jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (121 posts)

Can't chemtrails explain global warming?

  1. maxoxam41 profile image78
    maxoxam41posted 18 months 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?

    1. colorfulone profile image89
      colorfuloneposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      My opinion, its HAARP.

      1. maxoxam41 profile image78
        maxoxam41posted 17 months ago in 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?

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 17 months ago in 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.

          1. maxoxam41 profile image78
            maxoxam41posted 17 months ago in 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?

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 17 months ago in 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!

          2. Paul Wingert profile image80
            Paul Wingertposted 17 months ago in reply to this

            http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12496699_f248.jpg

            These vapor trials I see in the sky scare me because I flunked high school science!

            1. maxoxam41 profile image78
              maxoxam41posted 17 months ago in 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.

              1. Paul Wingert profile image80
                Paul Wingertposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                You do it yourself.

                1. maxoxam41 profile image78
                  maxoxam41posted 17 months ago in 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.

        2. colorfulone profile image89
          colorfuloneposted 17 months ago in 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/

          1. maxoxam41 profile image78
            maxoxam41posted 17 months ago in 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.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 17 months ago in reply to this

              I see you are ignoring my request for a simple explanation of the way it works!

              1. maxoxam41 profile image78
                maxoxam41posted 17 months ago in reply to this

                As the <personal attack removed> that you pretend to be or the one that you really are?

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                  Come on man, it can't be difficult. How do they do it without anybody noticing?

                  1. maxoxam41 profile image78
                    maxoxam41posted 17 months ago in 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?

                2. maxoxam41 profile image78
                  maxoxam41posted 17 months ago in 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?

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 17 months ago in 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.

  2. ahorseback profile image51
    ahorsebackposted 18 months 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 ?

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 18 months ago in 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.

      1. ahorseback profile image51
        ahorsebackposted 18 months ago in 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........?

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 18 months ago in 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.

    2. maxoxam41 profile image78
      maxoxam41posted 18 months ago in 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?

  3. wilderness profile image97
    wildernessposted 18 months 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.

    1. maxoxam41 profile image78
      maxoxam41posted 18 months ago in reply to this

      Can you prove me that carbon monoxide affects our atmosphere? That it is not a conspiracy theory?

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 18 months ago in 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.

        1. maxoxam41 profile image78
          maxoxam41posted 18 months ago in 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?

  4. psycheskinner profile image79
    psycheskinnerposted 18 months ago

    Global warning is pretty well explained by the existing theory.

    1. maxoxam41 profile image78
      maxoxam41posted 18 months ago in 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.

      1. Quilligrapher profile image90
        Quilligrapherposted 18 months ago in 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.
        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

        1. maxoxam41 profile image78
          maxoxam41posted 18 months ago in 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?

          1. Quilligrapher profile image90
            Quilligrapherposted 17 months ago in 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.
            http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
            {1} http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp078187
            {2} http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db09.htm

            1. maxoxam41 profile image78
              maxoxam41posted 17 months ago in 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.

              1. maxoxam41 profile image78
                maxoxam41posted 17 months ago in reply to this

                Simple curiosity. Has the government ever harm anyone in your reality?

              2. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 17 months ago in 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.

                1. maxoxam41 profile image78
                  maxoxam41posted 17 months ago in 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

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 17 months ago in reply to this
              3. Quilligrapher profile image90
                Quilligrapherposted 17 months ago in 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. smile

                I hope you had a good weekend, Max, and you enjoy the week that lies ahead. 
                http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

                1. maxoxam41 profile image78
                  maxoxam41posted 17 months ago in reply to this
                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 17 months ago in 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.

              4. colorfulone profile image89
                colorfuloneposted 17 months ago in 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.

                1. maxoxam41 profile image78
                  maxoxam41posted 14 months ago in 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.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 14 months ago in 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.

                  2. Quilligrapher profile image90
                    Quilligrapherposted 14 months ago in 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.
                    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

  5. ahorseback profile image51
    ahorsebackposted 18 months 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 ?

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 18 months ago in 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?

      1. ahorseback profile image51
        ahorsebackposted 18 months ago in 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 !

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 18 months ago in reply to this

          Well, it DID seem a little out of character! big_smile

          1. ahorseback profile image51
            ahorsebackposted 18 months ago in reply to this

            Ha ! Well ........forgive me ?

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 18 months ago in reply to this

              Done!  We don't need any more conspiracy theorists. big_smile

        2. maxoxam41 profile image78
          maxoxam41posted 18 months ago in reply to this

          You were perfectly clear for me.

      2. maxoxam41 profile image78
        maxoxam41posted 18 months ago in reply to this

        http://gsw.bz/contrails
        Click and check for yourself... But let me guess, you are a denier, aren't you?

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 18 months ago in 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.

          1. maxoxam41 profile image78
            maxoxam41posted 18 months ago in 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.

  6. psycheskinner profile image79
    psycheskinnerposted 17 months 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.

    1. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 17 months ago in 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}
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
      {1} http://pediatrics.about.com/od/measles/ … breaks.htm

    2. maxoxam41 profile image78
      maxoxam41posted 17 months ago in 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...

  7. John Holden profile image60
    John Holdenposted 17 months ago

    High bypass turbo fans produce more contrails, not less.

    https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-high- … ore.t3187/

    1. maxoxam41 profile image78
      maxoxam41posted 17 months ago in 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?

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        Will the link you provided gave no sources while the link I posted did.

        Your call.

        1. maxoxam41 profile image78
          maxoxam41posted 17 months ago in 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?

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 17 months ago in 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.

  8. maxoxam41 profile image78
    maxoxam41posted 17 months 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?

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 17 months ago in 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.

  9. maxoxam41 profile image78
    maxoxam41posted 17 months 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

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 17 months ago in 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?

      1. maxoxam41 profile image78
        maxoxam41posted 17 months ago in reply to this

        Check the link and let's talk... I guess not it must be late in England, mustn't it?

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 17 months ago in reply to this

          Better still, click the link and lets talk

          https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-high- … ore.t3187/

          1. maxoxam41 profile image78
            maxoxam41posted 17 months ago in 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."

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 17 months ago in reply to this

              It is no more a government site than the one you favour.

              1. maxoxam41 profile image78
                maxoxam41posted 17 months ago in 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...

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                  No, but I don't see the relevance of the question.

                  1. maxoxam41 profile image78
                    maxoxam41posted 17 months ago in reply to this

                    Why don't you believe them? On which concrete basis?

 
working