Can't chemtrails explain global warming?

Jump to Last Post 1-9 of 9 discussions (121 posts)

64
maxoxam41posted 8 years ago
We always impute global warming to the excess of carbon monoxide in the atmosphere. My theory is the following one : the Vietnam war extended from 1954 to 1975, if I refer to this event in our history is because it is now acknowledged that weather geoengineering was implemented during this period. Now, given that we had the technology at the time and that chemtrails are still in effect nowadays, given that they are spraying chemicals that form clouds but mainly haze increasing de facto the greenhouse effect, what does guarantee me that chemtrails are not the real culprit of the global warming equation? Your opinion?
reply report
1. 77
  colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  My opinion, its HAARP.
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Indeed, it makes more sense than the vast majority of people that want me to believe that they are critical thinkers. Discreetly, the US is using it as a weapon. Recently, I read an article making an interesting analogy between different similar events in countries that are so-called our enemies. For instance, in North Korea the famous drought they experienced that brought famine was followed by a flood, same bizarre event occurred in Iraq or Libya. Apparently, it is a strategy to erode soils. But, I'm pretty sure that if we had to analyze the meteorological patterns of the cited countries, the events didn't make sense.
  It is interesting to see that what the scientists are saying is verifiable. By the beach, for instance, if you stay staring at the sky for a while their assertions will be founded. Yesterday, I watched the sky as the the so-called June gloom was unleashing its everlasting chemtrails. How is it that their design correspond to nothing I've ever seen before. Crisscrossing clouds for instance? Which idiot will rationalize the pattern?
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  OK, explain, as if to a simpleton, how they get the massive quantity of chemicals they need on to a plane, still carry a full passenger load and all without anybody knowing what they are doing.
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Who said that they were carrying passengers? Again, another one that is giving a truncated opinion based (??????) on the documentary (?????). Would it be the way of thinking of a simpleton? What about, a manipulator of facts?
  Are you telling me that their own motivation is to discredit and humiliate themselves?
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I live near an international airport, the vast majority of flights are commercial passenger flights, when the weather conditions are right, all leave a vapour trail!
  reply report
  59
  Paul Wingertposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  
  These vapor trials I see in the sky scare me because I flunked high school science!
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  What scares me are not vapors but the trails left behind. You have plenty of small planes from the Second World War era that spat whatever kerosene residue but it didn't persist in the sky, did it?
  The picture that you uploaded, what does it mean? That there are fumes. Do they dissipate? If they do who cares, if they don't and form the same cyrrhus like clouds, it bothers me...
  You don't believe in chemtrails, it's fine by me, but don't come here to insult me.
  reply report
  59
  Paul Wingertposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  You do it yourself.
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  And, what is your expertise?
  You are telling me that someone who idealizes a tv character has more credibility than someone who idealizes a Syrian historical hero because so far you didn't substantiate your allegations, did you?
  What am I saying? You did upload the picture!!!!!! Thanks for your input.
  reply report
  77
  colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  This is one of the best YouTube videos I have heard that explains Geoengineering. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1x8BVyodH0Y
  
  Note the tone of the man's voice in the above video. He is dead serious.
  
  The video is by http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I did watch it few months ago. More and more scientists, pilots are starting to open their mouths about geoengineering The one who wants the truth will find it. I may sound like a verse from the bible (that I execrate) but I have to acknowledge that it is a truism. Quilligrapher and his ilk are from a past generation, the one that swore "semper fidelis" to its government not to its people nor land.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I see you are ignoring my request for a simple explanation of the way it works!
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  As the <personal attack removed> that you pretend to be or the one that you really are?
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Come on man, it can't be difficult. How do they do it without anybody noticing?
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  What about a nice military base? Isn't it where it all comes from? By the way, for your knowledge, pilots noticed it, that is the reason why they are opening their mouth. But again, if you're not interested like you are, you will upload a pic , or harass me with nonsensical questions.
  Were you the ones that stated that by the airport you couldn't see what I experienced firsthand? How often the English sky is clear, because good luck if you can differentiate between a geo engineered cloud and a natural one?
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I'm sure plenty of passengers would notice and comment if their planes were diverted to a military air base.
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Isn't his innocence cute?
  I understand by your questioning that you came to this forum like a baby comes to the world with innocence. However the difference between a baby and you is that you are strongly insisting on the fact that my belief is wrong whereas yours is? Yes, what is yours, again?
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Realistic.
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Fantastic.
  report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Based upon Quilligrapher and wilderness's babblings.
  Are you going to check all appropriate websites and videos or are you going to lose face?
  report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I am emphatically ignoring it as you are obnoxiously ignoring what is factual. Who are you to dispose of this privilege and who am I to comply to a nobody whose unique goal is to vainly try to humiliate someone who refuses the mainstream thinking format? Since you think you're smart can you explain me with your own words (don't worry I will step at your level), how it doesn't work?
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Passenger planes are loaded up with massive amounts of chemicals without affecting the planes ability to fly and without anybody noticing. No need to go any further than that, no need to post the futility of saturating flight paths whilst ignoring the rest.
  
  What is factual about what you post?
  
  Vapour trails persist just like the clouds they replicate.
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Globalskywatch.com will answer your pertinent questions and it will bring the knowledge that you lack and that you pretend to have. But it requires efforts. Are you up to it? Or are you as nonchalant as wilderness when it comes to hunt for knowledge?
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  From globalskywatch.com
  
  "Since the outer ring of bypass air which is not combusted is filled with particulates dense enough to see with the naked eye, we have to ask ourselves:
  
  How can uncombusted air passing though a fan form massive plumes of condensation?
  
  Simply put, it cannot."
  
  But no mention of the combusted air which, though dry, will heat up the bypass air and produce water vapour.
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 8 years ago
Here's a major scoop for those who always want to blame something as controvercial as global warming , On everything but themselves !

You get up in the morning and turn up the furnace for your morning shower , turn on the TV to hear the latest news , start the toaster for that bagel , the coffee pot for your latte , the washer for some clean skivvies , put the kids on the big yellow bus , turn on the air conditioner for thee day , the garbage disposer ,the ceiling fan , Jump in the Audi , drop it off at the dealer for a set of new summer tires , get to work and jump on the elevator , turn on the Other air conditioner , jump on the elevator again , make plans to fly to L.A. for next week's seminar .................

..........now , Just Who Do You Blame for "Global Warming ?
reply report
1. 95
  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  You, of course. Most of my power comes from hydro electric and I drive almost exclusively on battery power collected from that running water. Hardly any pollution at all.
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  While I admit an electric car , if that's what you have , is great , yet you pollute just as much as everyone else , where were those batteries made and how , as for the rest of your products ? You still use rubber tires , oils , lubricants , and almost as much "global warming '" product as everyone else , congratulations for trying !......Yet you can still blame everyone else if you wish ?.......It probably doesn't make you look too PC........?
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  And because I have rubber tires and get an oil change every 30,000 miles or so, the car pollutes as much as an internal combustion engine puffing out smoke and particulates, . Interesting thought process there.
  reply report
2. 64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Indeed, I am speechless.
  However, not everybody on the planet consumes as Americans do. However, NATO's bases are deployed in too many countries worldwide.
  How fast the energy we waste daily affect our atmosphere? Has chemical clouds and haze appeared minutes after the spraying, are their consequences immediate? Indeed. Now, the problem we are facing is not our consumption but their spraying! Clearly, the media tends to point a finger at people in order for them to feel guilty and pay more taxes. It is what has happened. Now, what if our consumption was affecting less the atmosphere than the spraying, couldn't I be righteous in stating that, effectively, chemical spraying in the atmosphere affects it quicker and deeper, and logically chemtrails are the cause to global warming? Since governments lie, since media lie, is my hypothesis so far stretched?
  By the way, have you ever thought that your explanation could be a conspiracy theory? After all, who said so, if not the presstitute?
  reply report
95
wildernessposted 8 years ago
My opinion? That you can make up whatever terrible conspiracy you wish, and you can demand that someone else prove it wrong, but that failure to do so never makes it true.

You want to show that chemtrails cause global warming? Fine - show that there ARE chemtrails, show what chemicals are being loaded into planes AND dumped and show what chemicals result when spread into the atmosphere. Take actual samples, not guess what's there, and you might (might!) come up with proof they not only exist but cause warming. Until then it will remain an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory without substance.
reply report
1. 64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Can you prove me that carbon monoxide affects our atmosphere? That it is not a conspiracy theory?
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Wrong question. While there is little doubt that CO2 affects the atmosphere it is you to you, the conspiracy theorist, to prove that it is a conspiracy to put it there. Not someone else to prove that your unfounded claims are true.
  
  And chemtrails are NOT composed of CO2.
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  No you give me the proof. I am as much of denier than you are... Now, which one is right? You or me?
  reply report
83
psycheskinnerposted 8 years ago
Global warning is pretty well explained by the existing theory.
reply report
1. 64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Indeed, for the "ingenue", what about the critical thinker? He simply disappears behind the conspiracy theory veil... Sorry, I can't do that.
  reply report
  74
  Quilligrapherposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Hello, Max. I hope all is going well for you.
  
  Most people agree that a critical thinker will always demand proof before treating a theory as if it is a fact. Meanwhile, the internet continues to reveal other folks who will treat an unsupported accusation as if it is a proven theory and then demand that others prove the “theory” is invalid. To understand the difference, one must first know there is a difference between a proven fact and an unproven accusation. Whenever chemtrail enthusiasts are pressed to prove their claims, they always point, as you have, to a web site that offers no proof and simply repeats the same litany of unproven claims.
  
  Http://gsw.bz/contrails led my browser to Global Skywatch.com, an AdSense laden web site intended for the uneducated. I am always looking for facts that will lend some credibility to the claims that contrails are really sinister and poisonous chemtrails, but I did not find any here. There is not one article that actually proves global geoengineering programs or widespread chemical spraying actually exist in the real world.
  
  I will, however, recommend this site to anyone looking to compile a list of all of the outrageous accusations being level by this particular branch of believers. But if you are looking for facts and data, forget about it! You will only find screen after screen of accusations against unidentified villains who are secretly conspiring to exterminate their own children and grandchildren. Among dozens of articles, not one of them names a person, a corporation, or a government agency that is proven to be responsible for international spraying. No reliable evidence is posted on this web site to prove any of the many claims and accusations found there.
  
  If, however, real evidence was overlooked, Max, please point us to a specific article so we all can discuss the proofs it contains. So far, no one has ever proven a global chemtrail conspiracy. There are only paranoia and unproven accusations. This thread posits global warming is caused by man-made chemical vapors that no one has ever documented or tested. We have all read about the theories before. We are now waiting to read the actual evidence that never seems to be included with the rhetoric.
  
  Always a treat to read your posts, Max. Stay well.
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  If this website is not relevant, which one will you advise me? Will I enjoy your treat as much as you enjoyed mine?
  By the way, instead of involving the personal pronoun "we" stating the facto that a majority is thinking your way, wouldn't it be more realistic if personalized and reduced to your little persona? After all, aren't you the one intervening?
  DNA traceable Americans were poisoned with small pox, Eugenics was implemented on the poorer strata of the American society, African Americans were lynched, Japanese Americans were imprisoned in camps, nuclear weapons were tried with the presence of innocent soldiers in the Pacific, vaccines contain aluminum, mercury that kill children yearly... and you are telling that chemtrails are not part of the realm of possibility? Is it a treat or a joke?
  reply report
  74
  Quilligrapherposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  
  Hello again, Max. Thank you for responding to my post. I, too, believe skepticism is a virtue and a good reason not to believe anyone who makes claims they can not prove.
  
  I actually hoped you would point to at least one article on the globalskywatch web site that actually contains proof of a global chem-trail conspiracy. If such an article does exist on that web site, I was counting on you to reveal it. Being unable to provide proof simply confirms that you do not have any data to support your latest hypothesis that global warming is caused by man-made chemical vapors. In order to validate your theory, you must first prove chem-trails really exist and that remains unscientific speculation no one has ever documented or proven. Therefore, there is no rational, no intellectually justifiable reason, for anyone to believe non-existent chem-trails are a cause of global warming.
  
  I noticed that I am not the only reader following this thread and, also, I am not the only person to ask you for some evidence before treating your claims as real facts. As one of the members of the group waiting to view your evidence, I feel the use of the plural pronoun “we” is appropriate.
  
  Instead of verifiable data in your reply, here is what we find as an example of logical thinking: "African Americans were lynched, Japanese Americans were imprisoned in camps, nuclear weapons were tried with the presence of innocent soldiers in the Pacific, vaccines contain aluminum, mercury that kill children yearly... and you are telling that chemtrails are not part of the realm of possibility?"
  
  While some choose to live in the realm of possibility, others prefer the realm of reality. We are now being asked to believe chem-trails are real because Black Americans were victims of racist white lynch mobs. Without any logical or factual evidence, we are told that a connection exists between the internment of American citizens of Japanese heritage and sinister, unidentified pilots around the world that are intentionally poisoning their own children and grandchildren with noxious vapors.
  
  Unsubstantiated claims from the anti-vax crowd that aluminum and mercury in vaccines are killing children yearly is just more rhetoric masquerading as truth, more fiction in lieu of facts. The mercury-containing preservative Thimerosal has NOT been used in routine infant and childhood vaccines since 2001. In addition, research has verified there is NO link between Thimerosal and infant mortality. Data also reveal there was no significant decline in US infant mortality between 2000 to 2005, the years during which its use was discontinued. {1}{2} Not only has this anti-vax rhetoric been proven scientifically unreliable but this pseudo-science certainly does not prove the existence of chem-trails.
  
  Believe me when I say I would really like to believe you, Max, but it takes more than conviction to be convincing. You really need to provide some facts.
  
  {1} http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp078187
  {2} http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db09.htm
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  For someone who believes in skepticism, your answers belong consistently with the narrative forced upon the US citizens by the presstitute. May I emit a doubt as for the veracity of your writing?
  We is not appropriate since it it defines more than one. Shall I remind you that you speak for yourself when you write your opinion?
  I'm only stating that the attempts of killing, poisoning, humiliating US citizens is anchored in the DNA of the US government to be ignored and not to see the parallel. If they did it in the past, why continuing poisoning the people but in a grand scale and a more efficient one? Don't put words in my mouth that I never said or speak in the name of we...
  For your knowledge, a lawsuit filed by British led to Big Pharma to pay billions because it was proven that there was a link between vaccines and cerebrally damaged and dead children. Now, it is your choice to deny the truth.
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Simple curiosity. Has the government ever harm anyone in your reality?
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  maxoxam, a reference please for Brits taking lawsuits against big pharma.
  I'm British and I've never heard about this, in fact the latest I heard was that our government had "proved" that there was no link.
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I read an article on the subject on globalresearch.com not a long ago. I will try to find it. http://youtu.be/wxEyaeSdofc
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Dig deeper http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concer … emrix.html
  reply report
  74
  Quilligrapherposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you, John, for providing additional facts.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Whilst I realise that the link was not wholly relevant to the topic, neither was the original link!
  I'm always suspicious of big things that are only known to a select few, especially when that select few tend to be a friend of a workmates sister's uncle.
  reply report
  74
  Quilligrapherposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I am always suspicious when that select few have a long standing history of repeating extraordinary claims that always turn out to be false.
  
  Have a great night, John.
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  It is interesting that you never apply the same suspicion when for instance Ebola appears for no reason on the American soil. And, there lies your lack of skepticism. You can't doubt on a reality and accept a falsehood.
  More and more doctors are voicing up the danger of vaccines.
  However, if the department of health accept to poison people directly in their blood stream why not spreading chemicals over our heads? Can't I call it logical behavior?
  report
  74
  Quilligrapherposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Hello, Max. I hope today is more pleasant for you than last.
  
  Unfortunately, I am not aware of any link connecting vaccines to brain damaged or dead children that has been accepted as proof in a British court of law.
  
  Nor would I ever deny the truth when it is properly authenticated. However, in this case, we have an unwillingness or the inability to prove the assertion is true. Therefore, it shall remain another in a long string of unsupported claims waiting for data that establishes they are facts.
  
  In the meantime, our colleague, John Holden, becomes another poster in the group waiting for you to supply some evidence. We are relying on you, Max. Please don’t let us down.
  
  I hope you had a good weekend, Max, and you enjoy the week that lies ahead.
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Indeed... http://youtu.be/wxEyaeSdofc
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  No, that site merely says there was a court case, with the company agreeing to pay money.
  
  Not having lived there, I cannot comment on the court system of the UK, but in the US I know very well it is common to have the deep pockets pay regardless of culpability. Given that, your link shows no connection between that particular vaccine and brain damage. On the other hand the CDC is on record as showing there is NO connection.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  It was actually a British drug company taken to court in the US and fined $3 billion, not for the effects of any vaccine, but for breaking US regulations.
  It would be almost beyond belief for the British government to take any corporation to court.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Max's link (video) seems to indicate it was for British citizens and that the UK would ultimately foot the bill. Didn't sound like the government suing, unless it was the US government. Are we talking the same case?
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Nope, I'm sure that hasn't happened in the UK. I think I would remember a sum of that size.
  reply report
  74
  Quilligrapherposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Well done, Wilderness!
  
  How amusing to see that the “facts” finally provided to us do not match up with the claims. How sad, yet revealing, to see that the “facts,” when finally posted, almost [u]never]/u] match up with the claims made.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  'Tis the way of the internet, is it not?
  reply report
  74
  Quilligrapherposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, it is.
  
  P.S.
  Nice to see your hubber score at 100.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  That was a shock. Been 96 for a long time, then suddenly jumped to 100 for no apparent reason and has stayed there for a couple of weeks now. Must be holding my pinky right on the keyboard!
  report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  The less dissidence, the more gratifications. The platform is a microcosm of our country. Whistle-blowers are jailed and the corrupt and criminals are free...
  report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  And it is enough for you to sleep well... Above all, don't be too curious! Don't dig deeper like Holden did! You see I draw a very accurate profile of you. Don't tell me that you question your reality...
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Children don't sleep well as a result of their imaginations - monsters under the bed, the boogy man, etc. Adults know better than to allow their imagination run rampant until they can't sleep for fear of something that they don't know even exists.
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Doesn't the rest of the world say that Americans are big kids?
  Adults face the reality or at least my conception of adulthood.
  report
  95
  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Yes they do. Reality instead of making up stories about imagined evils. That's kind of the point.
  report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  As you said it yourself "adults know better". Here, it is for adults, not big kids...
  report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  The same CDC is a private entity. The same CDC collect viruses and disperse them at will in Africa...
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  And once more, your evidence that the CDC collects viruses and disperses them at will?
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I totally invented. Pure fruit of my imagination...
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I believe you.
  report
  74
  Quilligrapherposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  It is nice to see the truth at last.
  
  Where there is no supporting evidence, there is usually distortion and deception.
  report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Look at that, this is what is called a pure product of his society, country. And, he is telling me that he is skeptical... Why are you wasting my precious time? You only succeed in ridiculing yourself...
  It is clear that you are not a serious debater. You can't discredit me, I have the truth on my side.
  report
  74
  Quilligrapherposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  ...about which he later posted, "I totally invented. Pure fruit of my imagination," when challenged.
  
  MAXOXAM41 also wrote:
  "It is clear that you are not a serious debater. You can't discredit me, I have the truth on my side...
  Don't waste my time if you can't accept the truth."
  
  Good evening, Max.
  
  If there is proof that Chem-trails are real and man-made, why not just post it?
  
  Providing supporting data is the obligation of the person making claims and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. Revealing appropriate facts seems to be much easier than attacking everyone who points out how limp and impotent the claims are without them. Each personal attack in lieu of evidence convinces the forum that evidence really does not exist. After all, we all know that an honest debater is anxious to share the truth not hoard it!
  
  Since your posts are now resorting to personal attacks, this may be a good time to recap some of the incredible claims made so far in this thread:
  
  The opening post declares "Chemtrails are still in effect nowadays." but not an iota of proof is offered to show that Chem-trails exist anywhere except in a few paranoid imaginations. {1}
  
  Twice, a participant asked for any facts to “show what chemicals are being loaded into planes AND dumped and show what chemicals result when spread into the atmosphere?" Nothing has been provided to indicated a global conspiracy exists anywhere in the real world. {2}
  
  You asked the question, "Has chemical clouds and haze appeared minutes after the spraying, are their consequences immediate? Indeed." But, there is no data showing any clouds and haze are the direct results of nefarious spraying. {3}
  
  When http://gsw.bz/contrails was posted as a source of proof, the link led to a website repeating the same unsupported claims found in this thread. {4}
  
  After being told "I have the truth on my side," {5} we were also told, "a lawsuit filed by British led to Big Pharma to pay billions."{6} How ironic, both claims turned out to be untrue.
  
  Are Chemical vapor trails being used to poison the population of the world and does Maxoxam41 have any proof that Chem-trails cause global warming? Until someone provides proof, these two questions will remain hypothetical and unanswered.
  
  Burdened with the extraordinary absence of both verifiable facts and supporting data, Max, your many conspiracy claims remain incredible, invalid, and unworthy of belief.
  
  {1} http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2737480
  {2} http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2738946
  {3} http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2740531
  {4} http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2740537
  {5} http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2743325
  {6} http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2742434
  report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  That is how you prove people that I am wrong? What about facts that contradict the facts brought by Italian scientists in their movie about chemtraills?http://youtu.be/U-5VnMIiKPY "chemtrails, the secret war"
  report
  95
  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Fuel? Burned jet fuel is the chemical you are complaining about? You do know it is mostly water and CO2?
  report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  In less of an hour, you watched the movie... Congratulations. Henceforth your truncated opinion.
  report
  95
  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Nope, just took what the video implied is causing "chemtrails".
  
  I'm not about to sit through an hour of a foreign language video of "specific" (but unnamed) additives and flashes of unspecified "reports" that "imply" this or that. Nowhere in what I watched was there any inference of any samples being taken, which was my biggest interest.
  report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Indeed, when confronted with facts I may not see again on this thread.
  You are the typical American, content with the mainstream version of facts, and you are coming here to give us lessons. Now, I know what you are about. An agent of propaganda.
  report
  95
  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  LOL Well, one of us is an agent of propaganda - I'll give you that!
  
  But the other deals in facts, not insinuations, implications or unsupported claims. I've repeatedly asked your to support your claims (as have several others) and all you've provided is more of the same unsupported claims and insinuations - propaganda, if you will - you have to offer. It gets rather boring after a while.
  report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Others are Quilligrapher and ...? That is to say a constant denier like you. When facing facts, you want more, and more, and more... Why do you intervene if first you don't check fully the document that I am offering as evidence and if you always refute it as a fact?
  report
  60
  John Holdenposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  A "fact" is something that is proved to be true.
  You have singularly failed to prove the truth of chemtrails. Hearsay isn't truth.
  report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I guess since the lesson I gave you in history as for the disloyalty of the English, you belong to their clique. In a way, you are telling me that the study made by those two Italian scientists holds no ground?Is that so? You are telling me, as the product of a ruling empire, that to contradict their assumption, you are bringing on the plate which evidence? NONE.
  Nobody on this platform can contradicts them for their lack of knowledge and still you want to nail them through me with little to substantiate your allegations.
  report
  60
  John Holdenposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  No, I'm not telling you anything as the product of a ruling empire.
  
  Look at your wording, "that to contradict their assumption" you admit that they are making assumptions but treat their assumptions as gospel!
  They have absolutely nothing to substantiate their allegations.
  report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Indeed, you got me there. Is it the best you can do? So far, only paraphrases! Since you want to decorticate my wording...
  report
  74
  Quilligrapherposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Hi Max. You raised three (3) valid points, i.e. proving you are wrong, contradicting Italian “scientists,” and fully checking the “evidence.”
  
  Who proves you are wrong?
  
  Unfounded accusations seem to be the only arguments in your responses beside calling another poster a propagandist for challenging your “proofs.” Obviously, you are still desperately trying to claim hearsay is fact. I can assure you that there is no need for anyone to prove you are wrong. You do that yourself every time you repeat an unsubstantiated accusation and treat it as a fact. Other posters in this forum just point to where people should look and you do the rest.
  
  Where is the scientific methodology?
  
  It may be difficult for some minds to comprehend, but accusations do not become facts until they are proven! In legal circles, unsupported indictments are discarded. In rational terms, confusing what is possible with what is factual is delusional thinking and it has become the major characteristic of most assertions about chemtrails.
  
  “Chemtrails, the Secret War”, in addition to making a number of scientifically false statements, does not prove there is a global chemtrail conspiracy. Quite to the contrary, it proves an acute inability to recognize the difference between accusations and evidence. It delivers fodder for gullible minds that are willing to accept conjecture as a substitute for factual research.
  
  You have not been able to justify any of the chemtrail claims in this thread and this video is just more imaginative innuendo masquerading as evidence. The film highlights the glaring absence of verifiable data, relies completely on assumptions, and never actually proves there is an organized global plot to poison the world with chemical vapors. Nor can I believe that you really believe this nonsense yourself.
  
  Have you checked the “evidence?”
  
  I doubt that you did any fact checking before posting these “facts brought by Italian scientists.” Had you questioned some of the theories presented during this one hour presentation, you would have discovered claims without substance, a total absence of any data supporting alleged illegal activities, dozens of invalid conclusions, and more than one total fabrication from an “expert.” Unlike the limpid tactics typically found in conspiracy posts, I can support my claims with factual references. Fact checking is simple, albeit time-consuming, and is on the path to discovery you should have followed before presenting this sham as your “proof” that chemtrails are a global conspiracy.
  
  An “expert” on climate control is quoted in the English captions as follows:
  
  “In order to manipulate the climate, two types of substances can be used: on one side, hygroscopic substances that absorb moisture, as if they were drying clouds out; or on the other side, dispersing substances that initiate the formation of condensation is also possible.” {1}
  
  In a typical manner, the distortions begin by stating an obvious truth: there are two mechanisms that may affect weather, one uses chemicals to absorb moisture, the other to cause condensation. Notice, however, evidence is never presented that such chemicals are actually being used anywhere in the world as part of an illicit geoengineering conspiracy. Then, just two minutes later, the weather “expert” accuses the United States of using a chemical that has no weather manipulation properties at all!
  
  “The United States used Agent Orange during the Vietnam War to flood with torrential rains, the runways that were used by Vietcong.” {2}
  
  Sorry, Max, but the scientific “expert” claims the herbicide Agent Orange, used to defoliate the jungle, caused “torrential rains!” This is a typical false claim that any high school chemistry student can debunk. {3}
  
  I watched this video even if you haven’t. It claims to have knowledge of illegal geoengineering but does not name names, establish dates, or identify culprits. Nor, does it provide any lab data based on documented vapor trail samples. Nothing! Not one conclusion is based on scientific investigation, methodology, and documentation. The total absence of hard data is a good reason to dismiss this “documentary,” which does not really document anything about a criminal chemtrail conspiracy to poison the world.
  
  {1} http://youtu.be/U-5VnMIiKPY (26:28)
  {2} Ibid. (28:29)
  {3} http://www.afhso.af.mil/shared/media/do … 28-054.pdf
  report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  If interested, you have a plethora of websites that will assert the veracity of their allegations and they are writers on hubpages but scientists, not the ones funded by NATO members. But, it is, if interested, so far the only contribution you've ever made is constant denial of facts. They are a plethora of pilots that are denouncing those sprayings... But again, if interested...
  report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  So tell me what is your input as for global warming? The media narrative? What is your proof? Because they said so. Then, again, why would you version of the so-called facts be true versus the version I consciously chose to represent my belief?
  report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Inform yourself. Each time I come up with a source, it is gagged. Don't waste my time if you can't accept the truth.
  reply report
  77
  colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  "I'm only stating that the attempts of killing, poisoning, humiliating US citizens is anchored in the DNA of the US government to be ignored and not to see the parallel." ~ maxoxam41
  
  No, that is not to be ignored. You are intelligent.
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  In what way what I stated is proof of intelligence? It is common knowledge for whom is concerned. It is a banal regurgitation of US archives. Now, in 2015, with the spread and the easy access of information, the one who doesn't know his own culture is doomed to eternal ignorance.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  "It is common knowledge for whom is concerned."
  
  No it's not. Just belief without any proof whatsoever, just as chemtrails, the US mining the twin towers and a CIA plot to kill Kennedy is.
  reply report
  74
  Quilligrapherposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Welcome back to Hubpages, Max. Your long absence has been noticed.
  
  “Common knowledge” is a collection of beliefs based upon verifiable facts and rational thinking. Your strings of conspiracy posts have never produced any facts that justify or support your rants of paranoia. Links leading to unproven accusations made by others that are also suffering from conspiracy delusions is NOT producing facts.
  
  A government-sponsored Chemtrail conspiracy has NEVER been proven to be real. Obviously, having proof is not an important component for many that are predisposed to distrust the world in which they live. Do not forget that you once said you saw chemtrails over Los Angeles but you could never produce evidence that what you saw was anything other than normal vapor trails.
  
  Inexplicable fear and unsupportable suspicions about government-sponsored chemical spraying are only common among those living on the intellectual fringes of society, but they are not examples of common knowledge. They are forms of paranoia that, in extreme cases, need medical treatment.
  reply report
  89
  GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  OMG! first you welcome him, then you tell him he needs medical/mental help.
  
  Won't we all be in tall corn if ever the conspiracies find any facts to support them. But don't get too excited Max, I think you are a brick shy of a full load too.
  
  GA
  reply report
  74
  Quilligrapherposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Good evening, Gus.
  
  Still struggling with English comprehension? I never told anyone that they needed medical/mental help.
  
  I did say, “They [inexplicable fear and unsupportable suspicions] are forms of paranoia that, in extreme cases, need medical treatment.”
  
  If you think Max needs medical/mental help then you should tell him yourself. There was no need to distort my words.
  
  Cheers, my friend.
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 8 years ago
Leave it to he P.C. Crowd to think one small measure equals an action of revolutionary measure . Tell us all your other interesting ways that you involve yourself to save the planet , besides driving a Prius or some minor action . I've been recycling everything since before nineteen eighty, Yet the reality of chem-trails , being such a vibrant ecological revolutionary cause ; is what ?................Uhhhh , a Non existent one ? Like , dream world material ?
reply report
1. 95
  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  You too? What, exactly, composes a chemtrail? Where are the receipts for the purchase of those chemicals? Where is the proof it was loaded onto a plane but not off-loaded (photos would be nice)?
  
  All of this is easy to get, so where is it? Where are the samples of a chemtrail, and the analysis of it, for instance?
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  NOooo, I don't believe in the chem- trails , I didn't make myself very clear , also the boogy -man , tooth -fairy , santa claus or that , Pres. Obama was going to save the world !
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Well, it DID seem a little out of character!
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Ha ! Well ........forgive me ?
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Done! We don't need any more conspiracy theorists.
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  You were perfectly clear for me.
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  http://gsw.bz/contrails
  Click and check for yourself... But let me guess, you are a denier, aren't you?
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Again, here are the questions:
  
  "What, exactly, composes a chemtrail? Where are the receipts for the purchase of those chemicals? Where is the proof it was loaded onto a plane but not off-loaded (photos would be nice)? "
  
  Nowhere in your link did I see any answers, so I will ask them again. What, exactly, composes a chemtrail? Where are the receipts for the purchase of those chemicals? Where is the proof it was loaded onto a plane but not off-loaded (photos would be nice)?
  
  These are easy questions, but never seem to produce an answer. Just a comment that those trails in the sky (that we know jet engines produce) are not water. So what are they? Is no one smart enough to fly through one of these dreaded "chemtrails" that are not water and take samples? Is no one smart enough to watch what is loaded onto a plane? No one smart enough to look for distribution hardware in the planes? Just smart enough to spread rumors they cannot support?
  
  Yes, I'm a denier that government is spreading deadly chemicals over the country side, coming out of planes as contrails. As you should be until that simple proof is provided.
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  If I recall well I gave you a link to 2 Italian scientists that made a factual documentary but you consciously opted to ignore it. So don't tell me that you are seeking the truth.
  reply report
83
psycheskinnerposted 8 years ago
There, is on the other hand, a lot of evidence that reduced vaccination rates leading to more children being sick and leading to increased preventable deaths.
reply report
1. 74
  Quilligrapherposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  A very good point and quite true!
  
  The 2011 outbreak of measles in Europe infected 30,000 people and caused 8 deaths, 27 cases of measles encephalitis, and 1,482 cases of pneumonia. Eighty-two percent (82%) of the victims had never been vaccinated while another thirteen percent (13%) were only partially vaccinated.
  {1}
  
  {1} http://pediatrics.about.com/od/measles/ … breaks.htm
  reply report
2. 64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Total lie. For instance, for pertussis, it was proven that the quality of the vaccine had an influence on the ability to catch the disease. It is proven that the increase of children catching pertussis cough is correlate with an inefficient vaccine. I read it few days ago.
  Yes, people, I spend most of my time reading when most of you go to restaurants to eat GMOs, go to the movies to be brainwashed by propaganda, spend and spend in a downward spiral consumerist society, watch insipid television... Sorry to be different but I need the truth contrary to the sleeping majority...
  reply report
60
John Holdenposted 8 years ago
High bypass turbo fans produce more contrails, not less.

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-high- … ore.t3187/
reply report
1. 64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I guess I figured you out quickly. It took you few minutes to shed light to what was at the beginning ignorance (?).You picked what you believed. I picked what I believed in. Who is right?
  Now, it means that the pseudo theory that I elaborated is false. What is yours?
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Will the link you provided gave no sources while the link I posted did.
  
  Your call.
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  In a world where whistleblowers are convicted for treason, in a world where free expression makes citizen lambda a paria of his society, I do understand why sources are not revealed and it would be my right to question what does someone that goes against the stream risk and what does someone that sticks to the mainstream narrative face when confronted with the chemtrails problem? If I follow this logic as much as my choice makes sense, yours is irrelevant. It is interesting to see that whatever controversial (I would consider them independent) websites, none divulges any identity. Is it a telltale sign? A French site called ciel voile uses the same strategy, is it a coincidence given that it is a NATO member?
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  When presented with any conundrum the first thing I do is try to disprove it, only when I have failed to disprove it will I consider it proved.
  If I find stuff that has no verifiable sources then I usually discard it.
  The plausibility of the question also has a bearing, if the thing seems totally implausible then I'm more inclined to consider it implausible than if it is plausible.
  
  No whistle blower has ever been convicted of treason in Perfidious Albion.
  reply report
64
maxoxam41posted 8 years ago
When do you decide to disprove if whatever your government is saying is accepted as truth? For years, Americans were told that Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese. In the early eighties, I remember my teacher in economics telling us that the US was involved indirectly in the Pearl Harbor attack. What the government said was a lie. With retrospect and wisdom, I can now generalize that what the government says is a lie (based on numerous historical accounts). Now, how can you disprove if you don't have the elements to prove it (documents hidden in national archives).
How do you verify a hidden source (because of an oppressive regime, confer the US?)
How do you decide that a theory is plausible or not? It's not as if everybody was a scholar? Why would I believe a source versus another? Why do I believe, why don't you and vice versa with the same source? What about external elements such as the propensity to adopt a behavior versus another (meaning lie to the general public, imprisoning innocent people in Abu Ghraib...)?
No "traitor"? Are you sure?
reply report
1. 60
  John Holdenposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Simple, you posted a site that claimed bypass jet engine didn't produce contrails with no information to back up that claim. I produced a site that said that they produce more, not less with information to back up that claim.
  
  This isn't about governments lying or not. It is about the likelihood of governments poisoning their own countries for no apparent reason.
  reply report
64
maxoxam41posted 8 years ago
Excerpt of the article I read : "We have also received first-hand accounts of military tankers and drones painted to look like passenger jets on several occasions. This causes the public to believe that normal passenger jets are producing trails further enhancing the lie that trails are normal. Remember, a crime this enormous will be concealed by lies and coverups just as enormous.

The fact that high-bypass turbofan engines cannot produce trails is the reason life-long skywatchers and pilots have never seen trails come from these engines until widespread geoengineering began (with very few special exceptions including rare water injection engines which are outlined in the article below). This is the reason professional and recreational pilots alike have contacted me expressing their disgust at the lies being thrust on the public by our governments and educations systems."

Same source, different info, how come?
Here is the page I consulted http://gsw.bz/contrails
reply report
1. 60
  John Holdenposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  But high-bypass turbo fan jet engines produce more trails, not less!
  
  Tell me what the perpetrators of chem-trails hope to achieve?
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Check the link and let's talk... I guess not it must be late in England, mustn't it?
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Better still, click the link and lets talk
  
  https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-high- … ore.t3187/
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Do you believe everything your government tells you?
  
  Another excerpt: "Fact: Modern high-bypass turbofans - which are used on virtually all large commercial and military aircraft - burn much less fuel per unit of ejected air; often 25% less fuel. Therefore, they produce much less water vapor than older engines.
  
  You will never witness a high-bypass turbofan ejecting water at an airport. You will only witness a faint, block soot that is the result of burnt jet fuel (kerosene). During take off, these engines produce the maximum amount of water vapor as compared to any other stage of flight because this is the time that the fuel-to-velocity ratio is the highest.
  
  In other words, if an engine was to produce visible water vapor, it would be most likely witnessed during takeoff. However, these engines are incapable of producing vapor trails even during their most inefficient operating condition: Takeoff."
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  It is no more a government site than the one you favour.
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  It is not the point. Do you believe in everything your government says? It is a yes or no question. There is no trap...
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  No, but I don't see the relevance of the question.
  reply report
  64
  maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Why don't you believe them? On which concrete basis?
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Can't chemtrails explain global warming?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Can't chemtrails explain global warming?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies