kurtster wrote: 
I'm not sure what this is all about Kurt, but you know I'm well entrenched in aerospace, I'm a pilot, mechanic, etc. What is the issue here?

 mzpro5 wrote: 
Nor do I.

It will be nice to use the app from below.

I would be more than happy to be wrong on this stuff. 

Its not that I am 100% sure about chem trails, because I do keep looking for ways to be more sure.  I still consider the rule of trust but verify to be a good one to follow.

If I quit looking for ways to prove or disprove at this point and just kept talking as if they are genuine, then you would be plenty right to be concerned about my mental health...

at least on this subject. 

 kurtster wrote: 







Though you may have excellent eyesight if the determining factor is based on what you can see I don't consider that an objective measure.

 PFM wrote: 
Thank you.  Bookmarked.

This should prove to be very useful as I ponder this subject down the road.

 kurtster wrote: 
There's an app for that... http://blog.wolframalpha.com/2011/11/17/taking-to-the-skies-with-wolframalpha/

 mzpro5 wrote: 
No, I am saying that I can see the air traffic.  There is just much less of it.  I can see jets fly over the area which I can view.  They are clearly visible to the naked eye, even at very high altitudes, even when they do not leave contrails in their wake. 

Contrails as a rule do not happen under the altitude of 28,000 feet. 

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
i hear that mongol banks are paying like 13% interest on their savings

that's pretty darn hot

considering

 mzpro5 wrote: 

Or just don't look up; something might be gaining on you.

 kurtster wrote: 



Just because you cannot see contrails does not mean the air traffic is not there.



Atmospheric conditions have a lot to do with what you see, and I do not mean visibility but things like temperature and moisture content in the air.



In order to make an accurate comparison you would have to recreate the exact atmospheric conditions, both at our level and at 30,000 ft, to see what the traffic is like.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail

Depending on the temperature and humidity at the altitude the contrail forms, they may be visible for only a few seconds or minutes, or may persist for hours and spread to be several miles wide. Persistent contrails are thought to have a significant effect on global climate.

Hey Kurt ! I have found the "Chem trail bandit".

Since its a slow news day ...

A while ago I was asked to explain how to determine the difference between chem trails and contrails and as usual failed to do any convincing.

So about a couple of months ago, I was sitting outside on a Thursday afternoon between 5 and 6 pm and watching the skies fill up with trails.  So I said to myself,  self, let's us sit out next Thursday at the same time and see what happens.

Well, nothing happened that next Thursday.  It was a clear sunny afternoon and sitting out at the same time period, I noticed a much lower volume of air traffic, unlike the previous Thursday.  One would think that there would be the same amount of commercial air traffic  on the following Thursday at the same time.  I could see jets flying by leaving the 'normal' contrails that disappear within moments as they pass through the sky.  So visability was not a problem.  There was only a fraction of the amount of air traffic this following Thursday and no weather problems in other parts of the country that would have caused flights to be rerouted or delayed, nor were there any the week before.

And yesterday was a beautiful cloudless day with a noticeable absence of that heavy air traffic noted that long past Thursday.  This morning, as the air is thick with a brown layer of smog in the distance and a couple of trails of dubious nature present in the morning sky, I decided to drag this up and ask the begged question to the nay sayers.

Why isn't air traffic the same on any given weekday at a certain time period, week in and week out ?  Since this phenomena is explained as the result of normal commercial aviation, how can there be such a disparity in the volume of air traffic  on a certain day, a week later, and a week after that ?

I now offer my butt up for a whooping, proceed ...

 slightly less invasive concept in Mongolia

 Romulus wrote: 

Backscroll to the bottom of the page.  I posted it yesterday and saw it yesterday for the first time.  I have been aware of it since before it was released but only found a link to it yesterday.

This thread was originally titled Fake Clouds until yesterday.  I changed the title at Noenz's suggestion.  Iffen you want to have some fun, go back to the beginning of this thread and you'll find some interesting reading and lots of pictures.  The Fake Clouds title was a thinly veiled reference to chemtrails, which I strongly believe are real, but I also do admit, I do not know what the real purpose is.  We sorta agreed and with the usage of Geo Engineering in the film changed it to this.

HAARP is another thing I've been aware of for a very long while also.  There are I believe 6 such arrays around the world.  China has finally built one.  I think that it was responsible for the mass bird kills a New Years Eve past.

I've been a listener to Coast to Coast AM since the mid 90's where these and many other topics have been continously discussed.  I started this as a place to post pictures of chemtrails and to encourage others to simply look up and see what was going on it front of our eyes and see if I could inspire an awareness and discussion, without the attachment of the term CT.  Silly me.

But I persist and some seem to be reconsidering the possibility of chemtrails being real.  I've been bombared with every explanation of what contrails are and how that the existance of chemtrails as I maintain is simply a misinterpretation of the reality of contrails.  I have seen the elusive Black Beams and once saw a trail that was a small diameter U - Turn, hardly the manuveur of a commercial airliner.  I was heartened to see a couple of those actually filmed in WITWATS.

So I have been sitting here quietly and patiently connecting the dots.  Two nights ago on C2C, the film maker was back on and I then learned about trading weather as a commodity and Weather Derivitives and it lit my fuse again with a big missing dot and I ressurected this thread to bring this piece of info to the table and discussion.

I try and stay away from talking about the NWO and the other similar notions as they only provide for an easy way to distract from the reality of the fact that something is going on in the skies, and set oneself up for extreme ridicule and credibilty attacks.  I've always been a follow the money guy and with this knowledge of weather as a commodity, it gives me hope that discussion of chemtarils can take on a new face and calling it an example of Geo Engineering takes it from Conspiracy Theory to more of a Conspiracy Fact situation.

So if you feel similarly, I am more than willing to openly discuss this stuff on the level of believer.  In the words spoken on C2C last night, the burden of proof has shifted from simply saying that something is not true because it cannot be proved to it must be considered possible until it can be proved the other way.  Technology and science are moving so fast now that we are finding more and more exceptions to rules. 

Nutrinos have finally been proved in two seperate places, Japan and the US.  Nutrinos are particles that move faster than the speed of light.  This turns physics completely upside down, causing nearly all equations that base their limits upon the speed of light to be redone and recomputed, including Einsteins theory of relativity.

This stuff fascinates me.

Kurt,
Have you seen "What in the World are they Spraying?"

also, what do you think about HAARP?

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
Good enough.  Let me reflect on this.

I've been a believer for a very long time and every once in awhile some new revelation comes up such as the knowledge of these weather dirivitives which allows me in my own mind to connect another dot.  And inspire me to post it here.  Your's and others challenging my assumptions have tempered my arguments for the good.  I admit that references to the NWO and whatnot leave me wrankled, because that is the part that is so easily discredited and weakens anyones arguments; it makes sense without that part and is a distraction to the core elements.

The filmaker was on the radio last night.  I was aware of the film since before it was released ( he is a somewhat regular guest on the program ) and finally saw it this morning for the first time.  I try to be skeptical on this still, but I share the anger of that 17 yo girl in the movie.  There are some days I look up and see the very things in the sky that this film has captured outside my own back door.  I don't have to go somewhere to see this, I just have to look up.  I see in succeeding years, the gardens going to hell outside.  The proponents and sources in the film are highly credentialed, many with doctorates, so they all can't be crazy or wrong.

I would be happy to change the title to Geoengineering for a more inclusive and responsible discussion, because that seems to be the core matter in the end.  It also encompasses Global Warming and a host of other cans of worms. 

 kurtster wrote: 
hey, we are on the same page when it comes to how low we think humans can stoop to make a buck. I have no problems there. Where I do have problems is the cause and effect relationship. The weather is extremely hard to predict, let alone control.
You (or your links) have mentioned two possible mechanisms for influencing the weather:
1. cloud seeding to induce rainfall and
2. stratospheric particulates to counter global warming.

Re 1: Seeding clouds is old hat and funnily works, more or less, in certain conditions. They do it here when a thunderstorm threatens to dump a ton of hail on the grape harvest. Better to get the cloud to break before hail forms. This is a LOCAL intervention.

Re 2: stratospheric measures are, um, really spacy. They are long-term measures that "may" have an effect and then only when conducted on a truly ginormous scale, like Pinatubo (try dumping several cubic kilometers of particulate into the atmosphere using aircraft.. you are going to be in business for a very long time). Then, even when you do it the actual effect of it is, um again, up in the clouds, so to speak. At best you will get some GLOBAL cooling but what effect this has on local weather (and hence weather derivatives) is impossible to predict.

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
Monsanto who has patented seeds that flourish in an Aluminum rich environemnt.

And with weather being traded as a commodity with 10 to 1 leverage and an assumed level playing field, there is much to be made by manipulating the weather.

I have long been aware of Monsanto's efforts in Genetically Modified seeds.  I just became aware last night about the Weather Derivatives market.  Weather manipulation is a tool to guarentee profits in this kind of finacial instrument.  Its the perfect crime. 

No one believes that the weather can be manipulated so therefore the innocent who invest in weather futures are being taken to the cleaners by those that actually can influence the weather.  At 10 to 1 odds, you break even on your first event.  If you only bat 50% you're still making a ton of money.

We have the real estate derivatives to point out how there are those that would risk public vilification for profit.  What's more shameful than tossing someone out on the streets from their home in order to make a dirty dollar ?

I guess the main difference between us is ( I assume ) that you do not think that a government or a group of people could be so cunning and ruthless to engage in this kind of undertaking and get away with it, while I do.

Lastly, the second video showed how an off the books covert operation can operate and fund itself and profit in underhanded activities, any underhanded activities it may choose to indulge in. 

And thanks for taking me seriously and investing the time it has taken to watch the videos and respond.

 kurtster wrote: 
Just watched it now. There is a huge historical difference between funding the Nicaraguan freedom fighters and funding a vast geo-engineering project. The former was crafted in a world where the domino theory still held sway, the US saw definite benefits for its national interest in the program (at least covertly) and thought it could get away with it (wrongly, as it turned out).
With chemtrails, it is still highly disputed that there are any benefits. If there are benefits, who is going to profit from them so much that they would take the risk of public vilification to sponsor the program? Thirdly, scale. What you are talking about is VAST manipulation involving a huge number of people, not a box of weapons shipped to a highly motivated guerilla force fighting for their own interests.

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:  
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.  I will compose a response shortly.

But to answer this question, I will offer this ...

Evergreen Aviation

wiki link for Evergreen

Ever hear of Air America ?  The CIA's own airforce ?

It is now the above mentioned Evergreen International Aviation.

Did you watch the second video which offers a how and who for how something like this could be accomplished, facilitated and financed in the first place ?

 kurtster wrote: 
Maybe we should change this whole discussion into a geoengineering thread which I would greatly welcome. There are some really whacko ideas out there on geo-engineering, even reaching as far as to drop nuclear bombs on volcanoes that seem primed for eruption to spew massive quantitites of particulates into the atmosphere to counter global warming. (thank the FSM it is not that easy)

ok. let's take a step back and look at this issue. Let's forget chemtrails for the moment and look at the wider issue.

why would anyone get into geo-engineering?

Off the top of me head, some potential answers:
1.  scientific curiosity
2. manipulate local weather
3. counter global warming
4. military uses

Now, I have no doubt whatsoever that research is going on into geo-engineering for any of the above reasons. The crux to the issue though is ramping this up to widescale implementation as you are claiming by  the whole fake clouds scenario.

Before any institution (government, research institute, military, whatever) start rolling out a wide-scale program they are going to start looking at a number of things. (This is just basic logic):
1. does it work?
2. what does it cost?
3. Is it legal?
4. If not, can I get away with it and do the benefits outweigh the costs?

Now, my problem with the whole fake clouds conspiracy theory is:
a. it is nowhere near proven that it works on the scale needed to counteract the perceived threat (global warming) which is itself hotly disputed (he he I said hotly)
b. while the economic costs of spraying alumina into the atmosphere may be low, there are huge image and credibility costs if you do this covertly on a grand scale
c. I imagine lawyers would have a field day with this
d. it is highly doubtful that the benefits outweigh the costs without a lot more research and this would be open to public debate (such as the geoengineering symposium in San Diego).

So, let's take the worst case scenario and imagine that some researchers argue strongly that spraying particulates into the stratosphere will counter global warming. BTW this is a credible argument and actually one that I believe (just look at the effects of the Pinatubo eruption). Let's assume that they manage to convince the powers that be (kind of like the scientist said in your video .. "the costs are negligible. we are looking at a risk vs risk equation, namely is the risk of doing it higher than the risk of not doing it" (paraphrased) ). Right, let's say for the sake of argument, you have a government body that
a. has the resources
b. the belief
to do this.
What you are missing is the public groundswell to legitimize it. Without this, you are positing that a government institution is going to act for our greater good without pubic consent and that to me is totally implausible. Before any radical action of this kind is taken you can be sure that whoever takes the decision is going to cover their hide by getting some kind of public support behind them. Alternatively, there may be some lobby (like the oil industry) who want to counteract GW to save their economic sector. Also, very plausible. But how on earth do you make the step from that to convincing a shitload of international airlines to do this without any thought whatsoever to public opinion? Again, extremely implausible.

Meanwhile, ALL of the pics you have posted can still be explained by normal contrails and are not, categorically not, evidence of chemtrails. If you really want me to start having doubts, then give me the evidence of "highly elevated readings of alumina" in the soil that was so glibly claimed in the video. Total news to me. If I were you, this would be where I would start researching.