| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:41 am Post subject: Re: We have always been at war with Eastasia |
 |
|
| scar wrote: | Tele,
If you really wanna know what some have allegedly found why not try google?. The internet is an amazing tool.
That you offer up a post as 'last chance for redemption' and that no reply speaks volumes is rather strange.
Would you really form conclusions based on a non reaction to your posts?
Maybe noone cares what you think? heheh  |
It isn't a case of me 'thinking' anything - I am asking a question related to THIS thread and its title that is clearly being avoided. As far as the internet is concerned - the very first thing I did was search for references to this particular instance and there are none - yes, amazing tool.
Just so you are perfectly clear - this is not about chemtrails per se, I am asking why the 'chemical soup' reference in the title - what chemicals were found, how and by whom? Your attempts to discredit only highlight the fact you didn't even read my question before offering up a load of waffle.
I am not attempting to cast doubt on chemtrails as a concept - but artistic licence and exaggeration are so common given the subject matter, I am simply attempting to isolate which it is - genuinely based upon fact or just someone shooting the breeze because it looks good in print?
Sunday. London wakes under chemical soup.
Well, based upon what? Which chemicals? Without any form of evidence this is just scaremongering disinformation and the author is no better than those colouring the 911 waters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
scar
Moderate Poster
Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 724
Location: Brighton
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 1:03 pm Post subject: What do you think chemtrail stands for? |
|
|
the - 'maybe noone cares what you think' was meant as a joke.
Still theres truth in some jokes.
If you'd followed the links you would see the evidence you are after.
I shall remember in future not to waste my time replying to you, thats what it appears you are all about. I spend time explaining my thoughts (with links) and you call it waffle without checking them, i consider that very rude. Mr sit on the fence about everything and expect people to wipe your ass from the other side as you sh*t down on them over minutae.
"Your attempts to discredit only highlight the fact you didn't even read my question before offering up a load of waffle. "
Waffle is quite an insult coming from the king of same.
Change 'didnt even read my question' for 'didnt even read a link'
I wasnt only replying to you anyway.
See -> =================================
If you'd read and followed the links you would see that i did read your demands. Instead of checking the links for yourself you demand more. So lazy.
"Well, based upon what? Which chemicals? Without any form of evidence this is just scaremongering disinformation and the author is no better than those colouring the 911 waters."
Based upon evidence that i personally am unsure about but it has been on the net for years and is easy to find.
"Chemtrail soup" is a term used to describe the knotted masses of trails. I presume a lot of it is based on the links you avoided reading.
I sense impending telesemantics (chemical soup/chemtrail soup).
What do you think chemtrail stands for?
Why have you not made the above demands everytime someone said 'chemtrails' in the past???.
Goto Carnicom and have a look ffs, or is that too much effort?
Well heres some:
http://www.carnicom.com/flame1.htm
http://www.carnicom.com/labtest.htm
http://www.carnicom.com/bio11.htm
Whilst it may well be the case, without looking how can you mention "scaremongering disinformation"?
Offering up yet another pointless post when you could've looked for yourself quite easily and inspiring me to waste yet more time.
Nuts.
This site is a wind up, time wasting bs, going round in circles forever.
Enjoy it, i shant be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David WJ Sherlock
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 Jan 2007
Posts: 471
Location: Kent GB
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 1:16 pm Post subject: Re: We have always been at war with Eastasia |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | | scar wrote: | Tele,
If you really wanna know what some have allegedly found why not try google?. The internet is an amazing tool.
That you offer up a post as 'last chance for redemption' and that no reply speaks volumes is rather strange.
Would you really form conclusions based on a non reaction to your posts?
Maybe noone cares what you think? heheh ;) |
It isn't a case of me 'thinking' anything - I am asking a question related to THIS thread and its title that is clearly being avoided. As far as the internet is concerned - the very first thing I did was search for references to this particular instance and there are none - yes, amazing tool.
Just so you are perfectly clear - this is not about chemtrails per se, I am asking why the 'chemical soup' reference in the title - what chemicals were found, how and by whom? Your attempts to discredit only highlight the fact you didn't even read my question before offering up a load of waffle.
I am not attempting to cast doubt on chemtrails as a concept - but artistic licence and exaggeration are so common given the subject matter, I am simply attempting to isolate which it is - genuinely based upon fact or just someone shooting the breeze because it looks good in print?
Sunday. London wakes under chemical soup.
Well, based upon what? Which chemicals? Without any form of evidence this is just scaremongering disinformation and the author is no better than those colouring the 911 waters. |
When one make a soup, it is always a amalgamation of ingredient. Even if it is just one flavour. Hence, soup. When I make a soup (say beef). I still add different spices and and ingredients. This cloud that was photographed over london rained and one of our members has been testing the water from the downfall as found many different chems and particulates. She is now running a test to look for Barium as well.
_________________
"It's called the American Dream, because you have to be alseep to believe it"
See my videos at:
http://www.myspace.com/GlassAsylum For D WJ Sherlock
Last edited by David WJ Sherlock on Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:16 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:09 pm Post subject: Re: What do you think chemtrail stands for? |
|
|
| scar wrote: | the - 'maybe noone cares what you think' was meant as a joke.
Still theres truth in some jokes.
If you'd followed the links you would see the evidence you are after.
I shall remember ...................round in circles forever.
Enjoy it, i shant be. |
Thanks for responding, but it appears you still don't understand the concept of chronology and are stuck in this 'old links will explain everything loop'.
I have read countless links and articles on chemtrails - however, how do the links you supply, relate to Sunday 8th July 2007? Someone looks out of the window and automatically it's 'Yup, they've sprayed chemicals alright'.
All I want to know is how anyone can identity last Sunday's 'soup' as being chemically laden without any tests? I understand your reluctance to deal directly with the question at hand - it is difficult to address.
I therefore acknowledge your sidestepping tactics and potty mouthing, but highlighting old links have no correlation to last Sunday whatsoever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ishaar
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Jun 2006
Posts: 232
Location: uk
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | What is the basis to state 'chemical' soup? |
A fair enough question, the simple answer is as follows:
Quite a while ago now, around 2 years, I saw something in the sky that aroused my curiosity, there were 3 jets in view, 2 had the normal contrails, appearing as a 'tail' which followed the plane and vanished after a minute or 2, a third plane was leaving a thick trail which remained in the sky, then slowly turned into a milky white haze. My initial thought was that there must be something wrong with the engines or fuel. I forgot about it until a couple of days later I noticed there were several persistent trails in the sky, I asked a friend who flies small private planes and he told me to look up chemtrails.
Since then I have seen enough in the way of government documents, patents, photos, satellite imagery, (most of which has already been posted on this board) depicting flight patterns that can't be normal traffic lanes, to convince me personally that something for some reason is being sprayed into the upper atmosphere from jet planes, that 'chemtrails' and contrails are two distinct phenomena. I have observed planes leaving no contrail at all suddenly 'switch on' the trail then off again as it leaves a long streak that crosses another earlier trail. I have seen blue skies obscured completely by the milky residue of the trails.
So, when I wake up on Sunday morning look out the window and see a sky littered with layer upon layer of thick trails against a backdrop of milky haze from earlier trails I see chemtrails, not contrails, just as when I see the twin towers come down I see a controlled demolition not a building collapse. If you see something different I suggest you're not looking hard enough.
What are the chemicals?
Difficult to prove, as you pointed out Tele, short of being up there to fly through a trail there isn't really a conclusive way to detect what is being sprayed. Collecting samples from ground levels doesn't prove much as one wouldn't know which components of the sample weren't a product of other activities and already in the air.
Why are they there?
Well whatever the reason the operations are secret, here are a few links with pertinent info:
http://www.ncpa.org/pi/enviro/envpd/pdenv125.html
| Quote: | One approach, first proposed by theorist Freeman Dyson in 1979, would counteract any warming effect of greenhouse gases by diminishing by about 1 percent the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface.
This could be done by deliberately introducing fine particles -- such as those thrown up naturally from volcanoes -- into the upper atmosphere to scatter sunlight and heat back into space. |
This is apparently one of the operations (or it could be a cover story in case the covert activities are exposed, 'we are doing this to save you' type *.
Here's a document by Edward Teller:
http://lookupabove.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/Tell er.txt
| Quote: | We estimate a total cost of lifting mass into the stratosphere on wide-body
commercial aircraft to be ~$0.3/pound, whereas the current cost of putting a pound-mass of payload into low Earth orbit by contract with commercial space launch services is ~$5,000 for 5-15 ton payloads. |
http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/the-chemtrail-smoking-gun-proof-of -global-atmospheric-geoengineering
from the document:
Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base (1992)
| Quote: | | It seems reasonable to assume that mitigation systems that put dust or aerosols into the atmosphere at altitudes and in quantities that are within the bounds of the natural experiments or of previous experiments would not produce instabilities or effects that had not been produced before. This expectation could provide one criterion for use of a geoengineering option: |
and
| Quote: | | For example, a large volcanic eruption occurring while artificial volcanic dust was in place might result in a dust loading beyond that previously experienced. |
And from here:
http://www.metatronics.net/lit/geo2.html
| Quote: | | Another proposal suggests creating miniature, *106 artificial "Mount Pinatubos" by allowing airplanes to release dust particles into the upper atmosphere, simulating the greenhouse- arresting eruption of Mount Pinatubo |
There are lots of documents related to this type of operation on the web.
a useful dictionary:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/hqlibrary/aerospacedictionary/aerodictal l/c.html
chemical clouds (NASA Thesaurus)
| Quote: | | Artificial clouds of chemical compounds released in the ionosphere for observation of dispersion and other characteristics |
Then there are the more sinister associations with chemtrails, 'exotic weaponry' . In this scenario chemicals are being dumped in the atmosphere to enhance the abilities of HAARP and weather modification.
The Space Preservation Act of 2001'. Mentions chemtrails, would it be written out in a bill if they didn't exist?
http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2001/hr2977.html
| Quote: | Such terms include exotic weapons systems such as--
(i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons;
(ii) chemtrails;
(iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems;
(iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons;
(v) laser weapons systems;
(vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and
(vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons |
So I guess when speaking of proof it's really down to what is acceptable evidence. The process has been described, costed, and you can see it happening overhead on a daily basis. It can't all be brushed aside with the casual 'thems just normal contrails' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ishaar
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Jun 2006
Posts: 232
Location: uk
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| oh, and tele, i have a formula for dissolving superglue, you don't have to go through life with your finger stuck to your face. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ishaar wrote: | | oh, and tele, i have a formula for dissolving superglue, you don't have to go through life with your finger stuck to your face. |
Last point first, it isn't my face.
As for your response, firstly thanks for identifying it as a reasonable question, it seems that other members here are far too quick to load up with buckshot at the first sign of a creaky porch. At least you read the question.
So, putting aside all the links, the basic premise is the only proof that Sunday saw London bathed in a chemical soup is purely circumstantial 'evidence' that hinges on your past experiences and research?
Would that be an accurate assessment? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ishaar
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Jun 2006
Posts: 232
Location: uk
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | So, putting aside all the links, the basic premise is the only proof that Sunday saw London bathed in a chemical soup is purely circumstantial 'evidence' that hinges on your past experiences and research?
Would that be an accurate assessment? |
Yes. Not being one of the people directly assosciated with these operations what else would I have to go on.
The trails were appearing tonight just before it got dark about 40 minutes ago, thats the first time in 2 weeks I've seen trails being laid at this time of night in this area. So, am I to believe that today conditions were right for persistant trails for some planes not others, that when a plane is leaving a trail, suddenly stops and starts again it somehow hit an area of sky where conditions weren't right for persitant trails, that conditions haven't been right at this time in the evening for 2 weeks but tonight they are. And that the conditions for persistent trails usually ends around 7.30 in the evening?
I know how contrails are formed, in which conditions and at what altitude, What could be the reason for those conditions which are correct for producing billowing trails that go from horizon to horizon for 3 hours in the morning, suddenly end at 1pm, then start up again at 4.30 only to change again 2 or 3 hours later. Humans work shifts not the elements in the upper atmosphere. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lockerbie
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 147
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"I know how contrails are formed, in which conditions and at what altitude,"
exactly how much? the layman's version or the real stuff with fluid dynamic's and fun stuff like the cheerio effect (i do love that one)? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
utopiated
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 645
Location: UK Midlands
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lockerbie wrote: |
contrails have always existed in fact just be skimming over the internet you can find stories of them being seen in the korean war.
|
You are making the same idiotic claim many people have done on this forum and others - the old
"we have pics of contrails from world war 2!"
We are NOT talking about CONtrails. Contrails dissipate - if you were in the midlands today and looked upwards you'd have seen the sky transformed between 8 am and midday.
Please see satellite shots on pages 1,2 and 3 on http://chemtrailsuk.net and explain why only on one day in an example month we get satellite imaging systems snapping thick aerosol formations over the UK and all other days are normal?? I think air traffic makes a habit of flying each day does it not? Maybe you know something I don't?
_________________
http://exopolitics.org.uk
http://chemtrailsUK.net
http://alienfalseflagagenda.net
-- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
utopiated
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 645
Location: UK Midlands
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lockerbie
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 147
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Please see satellite shots on pages 1,2 and 3 on http://chemtrailsuk.net and explain why only on one day in an example month we get satellite imaging systems snapping thick aerosol formations over the UK and all other days are normal?"
you're asking why the clouds in the sky aren't the same everyday?
"Maybe you know something I don't?"
i know that the atmosphere changes everyday and that kinda has a real big impact on what clouds do.
you might have noticed, it's why it rains occasionally but not everyday.
god it's like preaching at jonestown. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
utopiated
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 645
Location: UK Midlands
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Recent Nottingham trails... matched to satellite imaging systems:
Due to how satellite imaging works - the pass-over shot caught the trailing as it shifted to the south west of the UK - as can easily be seen.
In addition - we have now put chemtrail "fall out" from Kings Lynn under a microscope and the results are astounding.
_________________
http://exopolitics.org.uk
http://chemtrailsUK.net
http://alienfalseflagagenda.net
-- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
utopiated
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 645
Location: UK Midlands
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lockerbie wrote: |
god it's like preaching at jonestown. |
Yup - and you're the deluded and equally arrogant Jim Jones. Back to your armchair.
You've totally misunderstood the point in your desire to just write uninformed drivel as fast as you can. For one we've covered all this in detail on this forum in the past so don't think you are saying anything new.
I am saying that on heavy spray days that many of us catch visually with the naked eye or on film - we can then match these to academic and other UK satellite pass overs. The trails are NOT there every day as you would expect. The weather does not vary that much in the UK - all the evidence makes your suggestion pretty stupid. There may be some minor variation but nothing which detracts from what we;ve found.
Secondly - do contrails leave dust-like debris the day after?? Funny water vapour if so. We have just put aerosol spraying fall-out under a microscope and can see something totally alien. But of course you know everything after 3 mins on the internet!!
_________________
http://exopolitics.org.uk
http://chemtrailsUK.net
http://alienfalseflagagenda.net
--
Last edited by utopiated on Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:39 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lockerbie
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 147
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Due to how satellite imaging works - the pass-over shot caught the trailing as it shifted to the south west of the UK - as can easily be seen. "
how about you tell us what would cause this phenomenon? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
utopiated
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 645
Location: UK Midlands
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lockerbie wrote: | "Due to how satellite imaging works - the pass-over shot caught the trailing as it shifted to the south west of the UK - as can easily be seen. "
how about you tell us what would cause this phenomenon? |
How about you go do your own research? There's a novel idea eh?
Also please take a look at Andrew Johnson's paper submitted from the collective work we've done for years on this area.
I think you can see why I'm tired of people like you who attempt to debunk when you've actually done nothing constructive either way.
_________________
http://exopolitics.org.uk
http://chemtrailsUK.net
http://alienfalseflagagenda.net
-- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lockerbie
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 147
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"I think you can see why I'm tired of people like you who attempt to debunk when you've actually done nothing constructive either way."
how about try answering my question instead of avoiding it. it makes it seems like you are either ignorant or have something to hide. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
utopiated
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 645
Location: UK Midlands
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| lockerbie wrote: | "I think you can see why I'm tired of people like you who attempt to debunk when you've actually done nothing constructive either way."
how about try answering my question instead of avoiding it. it makes it seems like you are either ignorant or have something to hide. |
Your question was too dumb to respond to. Why do you think sprayed, particulate matter which is cloud-like in nature moves and doesn't stay static in the atmosphere? Have you ever watched a TV weather forecast as they show the various cloud bases shifting over time?
_________________
http://exopolitics.org.uk
http://chemtrailsUK.net
http://alienfalseflagagenda.net
-- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lockerbie
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 147
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
"Your question was too dumb to respond to. Why do you think sprayed, particulate matter which is cloud-like in nature moves and doesn't stay static in the atmosphere?"
oh i know why it moves what i don't get is why it would actually slip on the photo itself, being the static almost instantaneous things they are.
but it appears i have misunderstood you. i thought you were implying the above but instead you were saying the photo was taken later then when the "chemtrails" appeared over england.
is that right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
utopiated
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 645
Location: UK Midlands
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Andrew's report on chemtrailing in the UK makes it onto the most popular news reporting site on the interweb...
Well done Andrew.
http://www.rense.com/general77/widesp.htm
| Quote: |
UK Denies Evidence Of
Widespread Illegal Chemtrail
Aerosol Operations
7-8-7
DERBYSHIRE, UK - Following the submission of a report, backed by over 20 signatories from diverse backgrounds, detailing widespread illegal and unacknowledged aerosol spraying from aircraft, UK agencies have ignored or denied the significant data it presented. Copies of the report were sent to UK Greenpeace, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), The Royal Air Force, DEFRA and, sometime after, to the UK World-Wide Fund for Nature, challenging them to investigate the data themselves. Four responses were received and all of them have denied the basic science presented in the report, which was backed up by the clear evidence.
(PR Web) An independent lay researcher, with a background in Software Engineering, from Derbyshire, UK, has continued to try and draw attention to the report he compiled which documents ongoing illegal aerosol spraying activities which could be affecting our climate, our health or both.
In May 2007, a previous Press Release http://www.prweb.com//releases/2007/5/prweb527358.htm described how he had sent copies of this report to several UK Agencies.
Andrew Johnson said that, "It has been an interesting exercise. Though the responses from official bodies have been largely as expected, I have been gratified and surprised by the response of a number of people from all around the world."
Since submitting the report in May 2007, Johnson said that he has received responses from DEFRA, The Department of Transport, the UK World-Wide Fund for Nature and the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). He said "The response from DEFRA was a 1-page flat denial, stating that what I was describing was ordinary contrails. They did not refer to any sections of the report, nor did they attempt to explain any of the data it presented. I had already included in the report that I would not accept such a flat denial and suggested that, if that was the sort of response they were intending to make, then they would be better sending nothing. This is another strong indication they did not even read the report." The response came from the "Customer Contact Unit" and Johnson said "I wrote back to them explaining again that a simple 'denial' type of response was not acceptable. I also wrote that I did not consider myself a 'customer' of DEFRA after all, I hadn't bought anything from them."
Johnson said that he was surprised to receive a response from The Department of Transport, "I did not send a copy to the Department of Transport (DoT), but in their response they said that the report had been forwarded to them for comment by DEFRA Ministers. The DoT response was by far the most comprehensive, and referenced one specific section of my report, so it seemed they had actually read it.
They included reference to a Scientific Paper about Persistent Aircraft Trails, written in 2005 by Professor Ulrich Schumann of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics. I studied this report in some detail and could not really find anything that was specifically relevant to the data in my own report such as how grids and parallel lines are formed.
The Schumann Paper talks about contrail formation being possibly linked to cirrus cloud formation, but states there is no proven link between them. It does indeed discuss persistent "contrails" but does not explain why they form and the duration of their persistence is not discussed in detail or with any empirical data.
In particular, my attention was drawn to 2 figures in the report: the standard contrail duration of maximum 2 minutes (with which I have no argument) and also the discussion of regions of ice supersaturation. It states that ice supersaturation in the atmosphere may be the cause of persistent contrail formation, but no firm link is documented or established. Indeed, a figure of 150 km is quoted for the maximum size of a region of ice supersaturation. However, I have measured chemtrails that are over 300 km long."
Johnson explained that, after reviewing Prof Schumann's Paper, "I e-mailed a copy of my report, along with these and other comments to Professor Schumann, but so far, I have received no response." Johnson responded to the DoT and CAA asking that, if their assertions were correct and the chemtrails were just contrails, it must mean that the picture of the "grid" he took in 2005 and the 42 aircraft he recorded leaving persistent trails over a period of 212 hours on Feb 4th 2007 must be ordinary air traffic. He therefore asked if they could please supply flight data for these days? "As I have videoed the actual aircraft from 4th of Feb and have the files time-stamped on a disk, I can prove they flew over the place where I was. I have received no response to this request so far."
There has been interest and support expressed from around the world, Johnson has found. "During the week after I first posted the report, I received a number of complimentary messages from around the world, which was a pleasant surprise. It seems that more people are aware of and concerned about this issue than I thought".
Brian from Ontario, Canada also contacted Andrew with information regarding chemtrail identification, "I have put together this webpage http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/spreading.html for people in the USA which helps them to identify Chemtrails.
One important consideration, for example is that most commercial aircraft are tracked by the FAA within the U.S. Other countries may have similar tracking programs and in turn make that tracking data available to the public via tracking programs such as 'FlightAware' and 'Flight Explorer' in near real time.
If the aircraft that you have observed do not show up on these tracking programs then you must assume that they are exempt from being tracked. Only military type aircraft, and some Government aircraft are exempt from tracking. That should cause many questions to be asked as it is against FAA regulations as well as military flight regulations for any large body jet aircraft to conduct operations, manoeuvres, or training exercises over populated civilian areas without notification by the Secretary of Defence ninety days prior to any such operation - and only then with the express permission of the Governor(s) of the affected state(s), unless National Security is at issue."
Johnson said "I was grateful that Brian has contacted me with this information - I have come across a similar tracking system which is available in the UK called the SBS-1 but this is quite expensive to buy." John from Australia said "I have been following this issue for some time and have been videoing our local skies for 3 months I think the Greens really need to look at this but so far here it has fallen on deaf ears and the other parties deny it."
Susan from Arizona also contacted Johnson to say "I have tracked [chemtrails] here in northern Arizona for the past two years, where skies are normally a bright, clear blue (or at least they used to be) for most days of the year. The chemtrails have increased and become far worse over the past several years, along with extreme changes in local climate and environment. Respiratory problems are virtually epidemic and long-lasting."
James from Exeter said "I agree 100% with your views and conclusions. I have taken digital camera pictures of these unmarked aircraft spraying overhead, sometimes as many as thirty or more aircraft in a very short time, spraying in a grid pattern it seems, and have looked up some mornings to find an X marks the spot in the sky overhead - looks like a St. Andrews cross. I have a large pair of binoculars 80 x 20's , but even with these there are no markings on these aircraft. I have seen a couple of aircraft with what look like extra tanks under the fuselage. So, yes we are being sprayed. I'm so pleased to see someone that is voicing the concerns I've had for a while now."
John from Kelso (Scotland) also wrote to say "Chemtrails first caught my attention after reading an article in about 1998/99, and to be honest at that time in the UK I was not seeing any, so I just dismissed the idea as something that was happening in the US. In 2002, I was leaving my nephew's house in North Shields Tyne & Wear to come home and from the main road near the Tyne Tunnel and I could see in the distance a huge X in the sky. I have since taken many photos and videos of this phenomenon."
Rosalind from California wrote "We believe, that the program here in Northern California and Arizona dates back to 1988 or 1989. We believe that there may have been experiments prior to this date... however, technology and funding became available on a massive scale in the late 1980s."
Andrew Johnson added "Rosalind also kindly sent quite a few related documents that she has obtained, though I simply have not had chance to study them yet."
Caroline, a Financial Consultant, from Surrey, UK also described her own thoughts and experiences, "I do not believe that any government-sponsored scientist has or will be sanctioned to look into all the evidence relating to chemtrails with the depth that you, I and many other private individuals have. Any scientists who may feel that chemtrails should be investigated would, I think, have to consider the 80 untimely and unexplained deaths of some of the world's top scientists that have taken place since 1994. DEFRA has not and will not act impartially and has, I consider, erroneously decided to accept scientific discussion as fact rather than theory. One must wonder why there was not one time lapse experiment undertaken (or reported on if undertaken) when this economical way of confirming facts could quickly turn a theory into a proven point. I do feel that time is of the utmost importance with regards to halting these chemtrails, at least until a full and open public enquiry has taken place."
Mark, a Rail Worker in the West Midlands, has recently written an article regarding his observations about the Chemtrailing activity in which he says...
"During the summer of 2006, my attention was directed to unusual cloud formations that were becoming a frequent and alarming feature of the daytime skies over the Wolverhampton area of the West Midlands, UK where I live. On a sunny Saturday afternoon in July 2006, I actually witnessed the entire vista was filled with criss-crossed and checkerboard patterns constructed of thick, milky white lines of cloud. I have been an aviation enthusiast for as long as I can remember, and maintain what I consider to be a good working familiarity with most types of civilian and military aircraft. The aircraft I saw appeared to be of three types, two larger types of the KC-135 (a derivative of the Boeing 707) and Boeing KC 767 (the military tanker version of the Boeing 767) varieties, and a smaller and faster type which recalled the configuration of a McDonnell Douglas MD-80. These aircraft were all flying at high speed, and initially deposited thin, white trails in their wakes. It was also patently obvious that the patterns visible above were being constructed to some kind of design."
It is therefore clear that a wide range of people are aware that the spraying is going on, and basic science proves it is really happening. The question has to be asked, then, how do we proceed and obtain answers to has authorised this spraying and what is its purpose? In summary, Johnson comments, "I see this as a stage in the process of getting both Governmental Organisations and Non-Governmental Organisations to look at this issue realistically and responsibly. The research of many people and the report I compiled proves the issue is real, even though we don't know who is responsible for the spraying.
Anyone who has an interest in protecting our environment should be looking at this issue and asking questions. The official responses I have received so far have done nothing, realistically, to refute or correct any of the data or overall conclusions I included, disturbing though they are.
Perhaps the main problem is that it is difficult for us all to accept, in the face of everything else we are told (about things like global warming, for example), that something like this is really going on. I think we must therefore continually apply pressure in various places so that we can get more answers. I strongly encourage everyone to try and do something to increase awareness of this. Write to government and environmental agencies (especially if you are a member) and send them copies of the report, or any other data on Chemtrailing which you feel is important."
Most of the responses that Andrew Johnson has received, both official and unofficial, can be viewed online here:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/Chemtrails/OfficialResponses/
or using this shorter link: http://tinyurl.com/yugavz
The original report submitted can be viewed, online at http://www.checktheevidence.com/Chemtrails/ or using this shorter link: http://tinyurl.com/2w8ytk/ Johnson actively encourages all interested parties to contact him for any required clarification or further information required.
Disclaimer
Email This Article
MainPage
http://www.rense.com |
_________________
http://exopolitics.org.uk
http://chemtrailsUK.net
http://alienfalseflagagenda.net
-- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lockerbie
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 147
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| not being really familiar with the chemtrail theory what actually is the point of it? what are these chemicals meant to do? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
karlos
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
I live in London, for the last few weeks it has been raining like mad virtually every day. There has even been times when hailstones have been bouncing off the windows.
For goodness sake it is July and i have had the central heating on.
But the biggest observation has been the breathing difficulty, nasal conjestion and sneezing. Not just me MANY people.
But all of this has been sporadic.
So either someone is jerking around with the atmosphere or it's just conspiracy nutters again.
No droughts this year, crops wasted, areas flooded, houses ruined. Pretend car bombs everywhere.
Our masters want chaos, because out of chaos comes order a new world order.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stelios wrote: | I live in London, for the last few weeks it has been raining like mad virtually every day. There has even been times when hailstones have been bouncing off the windows.
For goodness sake it is July and i have had the central heating on.
But the biggest observation has been the breathing difficulty, nasal conjestion and sneezing. Not just me MANY people.
But all of this has been sporadic.
So either someone is jerking around with the atmosphere or it's just conspiracy nutters again.
No droughts this year, crops wasted, areas flooded, houses ruined. Pretend car bombs everywhere.
Our masters want chaos, because out of chaos comes order a new world order. |
No, the recent weather is not due to NWO but is caused by La Nina which is the opposite of El Nino. We had a powerful El Nino last year. If you recall it reached the upper 30 degrees in temperature this time last July. La Nina always follows El Nino and brings with it poor weather. See here
El Nino's (and therefore La Nina's) are likely to become more common as the earth warms up. This could be due to AGW and man-made CO2 emmissions or it could due to the increase in the intensity of the sun and its affect of reducing cosmic rays and therefore cloud cover as discovered by Herik Svensmark. Or it could be both. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stelios wrote: |
So either someone is jerking around with the atmosphere or it's just conspiracy nutters again. |
...or it's a completely natural phenomenon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Long Tooth wrote: | | James C wrote: | | Andrew Johnson wrote: | I *think* mammatus clouds are quite rare in the UK, but I am on a slow dial up link at the moment, so can't check. They are associated with Thunderstorms.
Chemtrails are real, that can be established without any doubt (and I have a little more of my own data to add into the mix from my walk along the beach here last night).
Keep watching the skies... |
Andrew,
Perhaps you should tell your little band of groupies how I've discussed this subject privately with you on a couple of occasions and you've failed each time to demostrate any valid logic to your argument, yet you continue to promote yourself as an expert. |
perhaps you could also ask your little band of groupies, how the chemtrails haze suddenly appeared from nowhere over the last few years?
back in the 1970's you could see planes flying in blue skies, during cold days hot days etc, all we could see were the trails left by the planes which would dissapear in minutes, now the trails develop into haze and spread out, can you ask your band of groupies, i dont like that term but as you seem to favour it i will use it.
unfortunately all refrences to the white powder falling onto residences from a plane spraying the substance on populated sterling have been erased from the google searches.
so perhaps to end the chemtrail specualtion you can post the answer. |
I suggest you look at a few pictures from WWII. You might just notice that contrails were prevalent even back then.
As for falling powder, there is no proof for this and likely it was mass hysteria. 15 years ago I worked in a record shop. On one day, I was working behind the counter with 3 other assistants. At the time, a technician was in the store mending one of the tills. As he finished, he sprayed the till with something which left a funny smell. I watched him do it as I was talking to him at the time. Then he left. At which point, one of the three assistants decided that they were feeling unwell and thought it was due to a smell in the shop, the same smell caused by the spray. She went and lay down only to be followed by the other two who also decided they had become ill due to this smell. When my manager queried the odour I explained what had caused it but he decided to instigate some sort of emergency procedure, just in case. Within one hour, the three assistants had been taken to hospital for tests, the shop closed and the firebrigade was checking the premises for noxious gases. It was like that scene from ET. Even the local police turned up. To say it was farcical is an understatement. The shop was closed for two days and guess what, they found nothing. Even the assistants were all fine within a few minutes of arriving at the hospital! Probably due to getting some fresh air. It was pure mass hysteria as commonly witnessed by many people worldwide. No one except the three assistants were affected. No customers, not me, and no other staff.
Beware of mass hysteria and hearsay.
So, as you say, that should end chemtrail speculation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lockerbie
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 147
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
james c in fact the current bought of weather is more likely to be caused by the north atlantic oscillation than el-nino/la-nina which affects the south. and while the two can interact the effects of the NAO are more direct for us.
and james c solar variation theory and the cosmic ray theory was disproved (again) this week. ah well it was a nice idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: |
So, as you say, that should end chemtrail speculation. |
Possibly I have missed something intrinsic in the previous mix of posts, however;
The above picture of WWII aircraft clearly shows very visible trails behind each one. My understanding of contrails is that they disperse very quickly (con = condensation). The ones in the picture obviously haven't.
So simply put, at what point do contrails take on the more sinister label of chemtrail? Is it purely a case of the length of time they stay aloft, visible and unbroken?
James C says 'that should end the chemtrail speculation' - is this because the picture of WWII aircraft can only show contrails that hang about for ages and they have to be contrails because of the era, hence contrails are known to last longer periods under certain conditions? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lockerbie wrote: | james c in fact the current bought of weather is more likely to be caused by the north atlantic oscillation than el-nino/la-nina which affects the south. and while the two can interact the effects of the NAO are more direct for us.
and james c solar variation theory and the cosmic ray theory was disproved (again) this week. ah well it was a nice idea. |
Yes, you're probably right about the NAO. I was only going on what a friend of mine, who works in the climate change field, discussed with me the other day, that it was likely due to La Nina.
As for cosmic rays, do you have a link to confirm what you say? I've read Svensmark's book which is OK but appears to contain flaws. I'd be interested in knowing why his theory has been disproved. For the record, I'm slightly skeptic of all the data regarding AGW but cannot disagree with the evidence that CO2 has risen due to man's activities so accept more the case for it than against it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lockerbie
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 147
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
there was a report on lockwood's findings just yesterday, there's also a thread somewhere around here about it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6290228.stm
the data just doesn't match. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | | James C wrote: |
So, as you say, that should end chemtrail speculation. |
Possibly I have missed something intrinsic in the previous mix of posts, however;
The above picture of WWII aircraft clearly shows very visible trails behind each one. My understanding of contrails is that they disperse very quickly (con = condensation). The ones in the picture obviously haven't.
So simply put, at what point do contrails take on the more sinister label of chemtrail? Is it purely a case of the length of time they stay aloft, visible and unbroken?
James C says 'that should end the chemtrail speculation' - is this because the picture of WWII aircraft can only show contrails that hang about for ages and they have to be contrails because of the era, hence contrails are known to last longer periods under certain conditions? |
I ended my post with that line because Long Tooth stated that if I post the answer then it would end chemtrail speculation. Since I've posted a reasonable answer, I hope it will go someway to satisfying his statement. Just a bit of humour on my part.
Of course, I accept that my answer isn't complete and one could argue that we are merely looking at contrails in the picture above but hey life, and all the questions it raises, is complicated. In my defence, no one knows how long those contrials lasted for. They could have lasted 15-30 minutes for all I know which would refute the words of Long Tooth who states that long lasting contrails are a recent phenomenon. Again, this comes back to mass hysteria. If someone tells you something controversial about a subject you've never taken an interest in before, like long lasting contrails have only appeared recently, then it might generate a new, yet probably biased, interest in that subject for yourself. You then become part of the mass hysteria which is not based upon proper science and historical observation but upon hearsay. I remember 30 odd years ago, as a child, observing the contrails over the town I lived in and being fascinated by them. I wanted to be a pilot as I wondered how far the aircraft was now away from me. Which is why I have trouble with others telling me that long lasting contrails are a new phenomenon and basing their whole argument upon it. Someone on this thread (not Long Tooth) even started sending me abusive pm's because of my view which shows you how little evidence there must be otherwise they'd hit me with facts. All the evidence which is ever posted is usually photos and videos of the skyline taken from back gardens by people with an interest in the subject based upon biased reporting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
