posted 07-15-2003 08:40 PM               

It was two years ago my nephew in northern AZ first mentioned such a thing. After that my husband and I were always looking upward, and we were quit concerned...and confused.

Having just relocated to Colorado this past February it's absolutely amazing too watch chemtrails overhead on a daily bases.

Needless to say I'm grateful for having been directed this way...so I'm going to be busy reading.

Just wanted to introduce myself. Thanks.

posted 07-15-2003 08:48 PM            

Following replies> Chem11 and company saying not to listen to debunkers.

Third step, a long thread argueing about chemtrails.

This is my prediction.

posted 07-15-2003 10:14 PM            

BTW pay no mind the man behind the curtain...

posted 07-16-2003 04:56 AM               

Granted, we do take it upon ourselves sometimes to speak on behalf of "us" (here I am doing it now), but when you say "none of us claim to have it all figured out" - irrespective of whether I myself claim to have it all figured out or not - you are presuming in a way I object to.

In my view (in MY view) a good starting point for Linda would be "The Shield Project" http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/shieldproject.html
and then the rest of the material on the Holmestead site.

posted 07-16-2003 08:53 AM            

I wrote this to help newbies discover what they could be in for http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001830.html

And if you want to go deeper Ken Adachi at Educate-Yourself has created some handy links within this article http://educate-yourself.org/cn/ctstenproblems09jun03.shtml

posted 07-16-2003 12:20 PM            

Do contrails have an effect on the atmosphere? Yeah.

Do we know exactly to what levels they effect us (and the atmosphere)? Nope.

Are they military spraying ops? Definately not, atleast not the trails being refered to as chemtrails. There are military spraying ops- and they take place in low level c-130 aircraft using their MASS to poison the enemy invaders. (bugs)

Do they look cool (sometimes)? Yes.

Hopefully this will help, probably not because I'll get flamed.

I love that it's us debunkers that make it confusing . Maybe if the chemtrail community actually agreed on what chemtrails are, how they are used, and what they are for, it would be less confusing.

Edit: If you really want to learn, then welcome aboard.. I'm willing to tolerate anyone who is ..

posted 07-16-2003 01:49 PM            

Okay.. let me clarify that point... not all of us claim to have figured this all out yet. I don't claim to have figured this out yet and I've been aware of Chemtrails since August 2000 ever since I first listened to Mr. Carnicom talk about it on Jeff Rense. Since October of that same year when I discovered the web particulates and collected samples for analysis I knew there was definitely something to the trails.

I've read quite a few different theories ranging from: Weather control, mass inoculation, population control, global warming, radar enhancing connected with HAARP, possible camoflauge for UFO's... etc. With all of these there are been some good evidence presented. My opinion of the chemtrail activity is that it's most likely a multipurpose project, but everyone is going to come to their own conclusions based on the infomation they've read and what they believe to be true.

Every new person that becomes aware of this issue is going to go thru the same maze of information...In my opinion this is not something that you're going to find answers to by listening to the mainstream media. Most of them are not aware and seem not to care to research this topic so it's left up to the individual.

posted 07-16-2003 10:10 PM               

I'm not going to pretend knowing anything at this point because I'm pretty good at "open mouth, insert foot." And I'm still sensative.

Hey, Capt...glad hearing you "tolerate" those of us who are at least willing to learn. I have found with age many could care less one way or another about the world we live in.

A little bit more personal info: I'm one of those who believe little to nothing put forth by the media. And I don't put much trust in government either.

I am concerned about where my country might be headed...and avoid flame wars like the plague. Although there is much one can learn by reading opposing viewpoints.

Off I go to read more.

posted 07-17-2003 12:05 AM               

Good night.
L

posted 07-17-2003 12:44 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by halva:
You are coming over as intellectually challenged, Kocky. Take on Michaelson. Be a man.

---

blah blah blah. What the heck are you talking about? What does the FACT that the shield project is a load of crap have to do with manhood? YOU are the one who asked my opinion on it and when I gave it you didn't like the answers I gave and YOU are the one who did not want to discuss it further. YOU be a man. Challenge my responses. Give me a reason to believe in this chemtrail stuff.

F.K.

posted 07-17-2003 10:25 PM               

YOU explain why it is reasonable to assume that his advice has not been taken.

posted 07-17-2003 10:31 PM            

The burden of proof and evidence is the responsibility is on you guys.. Hate to break it to you. Come up with something that isn't a bunch of malarky. Present at least a smidgen of credible evidence first.. come on.. It's easy to say "I don't know what's going on", and just assume it's 'bad'.

posted 07-18-2003 03:52 AM               

If this situation was brought on by pollution why are manufactor's allowed to continue producing products that are known to be harmful to the invironment? Products that sit for eons in a dump site somewhere - rather than produce a product that is more easily recycled?

Why is it ok for the dust cropper planes to fly overhead dumping chemicals - am I to believe whatever is being dumped onto the crops is strictly an organic agent...?

Damn. Wish I'd been a better student way back when

And thank you, Emfx13 if your comment referred to me as the newbie. Some are put off by continual arguing, name calling. And that's a shame, but it seems to be the norm for any type forum I've ever visited. When I've had enough - I simply take leave because it does get old.

Meanwhile there is sooooo much for me to read that I may be a great-grandma before I finish.

Linda

posted 07-18-2003 05:41 AM               

And Linda, if you are tired of people who understand so little having so much to say, Megasprayer is free of debunkers.

posted 07-18-2003 06:15 AM               

Or the truth may emerge anyway. It may be allowed to emerge as a way of exerting pressure for legislation to be changed.

posted 07-18-2003 06:27 AM               

Would that make you happier? Apparently it wouldn't make Feeling Kocky happier. He says he would be opposed to any geoengineering schemes of this kind.

The only line that can make him happy is "there are no chemtrails".

What a shame we can't all be happy.

Livermore Researchers Determine Biosphere Unaffected by Geoengineering Schemes

LIVERMORE, Calif. — Using models that simulate the interaction between global climate and land ecosystems, atmospheric scientists from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory have shown that compensating for the carbon dioxide “greenhouse effect” by decreasing the amount of sunlight reaching the planet (geoengineering) could create a more vigorous ecosystem while helping to curb global warming.

The study suggests that planetary-scale engineering projects to lessen the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface will likely do little to prevent the effects of increased greenhouse gases on the terrestrial biosphere. In fact, plants could experience growth spurts.

In a paper entitled: “Impact of Geoengineering Schemes on the Terrestrial Biosphere,” Livermore researchers Bala Govindasamy, Starley Thompson, Philip Duffy, Ken Caldeira and University of Wisconsin collaborator Christine Delire, modeled the impact on Earth’s land biosphere due to various schemes that would reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the planet’s surface. The research appears in the Nov. 26 online edition of Geophysical Research Letters.

“Our models show plant life getting a big boost from the carbon dioxide fertilization when atmospheric CO2 levels are doubled due to anthropogenic fossil fuel emissions,” Govindasamy said. “We noticed that in a CO2-enriched world, the terrestrial biosphere was largely unaffected by decreases in surface solar radiation by a couple of percentage points through various geoengineering schemes.”

In earlier research, scientists have maintained that greenhouse gases emitted from the burning of fossil fuels are one of the largest sources of global warming because they cause an increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Methods to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide vary from storing it in the deep ocean to reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the planet (geoengineering) that could largely counteract the warming influence of more greenhouse gases.

“Critics suggested that ‘turning down the sun’ could harm terrestrial ecosystems that depend on light for photosynthesis, but this new work shows that a change in solar flux to stabilize climate would have little effect on the terrestrial biosphere,” Caldeira said. “In fact, turning down the sun a bit reduces evaporation and therefore gives the plants more water for photosynthesis so that they may actually grow better in a geoengineered world than they do today.”

The researchers, however, strongly caution against adopting any geoengineering scheme because “there are many reasons why geoengineering is not a preferred option for climate stabilization.” Among these are the risks of system failure and unpredictable responses of Earth’s climate system to large-scale human intervention ecosystems.

“First, geoengineering schemes impose a variety of technical, political and economic challenges. International consensus to develop and maintain the schemes would be difficult. Failure of a scheme could be catastrophic,” said Govindasamy said. “CO2 fertilization could impact ecosystem goods and services not represented by our land biosphere model, such as plant species abundance and competition, habitat loss, biodiversity and other disturbances.”

The LLNL-led group used a general circulation model coupled to a model of land vegetation to conclude that the change in solar flux needed to stabilize climate would have little effect on net primary productivity in land.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Founded in 1952, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is a national security laboratory, with a mission to ensure national security and apply science and technology to the important issues of our time. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is managed by the University of California for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration.

Laboratory news releases and photos are also available electronically on the World Wide Web of the Internet at URL http://www.llnl.gov/PAO and on UC Newswire.

posted 07-18-2003 10:36 AM            

I would agree that they would deny spraying if it were happening. The thing is.. I don't think it is happening.

posted 07-18-2003 12:43 PM            

here's my 2 cents.
Contrails are chemtrails. What i mean is that even if there weren't a covert operation to spray our atmosphere for a host of insideous purposes, the 'business as usual' exhaust coming out of air craft (and obviously any other fossil fueled combustion engine) is chalk full of chemicals and heavy metals that have a proven negative effect on human and planetary health. This fact is well documented. Check out ipcc.ch and look for the publication 'Aviation and the Global Atmosphere'.

That being said, the evidence gathered here and on other sites undoubtably show an explosion of persistent chemtrails over many parts of the planet in the last 5 years. Any being with half a wit can see that the sky, with the presence of these chemtrails has changed dramatically.

Then, when one discovers that there is the means and motivation for a variety of covert spraying operations in our atmosphere, one can't help wonder whether there is a connection.

So, i often discuss with people the patents filed to create a solar shield made of aluminum, the papers produced for US military on controlling the weather (I believe 'Owning the Weather by 2025'). The 1977 UN convention banning environmental modification as a weapon of war (which is believed to come out of US modifying the environment of Vietnam (Laos, Cambodia too?) with defolients and cloud seeding to help hide the incoming bombers). One can then look at a long history of weather modification, earth and atmospheric experiments. Whether it be cloud seeding, storm busting, lighting creating, ionoshere manipulation, disruption of earths magnetic field, and the creation of artificial aurora borealis, and using sound to generate earthquakes. This list could go on, I recommend an extremely well researched book 'Planet Earth - the latest weapon of war' by Rosalie Bertell, Black Rose Books 2001.

One could further research the discussion of weather/behavior mod in relation to HAARP facilities as discussed in the EU parliament, and their frustrastion of not getting any answers or discussion from the owners of that facility - US Gov.

That research may lead one to read about experiments and technologies developed by Nikola Tesla. (whoa!)

And to dispell any notions that 'the gov't would never do anything so secretively and potentially dangerous' one needs only remember the multitudes of experiments carried out on unsuspecting North Americans, and the whole world's population really.

I also wonder about the inclusion of Chemtrails in a bill introduced to the US Senate(?) by D Kucinich (sp?) primarily dealing with 'Star Wars' or space based weapons, but also mentioning chemtrails (which the reference to was taken out). And, a few months later Colin Powell is on record as saying in response to critisism for the US backing out of Kyoto Protocol, that they have a 'mitigation program' to deal with the problem. hmmmmm

For me, the defining aspect of this mystery is my own observations of the environment, and in particular the atmosphere. 2 years before noticing the chemtrails I had noticed an increased and permanent haze in the sky. From the Arctic Ocean, to the Pacific, and Atlantic across N. America and western europe too, this persistent haze has been omnipresent. I've photographed hundreds of chemtrails, and other unusual clouds, how they form and disperse. I can tell you that what I am seeing is something unlike my observations the 30 years prior. For eg. clouds that look like a dripping plastic sheet, trails falling to the ground at 45 degrees angle, photographed to show them falling right to the surface, while the weather report was clear sunny skies, and there wasn't the usual accompanying precipitaion associated with seeing sheets of clouds falling to the earth (which one can only observe normally from a distance).

And I won't even bother getting into mysterious spider web like strands floating through the air after the passage of said 'plastic' clouds, or the observance of massive amounts of particulate matter flying through the sky which one can often observe with the right angles of light. And I won't go into long discussion of ground samples taken demonstrating elevated levels of Aluminum and Barium (which in Edm. at last test [see posts by ICU812] levels were down, which may be corresponding to an almost complete absence of chemtrails this summer over the city, as compared to heavy trails last summer.)

Anyway, have fun with the research, document your findings and observations, and please share them with us here and elsewhere.

rainheart

ps. if i was really diligent i would have dug up a zillion links for you to follow, but i'm sure you've already come across tons.