also see them from their fighter escorts, as well as the
attacking German fighters.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[gatt]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Thank you all who replied to my post, of course i have spent time
> looking at many sites claiming to know about chemtrails and some of
> your posts were really quite believable but the question i put to you
> now is, given that the laws of physics are set ,why have C.T's only
> been seen in the last few years

'Cause that's when people decided to start seeing what they wanted to see
and telling other people to observe something they hadn't noticed
previously, which is:

Contrails have been visible to everybody with basic vision since before
WWII.

-c

[gatt]

"Alan" > wrote in message
...

> The protective ozone shield was breached
> allowing gamma nutrino waves to reveal the chemtrails as they were
> spread.

This is true, but think of chemtrails as the thread binding the ozone holes
back together. Sort of a cross between the way a flesh wound heals, a
surgeon's stitching and a can of Fix-A-Flat.

They don't want to tell people 'cause it would cause the vast latenight talk
radio conspiracy constituency to panic 'cause they're whacked and they're
legion.

Fortunately, it's for a good cause.

-c

[gatt]

"Casey Wilson" <N2310D @ gmail.com> wrote in message
news:_tgjg.4530$hN2.1378@trnddc05...

> Next winter when it is really cold, go outside, rund backwards, and
> breathe out. Voila! -- contrail.

*hic* Negative, sir, unable to comply. That's a chemtrail if ever I
sniffed one!

-snuffy

[gatt]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...


> Go download the above video and you will see contrails formed by
> Flying Fortresses during combat operations in World War II.

They're not spreading chemicals, they're spreading FREEDOM. (And high
explosives. A -great- combination.)

As such, the new politically-correct contrail conspiracy term is "Freedom
trails." <-- Seen On Internet / Must Be True


-c
Have fun, everybody, but don't tell 'em what they contrails are REALLY for.

[cjcampbell]

wrote:
> Thank you all who replied to my post, of course i have spent time
> looking at many sites claiming to know about chemtrails and some of
> your posts were really quite believable but the question i put to you
> now is, given that the laws of physics are set ,why have C.T's only
> been seen in the last few years ( since the mid nineties) surley they
> should have been seen for as long as we have had jets in the sky- what
> has changed ??

Nothing has changed. Whoever told you that contrails have only been
seen in the last few years is lying to you. Maybe you should ask
yourself why conspiracy theorists would lie to you about something as
obvious and easy to check as that? Could it be that their primary
audience is assumed to be morons? I saw contrails as a boy in the
1950's. There are plenty of extant photographs of them in WW II. It
does not take a jet to make a contrail. Contrails have been around for
a long time. They have always looked and behaved the way they do now.

[[email protected]]

i dont doubt contrails have been around as long as the Wright Brothers
but they certainly have not displayed the type of 'look' they have now
i.e. the way they just hang in the sky spreading out .... there are no
pictures pre 90's that show the type of con/chem trails seen now a days
- now prove me wrong
cjcampbell wrote:
> wrote:
> > Thank you all who replied to my post, of course i have spent time
> > looking at many sites claiming to know about chemtrails and some of
> > your posts were really quite believable but the question i put to you
> > now is, given that the laws of physics are set ,why have C.T's only
> > been seen in the last few years ( since the mid nineties) surley they
> > should have been seen for as long as we have had jets in the sky- what
> > has changed ??
>
> Nothing has changed. Whoever told you that contrails have only been
> seen in the last few years is lying to you. Maybe you should ask
> yourself why conspiracy theorists would lie to you about something as
> obvious and easy to check as that? Could it be that their primary
> audience is assumed to be morons? I saw contrails as a boy in the
> 1950's. There are plenty of extant photographs of them in WW II. It
> does not take a jet to make a contrail. Contrails have been around for
> a long time. They have always looked and behaved the way they do now.

[Dan Luke]

> wrote:

> - now prove me wrong

Ummm...no.

It is now evident that you are some combination of troll and moron. You are
not worth the bother.

--
Dan

"Did you just have a stroke and not tell me?"
- Jiminy Glick

[cjcampbell]

wrote:
> i dont doubt contrails have been around as long as the Wright Brothers
> but they certainly have not displayed the type of 'look' they have now
> i.e. the way they just hang in the sky spreading out .... there are no
> pictures pre 90's that show the type of con/chem trails seen now a days
> - now prove me wrong

They look no different now than they did 50 years ago. Any photo will
show you that. You were provided with links to B-17 contrails in WW II.
They look no different in those photos than any contrails you see
today.

Some of the photos on the chemtrail web sites, however, have been
obviously doctored. You can see the Photoshop brush strokes in them.

[Matt Barrow]

> wrote in message
ps.com...
>i dont doubt contrails have been around as long as the Wright Brothers

You're showing your ignorance there (ie, what causes contrails).

> but they certainly have not displayed the type of 'look' they have now
> i.e. the way they just hang in the sky spreading out .... there are no
> pictures pre 90's that show the type of con/chem trails seen now a days


(Dollars to donuts, if someone showed this guy some pictures, he'd find
something to harp about.)

Get some of those photo's from WW II, particularly the famous photo from the
Battle of Britain, or the bomber raids into Germany.

[Matt Barrow]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote:
>
>> - now prove me wrong
>
> Ummm...no.
>
> It is now evident that you are some combination of troll and moron. You
> are not worth the bother.
>

His remark in the post that contrails have been around since the "Wright
Brothers" is pretty good demonstration that he's ignorant as to what causes
contrails, yet he's in here shooting his "mouth" off.

I think Dan's got him pegged perfectly.
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

[karl gruber]

You don't need to be proved wrong. You're an idiot now and will still be
after you are proved wrong. Get off the keyboard and go back to sucking your
thumb!


Karl
"Curator"
N185KG
> wrote in message
ps.com...
>i dont doubt contrails have been around as long as the Wright Brothers
> but they certainly have not displayed the type of 'look' they have now
> i.e. the way they just hang in the sky spreading out .... there are no
> pictures pre 90's that show the type of con/chem trails seen now a days
> - now prove me wrong
> cjcampbell wrote:
>> wrote:
>> > Thank you all who replied to my post, of course i have spent time
>> > looking at many sites claiming to know about chemtrails and some of
>> > your posts were really quite believable but the question i put to you
>> > now is, given that the laws of physics are set ,why have C.T's only
>> > been seen in the last few years ( since the mid nineties) surley they
>> > should have been seen for as long as we have had jets in the sky- what
>> > has changed ??
>>
>> Nothing has changed. Whoever told you that contrails have only been
>> seen in the last few years is lying to you. Maybe you should ask
>> yourself why conspiracy theorists would lie to you about something as
>> obvious and easy to check as that? Could it be that their primary
>> audience is assumed to be morons? I saw contrails as a boy in the
>> 1950's. There are plenty of extant photographs of them in WW II. It
>> does not take a jet to make a contrail. Contrails have been around for
>> a long time. They have always looked and behaved the way they do now.
>

[Casey Wilson]

We don't have to prove a thing, nincompoop! You are making the charges, you
do the proof. And for God's sake, get some proof not indiotic spew from the
Valley of Ignorami.

[Skywise]

wrote in news:1150198821.425985.13790
@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

<Snipola>
> - now prove me wrong
<Snipola>

This is a typical response of those who do not understand
how to think properly when solving problems. The burden
of proof is always upon the claimant. You cannot ask others
to prove you wrong.

For example, I can make the claim to have climbed Mount
Everest. Now, prove me wrong. See? Can't do it, can ya?

For my claim to be accepted the burden of proof is upon me
to provide evidence of my climbing Everest. Since I am
unable to provide such evidence, my claim is therefore
nothing more than just a claim. I can never be elevated to
the level of fact without supporting evidence.

So, Gavin, prove yourself right.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Stella Starr]

wrote:

> - now prove me wrong

No.

[[email protected]]

gatt wrote:
> "Casey Wilson" <N2310D @ gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:_tgjg.4530$hN2.1378@trnddc05...
>
> > Next winter when it is really cold, go outside, rund backwards, and
> > breathe out. Voila! -- contrail.
>
> *hic* Negative, sir, unable to comply. That's a chemtrail if ever I
> sniffed one!

When it's really cold in winter, if you see me out running around
backwards, you can bet your last penny I'll be breathing out
chemtrails..... Rumplemintz-flavored ones!

[gatt]

> wrote in message
ps.com...

> i dont doubt contrails have been around as long as the Wright Brothers

There's your first problem. The Wright aircraft almost certainly didn't
generate contrails.

>there are no pictures pre 90's that show the type of con/chem trails seen
>now a days
> - now prove me wrong

*sigh* If we do, are you big enough to acknowledge it?

http://www.goodsky.homestead.com/files/gallery.html

In World War II, German pilots used to climb until they created contrails
and then descent to just below that level. That way, anything coming at them
from above would be exposed by its contrail.

This is old stuff. Of course, it's very difficult to prove that the
contrails are identical, as they're obviously not because extensive
historical evidence shows that in those days, the trails were white on gray,
not white on blue, but you have to remember that everything was black, white
or shades of gray then.

-c

[[email protected]]

> 1950's. There are plenty of extant photographs of them in WW II. It
> does not take a jet to make a contrail. Contrails have been around for
> a long time. They have always looked and behaved the way they do now.

If anything, the contrails from the old WW II era piston engine bombers
and transports were much more sinister and deserving of being called
'chemtrails' because in those days, the aviation gasoline they burned
contained copious amounts of tetraethyl lead and the exhaust from
those big radial engines contained a lot of poisonous lead ash.

[[email protected]]

Goodness we are getting touchy gentlemen, the photos you posted are
nothing like the c.t,s being seen now a days- that much is clear to
anyone who bothers to look. I think I asked the original question to
the wrong people, you guys are pilots of small aircraft not commercial
liners so wouldnt know the information i requested- strange that you
dont look up once in a while to see whats going on...
Dan Luke wrote:
> > wrote:
>
> > - now prove me wrong
>
> Ummm...no.
>
> It is now evident that you are some combination of troll and moron. You are
> not worth the bother.
>
> --
> Dan
>
> "Did you just have a stroke and not tell me?"
> - Jiminy Glick

[Denny]

My friend, you are flogging a moribund equine and trying to do it with
knowledgeable people who have seen this flailing and wailing dozens of
times over the years...... My suggestion is that you go bother the
pilots of "commercial liners" and we will both be happier...

denny - cheerfully flying small aircraft longer than Gavinred has been
alive...

wrote:
> Goodness we are getting touchy gentlemen, the photos you posted are
> nothing like the c.t,s being seen now a days- that much is clear to
> anyone who bothers to look. I think I asked the original question to
> the wrong people, you guys are pilots of small aircraft not commercial
> liners so wouldnt know the information i requested- strange that you
> dont look up once in a while to see whats going on...
> Dan Luke wrote:
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > - now prove me wrong
> >
> > Ummm...no.
> >
> > It is now evident that you are some combination of troll and moron. You are
> > not worth the bother.
> >
> > --
> > Dan
> >
> > "Did you just have a stroke and not tell me?"
> > - Jiminy Glick

[Peter R.]

> wrote:

> I think I asked the original question to
> the wrong people

Yep, you did. Now move along in your quest to find the right people.

--
Peter

[Matt Barrow]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Goodness we are getting touchy gentlemen, the photos you posted are
> nothing like the c.t,s being seen now a days- that much is clear to
> anyone who bothers to look.

Well, why don't you post links to the contrails you're referring to.


>I think I asked the original question to
> the wrong people, you guys are pilots of small aircraft not commercial
> liners so wouldnt know the information i requested-

Um...little boy?, there are several airline pilots in this group.

I think it's plain to see that you're a clueless clown looking for
questions, not answers.

>strange that you
> dont look up once in a while to see whats going on...

GFY, punk!

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

> Goodness we are getting touchy gentlemen, the photos you posted are
> nothing like the c.t,s being seen now a days- that much is clear to
> anyone who bothers to look. I think I asked the original question to
> the wrong people, you guys are pilots of small aircraft not commercial
> liners so wouldnt know the information i requested- strange that you
> dont look up once in a while to see whats going on...

It is stranger still that you do look up and still can't see that
nothing is going on.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Denny wrote:

> My friend, you are flogging a moribund equine and trying to do it with
> knowledgeable people who have seen this flailing and wailing dozens of
> times over the years...... My suggestion is that you go bother the
> pilots of "commercial liners" and we will both be happier...

Those are large boats, right? :-)

Matt

[Al]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Goodness we are getting touchy gentlemen, the photos you posted are
> nothing like the c.t,s being seen now a days- that much is clear to
> anyone who bothers to look. I think I asked the original question to
> the wrong people, you guys are pilots of small aircraft not commercial
> liners so wouldnt know the information i requested- strange that you
> dont look up once in a while to see whats going on...
> Dan Luke wrote:
>> > wrote:
>>

In the "small aircraft" I flew, Lear 24, the only time I looked up at
commercial liners was on the ground.

Al

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article . com>,
smoked a joint, wet the bed, donned a tinfoil
hat and whimpered:

> Goodness we are getting touchy gentlemen, the photos you posted are
> nothing like the c.t,s being seen now a days- that much is clear to
> anyone who bothers to look. I think I asked the original question to
> the wrong people, you guys are pilots of small aircraft not commercial
> liners so wouldnt know the information i requested- strange that you
> dont look up once in a while to see whats going on...
> Dan Luke wrote:

It is apparent that "gavinredman" looks up only in warm, dark, damp
places where the sun never shines! He is so taken by conspiracy notions
that he can't discern myth from reality.

Truth: "Chemtrails" are nothing but a natural phenomenon caused by
aircraft flying through supersaturated air and pose no danger.

[george]

wrote:

snip
>strange that you
> dont look up once in a while to see whats going on...

Ah but there you are demonstratively wrong.
Pilots -always- look up when they hear aircraft engine noise..
It's just one of those things that we do

[Private]

"george" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> wrote:
>
> snip
>>strange that you
>> dont look up once in a while to see whats going on...
>
> Ah but there you are demonstratively wrong.
> Pilots -always- look up when they hear aircraft engine noise..
> It's just one of those things that we do
>

Glider pilots do the same for soaring birds.