• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Chemtrails

Zeronix

New Member
arg-fallbackName="Zeronix"/>
Have you ever noticed that some contrails (visible trails of condensed water vapor made by the exhaust of aircraft engines) are very thin and only last a couple seconds, while some are extremely thick and linger in the sky for hours?

It seems that the aforementioned long lasting contrails have become seemingly ubiquitous just recently. I remember seeing them every now and then when I was a kid and realizing that they weren't the same as the other contrails. Whenever I would question this I would be immediately reassured that they were a benign effect of aircraft's flying at different elevations. I was of course unsatisfied with this response and was naturally skeptical of anything that left a continuous trail of a thick, gaseous, and residual substance.

I later discovered that there was an entire conspiracy theory regarding these trails. The theory states that the jets that leave these thick continuous trails are military jets with special nozzles that exist for the sole purpose of spewing chemicals into the air. The reason for this is widely controversial; some believe that the spewing of these chemicals is a product of a governmental contrivance to reduce human population, while others believe it is a method of climate control, and some simply dismiss it as just another inane conspiracy theory.

Apparently a bill called: HR 2977, passed under the "2001 Space Preservation Act" directly uses the term "chemtrail".
http://www.carnicom.com/hr2977.htm, which leads me to believe that they are a method of climate control, or perhaps just disguised as such.

Earlier today the sky was completely blanketed in these trails in checker board patterns which appeared as anything BUT normal.
A few hours later the trails seemed to expand across the sky as they descended toward the ground, there was an eerie circular artificial rainbow around the sun that resembled auto mobile coolant that had leaked out of a car and onto a parking lot. Oddly enough, no one seemed to be the least bit concerned as the clear and sunny skies quickly became over cast and hazy subsequently. I was thinking how odd it was that I was the only one that seemed to pay any mind to this aberrant occurrence (not the trails themselves but the hazy, rainbow-like sky), and concluded that either the trails have become so prevalent in result of their every day presence, they are normal and I'm just crazy; despite an overwhelming amount of contradictory evidence, people are scared to question the presence of the trails; in fear of sounding like a crazy conspiracy theorist, or the somewhat equivocal possibility that the trails contain some sort of mind control agent or sedative to keep the people docile.

Let me know what you guys think. If you believe these trails are just regular contrails and are nothing to worry about; explain why they last so much longer than regular contrails.

If you believe that they are in fact; some sort of governmental contrivance, tell whether you think the intention is harm, or good; and back it up with reasoning.
 
arg-fallbackName="ImprobableJoe"/>
Zeronix said:
Let me know what you guys think.
It is conspiracy bullshit... either you know that, you believe the conspiracy nonsense, or you are too lazy to Google it. :twisted: I mean, really... they are 'condensation trails' so their size and duration are obviously variable based on atmospheric conditions.

Please, for the love of fuck, can we get some NEW conspiracies?
 
arg-fallbackName="Cygnus"/>
Have you ever noticed that some contrails (visible trails of condensed water vapor made by the exhaust of aircraft engines) are very thin and only last a couple seconds, while some are extremely thick and linger in the sky for hours?

To my knowledge, the process that forms contrails is similar to that which naturally forms clouds. Consequently, the difference in residence time would seem to vary with atmospheric conditions.
It seems that the aforementioned long lasting contrails have become seemingly ubiquitous just recently.

I've lived along the approach for a major airport for close to two decades, the 'long lasting' contrails have been a common occurrence for the duration of that time span.
The reason for this is widely controversial; some believe that the spewing of these chemicals is a product of a governmental contrivance to reduce human population, while others believe it is a method of climate control

Regardless of whether 'chemtrails' are real, a discussion of the justifiability of large scale population or climate control is a worthwhile one.
Earlier today the sky was completely blanketed in these trails in checker board patterns which appeared as anything BUT normal.
A few hours later the trails seemed to expand across the sky as they descended toward the ground, there was an eerie circular artificial rainbow around the sun that resembled auto mobile coolant that had leaked out of a car and onto a parking lot. Oddly enough, no one seemed to be the least bit concerned as the clear and sunny skies quickly became over cast and hazy subsequently.

This would seem to be an application of the incorrect cause fallacy, at least on the surface. To speculate beyond that, we'd have to know a little bit more about your location and typical weather patterns.
Let me know what you guys think. If you believe these trails are just regular contrails and are nothing to worry about; explain why they last so much longer than regular contrails.

Differences in atmospheric temperature and wind conditions probably account for this to some degree.
 
arg-fallbackName="Zeronix"/>
Aught3 said:
Like this?



Obviously the effect of solar rays traveling through water molecules, thus, acting as a filter and reflecting a spectrum of basic colors.
 
arg-fallbackName="ImprobableJoe"/>
Zeronix said:
Obviously the effect of solar rays traveling through water molecules, thus, acting as a filter and reflecting a spectrum of basic colors.
What else are contrails?
 
arg-fallbackName="Zeronix"/>
ImprobableJoe said:
What else are contrails?

I wasn't implying that the rainbow I witnessed was anything otherwise, just simply correcting my misconception. I was just caught up in the whole 'chemically induced artificial rainbow' thing that I never considered it to be anything otherwise. :oops:

I'm embarrassed that I didn't consider it to be a natural rainbow simply because of the presence of what I believed could possibly be several 'chemtrails'.

Nonetheless, It was still very odd how the weather had drastically changed.
 
arg-fallbackName="ImprobableJoe"/>
Zeronix said:
I wasn't implying that the rainbow I witnessed was anything otherwise, just simply correcting my misconception. I was just caught up in the whole 'chemically induced artificial rainbow' thing that I never considered it to be anything otherwise. :oops:

I'm embarrassed that I didn't consider it to be a natural rainbow simply because of the presence of what I believed could possibly be several 'chemtrails'.

Nonetheless, It was still very odd how the weather had drastically changed.
Weather is a weird thing... too weird to fit any conspiracy theory.
 
arg-fallbackName="Zeronix"/>
Pretty compelling photographs:

inside11.JPG


Ctrail-Nozzle.jpg


ChemtrailPlaneOnGround3Forum.jpg


I also witnessed a defined trail that distinctly stops at one point, as if the nozzles had been turned off.
 
arg-fallbackName="ImprobableJoe"/>
Why would anyone find those pictures "compelling"? I'm not in the tiniest bit impressed. I'm also not even the least bit swayed by the idea of a contrail with a relatively sharp "cut-off" feature.

Do you actually care what we think, or are you convinced of some idiot conspiracy theory?
 
arg-fallbackName="Zeronix"/>
ImprobableJoe said:
Weather is a weird thing... too weird to fit any conspiracy theory.

I agree, I would usually disregard a variance in weather as an 'incorrect cause fallacy' if it wasn't so consistently subsequent to excessive 'spraying' of 'chemtrails'
 
arg-fallbackName="Zeronix"/>
I obviously haven't ate up this conspiracy theory as absolute fact, otherwise I wouldn't have made this thread. If you don't find those pictures compelling, tell me why. Don't simply dismiss them without providing reason. If there is a nozzle attached to a jet and it is not there for spraying or emitting some sort of substance, then why is it there? If the term 'chemtrail' was in fact used in a space preservation bill, don't you think that is the least bit convincing?
 
arg-fallbackName="ImprobableJoe"/>
Here's where one of those pictures links to:
http://www.us-government-torture.com/

Fucking batshit crazy! Seriously, I'm a little frightened after clicking on that link. The level of paranoid delusion is pretty intense.
 
arg-fallbackName="Aught3"/>
Here's what an aerial sprayer actually looks like:

1415670370_c875903826.jpg


Contrails, depending on the weather conditions, can seed the formation of further cloud cover. Chemical trails don't tend to exhibit this result.
 
arg-fallbackName="Zeronix"/>
ImprobableJoe said:
Here's where one of those pictures links to:
http://www.us-government-torture.com/

Fucking batshit crazy! Seriously, I'm a little frightened after clicking on that link. The level of paranoid delusion is pretty intense.

Pretty crazy indeed, however, dismissing the validity of this photograph simply because of its origin would be a genetic fallacy.
 
arg-fallbackName="ImprobableJoe"/>
Zeronix said:
I obviously haven't ate up this conspiracy theory as absolute fact, otherwise I wouldn't have made this thread. If you don't find those pictures compelling, tell me why. Don't simply dismiss them without providing reason. If there is a nozzle attached to a jet and it is not there for spraying or emitting some sort of substance, then why is it there? If the term 'chemtrail' was in fact used in a space preservation bill, don't you think that is the least bit convincing?
:roll:

There's ZERO context for those pictures, so they are 100% meaningless. I don't have to explain them... you do. How do I know that nozzle isn't attached to a crop-dusting plane? You've provided zero context for me to make a judgment.

Here's the point that you need to get through your head up front, before this goes any further: the burden of proof is on you. You have to convince me. It is not my job to talk you out of a ridiculous paranoid delusion, based on the links of what appear to be madmen. You have to show that your claims are credible. You have to provide evidence.

What you seem to want to do is post a bunch of stuff, and if we can't 100% disprove it to your satisfaction you're going to claim that it is legitimate. That's not only dishonest, but it also runs contrary to all the rules of logic and rational discussion. We don't have to disprove it, you have to prove it. Your answers don't become right when you dismiss my answers, because we could BOTH be wrong. You have to prove yourself to be right, not just claim that everyone else is wrong.
 
arg-fallbackName="ImprobableJoe"/>
Zeronix said:
Pretty crazy indeed, however, dismissing the validity of this photograph simply because of its origin would be a genetic fallacy.
I've dismissed it because it was presented completely out of context, which makes it YOUR fallacy. The fact that it came from the stupidest website imaginable, and the fact that you find that website credible, destroys your own credibility.
 
arg-fallbackName="Aught3"/>
Zeronix said:
Pretty compelling photographs
Bottom one looks like a fake, same with the middle one but I'm less sure. The top picture looks legit, but given the other two :? Anyway, without knowing what these planes actually sprayed, what's the point in even posting them? We know planes spray chemicals, I even posted a picture of it (a real one). Evidence would be a plane with spraying equipment actually making a chem/contrail in the same picture.
 
arg-fallbackName="Zeronix"/>
ImprobableJoe said:
There's ZERO context for those pictures, so they are 100% meaningless. I don't have to explain them... you do. How do I know that nozzle isn't attached to a crop-dusting plane? You've provided zero context for me to make a judgment.

Here's the point that you need to get through your head up front, before this goes any further: the burden of proof is on you. You have to convince me. It is not my job to talk you out of a ridiculous paranoid delusion, based on the links of what appear to be madmen. You have to show that your claims are credible. You have to provide evidence.

What you seem to want to do is post a bunch of stuff, and if we can't 100% disprove it to your satisfaction you're going to claim that it is legitimate. That's not only dishonest, but it also runs contrary to all the rules of logic and rational discussion. We don't have to disprove it, you have to prove it. Your answers don't become right when you dismiss my answers, because we could BOTH be wrong. You have to prove yourself to be right, not just claim that everyone else is wrong.

The photos are simply evidence that supports the proposition that chemtrails exist. Suppose I took them myself, the burden of proof would be on you to disregard them as fallacious or invalid, not me. So does the origin of the evidence alter the residence of the burden of proof? The burden of proof would be on me if I simply declared- "The government is spraying us with chemicals from aircrafts" but if I were to present a valid argument it would be up to you to debunk my argument, not up to me to argue for my arguments validity without even being countered by an opposing argument.
 
Back
Top