posted 03-06-2002 08:38 PM            

quote:

---

Since there are so many 'contrail believers' here at the same time, how do you explain the photo on the homepage of this website? I've seen very similar (multiple) trails many times in Illinois, Iowa and Texas. I'm sure many of us have seen this in other states and countries. Also trails that spread out and descend unlike any contrails I've ever seen.

I know that what I've seen were not airshows, and they don't have the characteristics of military dogfight manuevers, (it's rare to see trails following each other in arcs/turns... I've seen the Navy's Blue Angels, AF Thunderbirds at airshows in IL, TX and CA and also military training flights at Edwards AFB and elsewhere), and they're certainly not contrails from routine airliner traffic.

* Can anyone really honestly believe these are normal contrails?

* If so, how do you explain them?

* Have any of you not seen trails like the photo on the homepage?

---

It might be a good idea to post this in a separate forum? I really would like to know what people think, if, in fact, they've seen the real thing as shown in the photo.

If they haven't seen it for themselves, I could understand why they'd think it's fake. If they have, I don't see how they could deny that they are highly unusual and not the routinely described airliner contrails. The ones I've seen were witnessed in summer, fall and winter at different times of day and night. I'm fairly sure I'll see them again in April, May too. So this is not a seasonal occurrence, IMO.

Coupled with the fact of Non-consensual Human Experimentation, I also don't see why anyone with common sense wouldn't want direct answers. Why the cover-up? Why the denials?

posted 03-06-2002 10:00 PM            

* Can anyone really honestly believe these are normal contrails?

Sure they're normal contrails, honestly.

* If so, how do you explain them?
Read the bevy of papers at the link provided by seeker if you really want to understand, especially the paper by Jensen et al. I have posted explanations ad nauseam on these boards, but no one wants to believe them. Do you need an explanation describing the intricacies of every snowflake and how it grows? Trying to explain every last contrail, its shape, and growth and contortions is a similarly complex task. That's the way the atmosphere is---beautifully complex. But if those are the kind of explanations you want, you will never be satisfied. So you might as well look for other answers.

posted 03-06-2002 10:26 PM            

Here's the beef...

Everything you ever wanted to know about contrails

posted 03-06-2002 10:51 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by hooligan:

The Seeker posted a link on page one of this thread which discusses the thoughts of Dr. Minnis on the problem that contrail induced cloud cover could create/is creating. So the quantity of contrails is a problem. This is a truth. I don't think this one truth sucessfully debunks chemtrails. Just like the fact that jets sometimes dump fuel.They do. If anything, this truth makes it likely that NASA scientists should be solving this problem,but for the lack of funding it seems. For instance what can we spray on those damn contrails to dissipate some of that troublesome cloud cover? Anyway since they are not doing that, think of it this way:Is a farmer who grows corn gonna be the person you go to for all knowledge about GM corn that taking over his fields without his consent? He/she is in the dark about it too. You'd go to Monsanto and they would say our lovely GM corn is perfectly safe and will solve all the worlds problems.

---

I honestly believe, canex, (whether or not you are Mr. Minnis), that you are being less than sincere in your responses to my questions. If you had said you'd never seen them, that would be somewhat more believable than your unsatisfactory assertion that they are simply contrails, (although the explanation is difficult to explain? or understand? ).

I read the article suggested by seeker re: Mr. Patrick Minnis, and as I said, I think Hooligan said it best.

I'd compare it this way; You don't go to the head of a corrupt org. like the American Medical Association and ask the names and number of doctors who have murdered their patients due to being drunk, using the wrong procedure, medications, negligence etc. and expect to get a true answer. (That may not be the best analogy, but after conversing with 3tl in the Health forum, it's the best I can do!)... and that's assuming that canex is Mr. Minnis.

I would also say;

'Caveat experto'

posted 03-06-2002 11:05 PM            

* If so, how do you explain them?
"I'm simply saying that for one reason or another many people don't know to what extreme this is taking place, while a whole other community of people [large] offline community that didnt hear about the "Hoax" but observed it for THEMSELVES, were talking millions of people in this realm! ~Go figure~

* Have any of you not seen trails like the photo on the homepage.
[answer] Yes I Have seen both chemtrails and contrails, and since the atmosphere has been modified over the years persistant contrails will be more regular and longer lasting and more modifying garbage will be added in in shorter increments unless our Congress and FAA speaks out...

I wouldnt blame canex , he might just not know, know what I mean. But I wouldn't feed his unknowing fuel needs. ~

posted 03-06-2002 11:33 PM            

[answer] Yes, your correct. You are expecting responses that you want to hear from your point of view. But who could argue with someone that believes Television is MIND CONTROL, it's not like your brain isnt chilling in Alpha Phase or anything like being asleep. ~heh, go figure~

posted 03-06-2002 11:59 PM            

Thermit's research does not show any operation, just persistent contrail strips that come from *unidentified* planes...assumed military...

in the past 10 years I lived for extended periods of time in 3 different locations, I have seen the same airtraffic more or less in all 3, am I to assume that these 3 locations (400 mile radius) have secret bases with planes and personal to fly them and clean them and maintain them so they can continually spray *whatever* day in and day out ?

or am I to assume by study and research that we are seeing contrails...

considering the above it would have to be a massive program...and all those folks would have to know...and would have to hang out and bowl or get drunk somewhere...and they would have to at some point interact with folks who don't know...and after all this time...not a one has come forward and spilt the beans...or said something in a state of drunkeness...

that's what I don't believe...

and btw, defender you may have read the CSM interview...but you damn sure didn't read the other link...gimme a break !

posted 03-07-2002 12:03 AM            

BTW, they've kept the JFK assassination coverup, phony 'war on drugs', looting of the Savings & Loans (covered up by the creation of the Gulf War), narco/weapons trafficking within the U.S. military. All of these operations have gone ahead successfully for the most part thanks to the media's lack of attention and complicity in cover-ups. We've been through all this before.

What makes you think they couldn't keep a chemtrail operation quiet? Remember the concept of 'compartmentalization'? Armys, businesses, other orgs, like CIA rely on this system whereby even the operators (in this case pilots, ground crews), don't know what's going on. They do what they're told, because that's how they're trained. If they do what they're told, they're left alone. If they screw up, depending on the secrecy level, they're maybe discharged, or worse.

In the case of mercenary-type operators/agents, pilots/crew, they are rewarded for the secrecy, killed (or family killed) for talking. Then there's the concept of RC (radio-controlled) aircraft, and that's another whole forum in itself. (see Homerun, fact or fiction forum at Other Trails)

Secret operations have gone on throughout history for generations through the use of 'compartmentalization', ('need to know basis'). It's really the only way to do it, (or used to be)... that's why they've done it and gotten away with 'it' for so long. Only the 'head' knows what's happening. The arms, legs, (gastro-intestinal tract ), just do what the head tells them to do.

posted 03-07-2002 12:28 AM            

hey i am certiflyable~ but you are pretending to be sane~

Pst!~ want to buy a she it load of oxides cheap?whats your flavor pal? we do business with any national
poseing as legitame with green

posted 03-07-2002 01:09 AM            

defender, you make good arguments about other conspiracies...but your thinking too small, again the amount of people across the world that would have to know is the only question to ask, and your comparison's involve a few, these would be in the hundreds of thousands of people that would know..and not a one says a word...

not buying that

link you missed

posted 03-07-2002 01:33 AM            

cheers

posted 03-07-2002 05:53 AM            

I will post a link to the photo of 'my first "chemtrail."' http://worldzone.net/international/chickiedeb//cgi/10299HighAltPath.gif

The one on the main page - well, yes that happens here too. I happen to iive under the cross-path of a high altitude airway and a low altitude airway. When conditions are right, we get them from 25,000 - 42,000 feet. I also see planes travelling N-S, S-N, out of the airways because they can. I have several hundred photos of various contrails. In fact, I still take photos of them. They fascinate me, especially now that I understand them.

Sorry you're late to the party, Optik but my opinions are based on verfiable personal research on my website and referenced throughout the forum.

Seeker has provided the keys for research needed beyond conjecture posted on message boards. I think it's time for someone to get to work other than the "debunkers."

posted 03-07-2002 07:21 AM            

by tonix:
Wednesday, March 06, 2002
Published on Friday, March 1, 2002 in the Guardian of London

Goodbye Cruel World

***A Report by Top US Scientists on Climate Change Suggests That Catastrophe Could Be Imminent**

by Jeremy Rifkin

We live in a world that has become so desensitised by watching calamities unfold on global television - both natural and human-induced - that it takes something really spectacular even to get our attention.
And it usually has to be visually dramatic to register, much less elicit a deep emotional response - such as the tragic events of September 11.
Recently, I came across a frightening report published by the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) - ****the nation's most august scientific body.**** Yet, because there was no visually provocative content, the report had received only a couple of short paragraphs tucked away inside a few newspapers.

Here is what the academy had to say: it is possible that the global warming trend projected over the course of the next 100 years could, all of a sudden and without warning, ***dramatically accelerate in just a handful of years**** - forcing a qualitative new climatic regime which could undermine ecosystems and human settlements throughout the world, leaving little or no time for plants, animals and humans to adjust.

The new climate could result in a wholesale change in the earth's environment, with effects that would be felt for thousands of years. If the projections and warnings in this study turn out to be prophetic, ***no other catastrophic event in all of recorded history will have had as damaging an impact on the future of human civilisation and the life of the planet***.

A year ago the UN intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) issued a voluminous report forecasting that global average surface temperature is likely to rise by 1.4 to 5.8 degrees centigrade between now and 2100. If that projection holds up, we were told, the change in temperature forecast for the next 100 years will be larger than any climate change on earth in more than 10,000 years.

The impacts on the earth's biosphere are going to be of a qualitative kind. To understand how significant this rise in temperature is likely to be, we need to keep in mind that a 5 degrees centigrade increase in temperature between the last ice age and today resulted in much of the northern hemisphere of the planet going from being buried under thousands of feet of ice to being ice-free.

The UN study predicts that a temperature rise of 1.4-5.8 degrees centigrade over the course of the coming century could include the melting of glaciers and the Arctic polar cap, sea water rise, increased precipitation and storms and more violent weather patterns, destabilisation and loss of habitats, migration northward of ecosystems, contamination of fresh water by salt water, massive forest dieback, accelerated species extinction and increased droughts.

The IPCC report also warns of adverse impacts on human settlements, including the submerging of island nations and low-lying countries, diminishing crop yields, especially in the southern hemisphere, and the spread of tropical disease northward into previously temperate zones.

The newly released NAS report begins by noting that the current projections about global warming and its ecological, economic and social impacts cited in the UN report are based on the assumption of a steady upward climb in temperatures, more or less evenly distributed over the course of the 21st century. But that assumption, they say, may be faulty - there is a possibility that temperatures could rise suddenly in just a few years' time, creating a new climatic regime virtually overnight.

They also point out that abrupt changes in climate, whose effects are long lasting, have occurred repeatedly in the past 100,000 years. For example, at the end of the Younger-Dryas interval about 11,500 years ago, "global climate shifted dramatically, in many regions by about one-third to one-half the difference between ice age and modern conditions, with much of the change occurring over a few years".

According to the study: "An abrupt climate change occurs when the climate system is forced to cross some threshold, triggering a transition to a new state at a rate determined by the climate system itself and faster than the cause." Moreover, the paleoclimatic record shows that "the most dramatic shifts in climate have occurred when factors controlling the climate system were changing". Given the fact that human activity - especially the burning of fossil fuels - is expected to double the CO<->2 content emitted into the atmosphere in the current century, the conditions could be ripe for an abrupt change in climate around the world, perhaps in only a few years.

What is really unnerving is that it may take only a slight deviation in boundary conditions or a small random fluctuation somewhere in the system "to excite large changes ... when the system is close to a threshold", says the NAS committee.

An abrupt change in climate, of the kind that occurred during the Younger-Dryas interval, could prove catastrophic for ecosystems and species around the world. During that particular period, for instance, spruce, fir and paper birch trees experienced mass extinction in southern New England in less than 50 years. The extinction of horses, mastodons, mammoths, and sabre-toothed tigers in North America were greater at that time than in any other extinction event in millions of years.

The committee lays out a potentially nightmarish scenario in which random triggering events take the climate across the threshold into a new regime, causing widespread havoc and destruction.

Ecosystems could collapse suddenly with forests decimated in vast fires and grasslands drying out and turning into dust bowls. Wildlife could disappear and waterborne diseases such as cholera and vector-borne diseases such as malaria, dengue and yellow fever, could spread uncontrollably beyond host ranges, threatening human health around the world.

The NAS concludes its report with a dire warning: "On the basis of the inference from the paleoclimatic record, it is possible that the projected change will occur not through gradual evolution, proportional to greenhouse gas concentrations, but through abrupt and persistent regime shifts affecting subcontinental or larger regions - denying the likelihood or downplaying the relevance of past abrupt changes could be costly."

Global warming represents the dark side of the commercial ledger for the industrial age. For the past several hundred years, and especially in the 20th century, human beings burned massive amounts of "stored sun" in the form of coal, oil and natural gas, to produce the energy that made an industrial way of life possible. That spent energy has accumulated in the atmosphere and has begun to adversely affect the climate of the planet and the workings of its many ecosystems.

If we were to measure human accomplishments in terms of the sheer impact our activities have had on the life of the planet, then we would sadly have to conclude that global warming is our most significant accomplishment to date, albeit a negative one.

We have affected the biochemistry of the earth and we have done it in less than a century. If a qualitative climate change were to occur suddenly in the coming century - within less than 10 years - as has happened many times before in geological history, we may already have written our epitaph.

When future generations look back at this period, tens of thousands of years from now, it is possible that the only historical legacy we will have left them in the geologic record is a great change in the earth's climate and its impact on the biosphere.

Jeremy Rifkin is the author of The Biotech Century (Gollancz) and president of the Foundation on Economic Trends in Washington DC

© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002

###

Share This Article With Your Friends

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

posted 03-07-2002 08:33 AM            

Although categorizing someone is considered passe in some circles, we do it all the time. Based on what I know about a person, I will accept his or her pronouncements unquestioningly, with a grain of salt, or completely blow it off. I think everyone here is the same way. If I said that something existed and one of the more 'excitable' people on this board said it didn't, most people, both here and on many of the other boards, would accept one answer over another based solely on their feelings for thatr person. ("Duncan is a debunker, therefore he's wrong." or "XXXX is a paranoiac, therefore he's wrong.")

This is unfortunate; however, a person's reputation precedes him for good or ill.

I don't know if you are familiar with Jeremy Rifkin or not. You might find it interesting to investigate the individual, his claims, and the organizations to which he belongs.

Regards,

posted 03-07-2002 11:12 AM            

Duncan,is this the same jeremy that is referred to in the article...blessings ms

Jeremy Rifkin is the author of fifteen books on the impact of scientific and technological changes on the economy, the workforce, society, and the environment. His books have been translated into more than twenty languages and are used in hundreds of universities around the world. His 1995 book, The End of Work, is an international bestseller that is widely credited with helping shape the current global debate on technology displacement, corporate downsizing and the future of jobs. His 1998 bestseller The Biotech Century: Harnessing the Gene and Remaking the World addresses the many critical issues accompanying the new era of genetic commerce and is the most widely read book in the world on the biotech revolution. Mr. Rifkin's newest book, The Age of Access, which will be published in April 2000, is the third in his series on future trends in science, technology and the global economy in the 21st century. The book explores the vast changes occurring in the capitalist system as it makes the transition from geographic markets to e-commerce networks and from industrial to cultural production.

Mr. Rifkin holds a degree in economics from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, and a degree in international affairs from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. He is a consultant to heads of state and government officials around the world and speaks frequently before business, labor and civic forums. Mr. Rifkin has lectured at more than 500 universities in some 20 countries in the past 25 years.

Mr. Rifkin has been a fellow at the Wharton School since 1994 where he lectures in the executive and advanced management programs on new trends in science and technology and their impacts on the global economy, the environment and culture for CEOs and corporate executives from around the world.

Mr. Rifkin has been influential in shaping public policy in the United States and around the world. He has testified before numerous congressional committees and has had consistent success in litigation to ensure responsible government policies on a variety of environmental, scientific and technology related issues. His unique perspective and social commentary have made him a frequent guest on numerous television programs, including CNN Crossfire, Face the Nation, ABC Nightline, MacNeil Lehrer News Hour, 20/20, Larry King Live, Firing Line, The Today Show, and Good Morning America. He has been featured in many of the nation's most prominent news weeklies.

The National Journal, among the nation's leading public policy journals, named Rifkin as one of 150 people in the U.S. that have the most influence in shaping federal government policy.

posted 03-07-2002 01:48 PM            

Yes, that is the same Jeremy Rifkin. I have read only three of his books, but many of his articles. Mr. Rifkin's work is uniformly anti-science -- or rather anti-cutting edge technology. He is against things like cloning, genetically engineered foods, nuclear power, automobiles, etc. If there is a type of scientific inquiry that he favors, I am not aware of it.

This is not to say that Mr. Rifkin's views are wrong or right -- although I disagree with most of his conclusions. The point I am making is that Rifkin is as biased as you or I; and someone familiar with his beliefs has a pretty good idea what his views will be on anything before he even writes it -- just like they would about you and me if they were familiar with our respective views.

Imagine how difficult it would be for someone who is a die-hard pro-nuclear activist to find out that nuclear power really is very, very bad. You can bet that he or she'd put the best spin on things.

Rifkin is the same way. As a "poster boy" for a particular philosophy, his conclusions are not necessarily objective -- whether you agree with his philosophy or not.

posted 03-07-2002 02:46 PM            

---

posted 03-07-2002 03:23 PM            

I've seen many examples of that photo on the homepage with my own eyes, and I believe without a doubt that it is a planned operation of some kind. Probably serving many purposes at once, weather, bio-war, phamaceutical testing. It's been done before, and there's every reason to believe it still being done. (see Non-consensual Human Experimentation).

The other caveat, 'buyer beware' also applies to visitors/consumers in regards to alleged experts. We don't know who you are because you, or 'deb' says so. If people want to believe that, it's there perogative. We've been spoon-fed so many lies by govt. organizations for so long, it's very easy for me to disregard anything promoted by a so-called 'expert', especially one brought to us by 'deb'.

Someone named Patrick Minnis has written several articles, made studies regarding contrails... that's all.