• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Chemtrails again

And now for my flippin'ly dumb, yet serious question:

If the purpose of chemtrails is to spray humans, as so many sites claim, why do we see so many over the ocean?

1238647ad490553938.jpg


1238647ad49050d06e.jpg


1238647ad48ee1e607.jpg


1238647ad48ee3ab16.jpg


1238647ad48edef5d9.jpg



I mean, this doesn't matter if the "hypothesis" :oldroll: is that chemtrails exist for weather control (be happy that none of you can hear the *SNORT* as I type that), but to me, this does demonstrate how ridiculous any of the "biological warfare" or "mind control" chemtrail woo is. Why waste so much payload over open water?
 
Tippit said:
I saw multiple planes in the same proximity all spewing particulate at the same time. When I decided to come back out and photograph them later, the planes were gone.
Click to expand...
Well, that's a bummer. You know that even though the angular velocity of passenger airplanes at cruising altitude is fairly low compared to ground vehicles, it's still pretty high. Taking pictures of airplanes in motion is not a question of decision. It's do. Or don't.
Tippit said:
I'm sorry that I'm not an air traffic expert like yourself. I live in a fairly rural area, and I'd not seen anything like what I documented in those photos before, ever.
Click to expand...
Guess what? I think that you should look at the same spot of the sky exactly one week later (then repeat for a couple of weeks.) Also bear in mind that sometimes planes are redirected from their flight plans in order to avoid some other trouble.
Tippit said:
IHow would I know who was doing the spraying? The planes were far to high for me to observe any markings. I hadn't arrived here with a prepackaged chemtrail theory to sell anyone, I merely saw the thread and decided to share my own experiences, and photographs.
Click to expand...
Abscence of evidence is not evidence of covert ops. Check the timetables for the flights crossing your area. With a little research you could (theoretically) get the names of every member of the flight crew and the passengers. Nothing hidden here.
 
Last edited:
Father Dagon said:
Well, that's a bummer. You know that even though the angular velocity of passenger airplanes at cruising altitude is fairly low compared to ground vehicles, it's still pretty high. Taking pictures of airplanes in motion is not a question of decision. It's do. Or don't.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your point is. I don't normally carry my camera around with me, and when I first walked outside and noticed what was going on, it didn't occur to me to photograph it. I spent about 15-20 minutes just staring at the particulate trails in the sky.

Guess what? I think that you should look at the same spot of the sky exactly one week later (then repeat for a couple of weeks.) Also bear in mind that sometimes planes are redirected from their flight plans in order to avoid some other trouble.
Click to expand...

I've only seen a scene similar to that one other time in my life, in Chicago, IL a few years ago. I wouldn't have taken those photographs if I didn't think it was a rare photo op. I haven't seen planes doing what they were doing here before, and I had never seen a completely blue sky turned into haze before. I pointed out earlier that I do not live below an air corridor, so the presence of all of these planes and the multiple trails that covered the entire sky in all directions was highly abnormal. I don't think I can make this anymore clear.

Abscence of evidence is not evidence of covert ops. Check the timetables for the flights crossing your area. With a little research you could (theoretically) get the names of every member of the flight crew and the passengers. Nothing hidden here.
Click to expand...


I'm aware of that. However, I found the behavior of the planes and the nature of the trails to be highly suspicious to the point where I decided to photograph them. I'm convinced they were spraying some sort of aerosol, I could actually see it billowing out of the planes. I can't prove to you whether they were spraying anything or not, and I don't expect my photos or my account to convince anyone here. Nor am I persuaded by anyone's comments here about what I personally witnessed. I guess you just had to be there.
 
Last edited:
Tippit said:
I found the behavior of the planes and the nature of the trails to be highly suspicious to the point where I decided to photograph them. I'm convinced they were spraying some sort of aerosol, I could actually see it billowing out of the planes. I can't prove to you whether they were spraying anything or not, and I don't expect my photos or my account to convince anyone here. Nor am I persuaded by anyone's comments here about what I personally witnessed. I guess you just had to be there.
Click to expand...


Do you not think that it’s more parsimonious to simply conclude that you were mistaken?
 
Par said:
Do you not think that it’s more parsimonious to simply conclude that you were mistaken?
Click to expand...

I think it's more parsimonious to conclude that skeptics who weren't present to witness what I witnessed are more likely to be mistaken. They're merely operating under some assumptions about what they think I saw, as opposed to actually having witnessed it for themselves.

On the other hand, I have no doubt that some of you would disagree on the color of ****, if witnessed in person.
 
Tippit said:
I think it's more parsimonious to conclude that skeptics who weren't present to witness what I witnessed are more likely to be mistaken. They're merely operating under some assumptions about what they think I saw, as opposed to actually having witnessed it for themselves.

On the other hand, I have no doubt that some of you would disagree on the color of ****, if witnessed in person.
Click to expand...

I haven't witnessed ANYONE disputing what you saw. I saw the photos you posted and I suspect so did everyone else who has commented. It's not a problem with WHAT you saw, the problem is YOUR INTERPRETATION of what you saw.

Did you also view the numerous other posted photos of contrails? Your photos and your description of what you saw perfectly describes normal condensation of engine exhaust from high flying airplanes, routinely called contrails. They are not always the same due to differing weather conditions. Their varying appearance has been described several times in the thread.

BTW, no one is trying to convince you of anything. You're obviously ineducable. Folks comment and post in this forum for those who choose to learn about phenomena they don't understand or misinterpret.

Everyone has a choice in life of living in ignorance or learning/understanding rational explanations for things they don't understand. You're choosing the path of ignorance. Have at it, if that makes you happy.
 
Par said:
Do you not think that it’s more parsimonious to simply conclude that you were mistaken?
Click to expand...
Tippit said:
I think it's more parsimonious to conclude that skeptics who weren't present to witness what I witnessed are more likely to be mistaken. They're merely operating under some assumptions about what they think I saw, as opposed to actually having witnessed it for themselves.
Click to expand...


Well, no, you’re wrong there. You being correct about what you saw involves positing far more hypothetical entities and more unnecessary assumptions (in the form of a nefarious spraying operation and all the framework behind it) than does the notion that one man was simply mistaken about what he saw (something that we already know happens every day). Therefore, you being mistaken about what you saw is a considerably more parsimonious explanation for the phenomenon at hand than the notion that you really saw what you thought you saw.
 
Reheat said:
I haven't witnessed ANYONE disputing what you saw. I saw the photos you posted and I suspect so did everyone else who has commented. It's not a problem with WHAT you saw, the problem is YOUR INTERPRETATION of what you saw.

Did you also view the numerous other posted photos of contrails? Your photos and your description of what you saw perfectly describes normal condensation of engine exhaust from high flying airplanes, routinely called contrails. They are not always the same due to differing weather conditions. Their varying appearance has been described several times in the thread.

BTW, no one is trying to convince you of anything. You're obviously ineducable. Folks comment and post in this forum for those who choose to learn about phenomena they don't understand or misinterpret.

Everyone has a choice in life of living in ignorance or learning/understanding rational explanations for things they don't understand. You're choosing the path of ignorance. Have at it, if that makes you happy.
Click to expand...

Well said. Some people will never be convinced their delusions are just that and it's simply redundant to continue to present logical evidence. Terral is another perfect example.

Ignorance is bliss.
 
Tippit said:
I'm sorry that I'm not an air traffic expert like yourself. I live in a fairly rural area, and I'd not seen anything like what I documented in those photos before, ever.
Click to expand...

I actually stopped lurking because of this quote. If it's something unusual that's out of your sphere of experience, it must be a nefarious plot, right? There's no other explanation!

I get the feeling that if they were born 400 years ago, this person would be one of the first to start with cries of "SHE'S A WITCH!!"

It doesn't matter what other people who actually know what they're talking about say, right? To you, it was weird and scary, and that's all that matters.
 
Welcome, GDC.

You're right. Conspiracy addiction is not scientific, it's superstitious. And like others here, I've often lived by Sagan's statement (I think it was Sagan who said it) that superstition is not an enlightenment value.

Hypotheses must change to reflect new facts and proven knowledge. Chemtrails have no more than misinterpretations and superstitions behind it. That is Dark Ages thinking, and unbecoming of a modern, educated person.
 
Tippit said:
I think it's more parsimonious to conclude that skeptics who weren't present to witness what I witnessed are more likely to be mistaken. They're merely operating under some assumptions about what they think I saw, as opposed to actually having witnessed it for themselves.
Click to expand...

That statement is illogical, disingenuous, and intellectually dishonest Tippit. YOU are merely operating under some assumptions about what you think you saw. "Being there" is not a valid claim to knowing what you saw. We have given solid reasons and data for you to acknowledge that you could very well be wrong. You are unable describe any characteristic of what you saw different from normal and persistent contrails, your photos show nothing unusual, despite your claim that: "The photographs don't lie." You should be honest with us and acknowledge that you have no ability to make the claim that they are chemtrails.

Not only that, you have not even acknowledged that you have given the ability to confirm for yourself what you are seeing.

Are you going to dig your feet in like 9/11 Truthers and refuse to acknowledge inconvenient evidence and that there are good reasons that you could be wrong, Tippit, thereby discrediting any of your claims and beliefs?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom