• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Whats the typical view of chem trails around here?

Free episodes:

No, intellectually dishonest is claiming chemtrails are anything BUT contrails because contrails are backed by physics and free of assumptions. Chemtrails on the other hand are speculative.

Got proof chemtrails exist? Because I have mountains of proof backed by meteorologists that contrails exist.

Chemtrail researchers claim "chemtrails" exist. The bourdon of proof is on THEM to prove they exist.

So...proof. Got any?

Jose, how old are you?

I'm 51, and I have lived near several large airports my entire life. I also see a LOT of large military aircraft, and have been seeing them since I was a kid.

Contrails dissipate very quickly. After all, it's just water vapor. They only exists from the heat of the jet engines. When that air cools down, they dissipate, and spread out. I've seen this thousands of times.

Now you see trails remaining in the sky for hours.

Also, we don't get them where I live, but look up some of the photos of supposed "chem trails".. what's with all the crisscrossing? That's not normal flight paths!

chemtrails_1116768i.jpg


And what's this? Wing tip vortices?

CHEMPLANE.JPG


Personally it's also in my gray basket, but I haven't really studied it at all.

As far as meteorologists.. they are scientists who study the atmosphere to see how it affects the environment and to predict the weather and climate trends. That has nothing to do with aircraft, and they still don't get the weather right!

If you are saying it's only contrails, then the burden of proof is on you.

All I know is contrails never acted that way.
 
Jose, how old are you?

I didn't realise age was in question here. 34, why? Is age an issue?

Contrails dissipate very quickly. After all, it's just water vapor. They only exists from the heat of the jet engines. When that air cools down, they dissipate, and spread out. I've seen this thousands of times.

No, that is false, contrails are cirrus clouds by definition. Do cirrus clouds dissipate quickly? Contrail can linger for hours if the conditions are right. They're ice crystals. Show me a genuine meteorological reference where it states contrails dissipate quickly.

Now you see trails remaining in the sky for hours
.

Yes, I see contrails.

Also, we don't get them where I live, but look up some of the photos of supposed "chem trails".. what's with all the crisscrossing? That's not normal flight paths!

Define a normal flight path. What exactly qualifies as "normal"? Are you an air traffic controller? All that image shows is contrails of air traffic. How exactly is that evidence of anything? You can't even judge the altitude of those paths from the ground. They may be several hundred feet apart. There is no reference of where that image was taken. How do we know it isn't busy flight path like those above and around Heathrow? Show me some coordinates.

And what's this? Wing tip vortices?

Do you see them coming off the wing tip? No. Why? Because that image is poor quality. I surely hope you aren't claiming that is proof of chemtrails because all I see is an image of a plane and a contrail. Unless of course, you have some kind of proof that says otherwise. Hmm?

As far as meteorologists.. they are scientists who study the atmosphere to see how it affects the environment and to predict the weather and climate trends. That has nothing to do with aircraft, and they still don't get the weather right!

Are pilots scientists? Because, they understand meteorology and they don't support the chemtrail theory either. This is where you're wrong. People who fly the aircraft understand meteorology. It has everything to do with the aircraft and the environment they fly in. It has nothing to do with some kind of conspiracy theory that to date, no one has been remotely close to proving exists. Meteorologists understand the weather. Conspiracy theorists don't. Who am I going to put my faith into?

If you are saying it's only contrails, then the burden of proof is on you.

No, the burden of proof is on you because contrails are backed by physics and free of assumptions. My proof = Physics. Your proof = assumptions and speculation. You say chemtrails exist. Show me some genuine proof. Otherwise, they will continue to be contrails. Contrails existed long before some idiot looked into the sky and made up a half baked conspiracy theory.

All I know is contrails never acted that way.

Really? How did they act? Contrails have existed since WW1. They have never acted in any other way.

Ask yourself a question. What sense does it make to spray chemicals into the sky? What possible purpose requires such an inefficient approach?
 
Do you see them coming off the wing tip? No. Why? Because that image is poor quality. I surely hope you aren't claiming that is proof of chemtrails because all I see is an image of a plane and a contrail. Unless of course, you have some kind of proof that says otherwise. Hmm?

Aren't contrails caused by exhaust? That plane sure does appear to be spraying something from the tail to me.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
 
I didn't realise age was in question here. 34, why? Is age an issue?

It's not an issue, and if you had read what I wrote, you would see that my point was i have been viewing military aircraft leaving contrails for a long time, and what people are seeing now is a new behavior.

I've watched the big aircraft, way up high, and you see the contrail, and a short distance behind the aircraft the contrail is spread out and a lot less visible than right behind it. I've seen this countless times.

So my observations do not match what you are saying about contrails. The fact that people are starting to talk about this whole thing is precisely because they are now seeing a different behavior in the trails left by these aircraft.

I have more observation time than you. The point was about experience.

Show me a genuine meteorological reference where it states contrails dissipate quickly.

You keep saying this stuff, but what references are YOU citing? Show us some. You keep using these nameless meteorologists claiming that they are saying these are normal contrails, and that we need to ask them.. but where is your references on this? If you are saying that there is "genuine meteorological references" that these are normal contrails, if you have actually read that somewhere, give us a reference or a link. Otherwise it's just you thinking out loud.

Define a normal flight path.

They don't fly across the sky at right angles across each other's paths. That's dangerous and is assuming they are the only aircraft in the sky. I am not an air traffic controller, and I'll assume you are not either. Why don't YOU define a normal flight path?

But I see commercial air traffic all day long, and they consistently fly along the same routes.

Do you see them coming off the wing tip? No. Why? Because that image is poor quality.

Oh please. The wing tips are quite easily seen and quite a distance from the fuselage of the plane. You are being illogical. You were the one claiming they are wing tip vortices. You made that claim, so show us some proof.

How's this?

Here's wingtip vortices:

c902.jpg


44037_1148142310.jpg




Here's a contrail.. note TWO engines TWO trails.

jet%20contrail.jpg


Do they look the same? Not really. I think we can safely rule out wingtip vortices as the cause.

If that image I posted with a single trail behind the jet was real... I have have no way to know that, then we can see it's not a contrail or vortices.

Now look at this one

Chemtrail%20aerial%20tanker%20in%20action.jpg


That's an awfully heavy contrail.

Really? How did they act? Contrails have existed since WW1. They have never acted in any other way.

You were there huh? I'm saying what I used to see, is different from what you see now. That's with my own eyes.

It could be nothing more than slightly different fuel or engine design, but you are being an apologist without backing up anything you are saying. I think your avatar shows where you are at. Ready to judge things without doing any research.

I'd like to see some real research on the subject, but a lot of what I see seems suspect.
 
Oh look, it's a plane. What kind? No idea, because as with all chemtrail believers you don't provide any reference.

Kinda looks like it's dissipating quickly don't you agree? Unfortunately, you still haven't provided anything that resembles proof of anything.

Here's a website you'll definitely enjoy. All your questions will be answered there. And no, that website isn't secretly funded by the NWO. It's created by people who are sick to death with speculation and ignorance.

http://contrailscience.com/

Feel free to hit me up with some actual proof.
 
I still need you to clear this one up for me, Jose. How would the science guys explain a contrail coming from the tail like this? I still suspend judgement on what chemtrails are, but I've seen'em too many times myself to not think something is going on. The first time I saw it was in Houston in the late 90's. I was a meter-reader and had a telescope handy. Two unpainted jets were laying out a tic-tac-toe grid of "contrail" that lingered, expanded, and turned the sky grey. At the time I thought it was some kind of NASA experiment.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
 

Attachments

  • CHEMPLANE.JPG
    CHEMPLANE.JPG
    14.5 KB · Views: 30
Feel free to hit me up with some actual proof.

I'm not trying to prove anything... but you sure aren't doing a very good job either.

I don't have any interest in the subject actually.

But you said they are all nothing but contrails.

Why don't you prove they are all contrails? Can you do that?

The burden of proof is on you, not me.

Oh and:

OS: I'll give you a clue. My browser is Safari

Guess what... they make Safari for Windows, so that doesn't answer anything at all, except you aren't running Linux! ;)

Flawed logic there my friend.
 
I think DavidRavenMoon has a point here. From the sound of it, Jose, you don't seem to know any more about meteorology and jet fuel exhaust than anyone else in this particular thread. It appears, to me, that you have simply chosen to stand on one side of this argument while turning your back on the other. I do not think that those, here, whom you have decided to dispute are blindly invested in the chemtrail theory. I think they are skeptical and open and looking for answers. Vehemently shooting down any openness to the possibility of truth on the opposite side of the argument is hardly objective and, needless to say, far from constructive.
 
CHEMPLANE.JPG


Congratulations on discovering APUs (Auxiliary Power Units) which are small jet engines that are often installed in the tail section of many planes. It is used to generate power for a variety of on board systems.

Read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliary_power_unit

Here is an Airbus A340 with one:
Airbus A340 Aircraft History and Facts

Here is a quote from a pilot explaining what it does:

"Usually, we start the APU first, which is a small jet engine in the tail that provides air pressure and electricity. Some engines have electrical motors to start them like a car, and others use air driven starters. The APU, aux power unit, generally has exhaust at the back of the tail, or perhaps the side of the rear fuselage. If the APU is not available, they may start a main engine for electricity and air, or use external power and external air."

Base on this thread I've lost faith in many people here for their ability to do the most basic research. Everyone is picking on Jose instead of spending a few minutes to do some homework before shoveling out garbage as some sort of proof.
 
I think DavidRavenMoon has a point here. From the sound of it, Jose, you don't seem to know any more about meteorology and jet fuel exhaust than anyone else in this particular thread. It appears, to me, that you have simply chosen to stand on one side of this argument while turning your back on the other. I do not think that those, here, whom you have decided to dispute are blindly invested in the chemtrail theory. I think they are skeptical and open and looking for answers. Vehemently shooting down any openness to the possibility of truth on the opposite side of the argument is hardly objective and, needless to say, far from constructive.

Again, and hopefully finally, contrails are backed by physics and free of assumptions. They are backed by physics AND free of assumptions. They have existed since WW1.

Now please explain how I can make that any more clearer?

You simply cannot ask someone to prove they are contrails when no one has even been able to prove chemtrails exist. Firstly, you need to prove chemtrails exist, then we'll talk about distinguishing between the two. How does that sound? It seems to me people are too eager to get bent out of shape when one of their "theories" are challenged.

I'm happy to accept any truth from the other side. Just as soon as it's presented.

I'd love to believe chemtrails exist outside of crop dusting.
 
Ok Jose, explain this to me:

434rh.jpg


Are you saying that is contrails?

OK, you got me on that one :D

CHEMPLANE.JPG


Congratulations on discovering APUs (Auxiliary Power Units) which are small jet engines that are often installed in the tail section of many planes. It is used to generate power for a variety of on board systems.

Read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliary_power_unit

Here is an Airbus A340 with one:
Airbus A340 Aircraft History and Facts

Here is a quote from a pilot explaining what it does:

"Usually, we start the APU first, which is a small jet engine in the tail that provides air pressure and electricity. Some engines have electrical motors to start them like a car, and others use air driven starters. The APU, aux power unit, generally has exhaust at the back of the tail, or perhaps the side of the rear fuselage. If the APU is not available, they may start a main engine for electricity and air, or use external power and external air."

Base on this thread I've lost faith in many people here for their ability to do the most basic research. Everyone is picking on Jose instead of spending a few minutes to do some homework before shoveling out garbage as some sort of proof.

Thanks for the support. I think people are passionate about the subject...which is cool. But I agree 100% when you say people need to do a little homework.
 
if you guys did your homework you would find that chemical spraying/weather modification is admitted. it is a well known FACT that they are introducing chemicals into the atmosphere.
 
if you guys did your homework you would find that chemical spraying/weather modification is admitted. it is a well known FACT that they are introducing chemicals into the atmosphere.

I'd like to see some of that info. Do you have any links?

I haven't read about this subject at all. I have glanced at some websites showing analysis of chemicals claimed to be from chemtrails, but that's about it. I just haven't had the time or interest.

But I do wonder why people feel they are seeing something different... as Jose said, contrails have been here as long as we had jets. So why are people concerned about this now? That's the question.

It seems like an awful lot of people seem to think they are seeing something different than normal contrails, which people have been seeing since WWII...

Jose, that was my point. Why is it now a concern to people who surely have been seeing these things for many years? Are there just more jets in the sky now? Or are they seeding clouds?
 
But I do wonder why people feel they are seeing something different... as Jose said, contrails have been here as long as we had jets. So why are people concerned about this now? That's the question.

Because people believe the trails they see now are more dense and hang in the sky longer.

That seems to be the gist of it, from what I can gather.
 
I'm amazed we've reached page 8 of this thread and absolutely no one has mentioned "Morgellan's disease"...
 
if you guys did your homework you would find that chemical spraying/weather modification is admitted. it is a well known FACT that they are introducing chemicals into the atmosphere.

Admitted where? What "FACT". So far, all you've done is speculate. Please show me where you got this information.

It seems like an awful lot of people seem to think they are seeing something different than normal contrails, which people have been seeing since WWII...

Jose, that was my point. Why is it now a concern to people who surely have been seeing these things for many years? Are there just more jets in the sky now? Or are they seeding clouds?

The difference in contrails from WW1 and modern day contrails in nothing major. They are still the same according to physics. The only difference it that they are more evident in our skies recently due to the introduction of commercial and passenger aircraft.

Conspiracy theorists don't argue with facts. They argue with ignorant, fear mongering speculation to "sell" their ideas. Their claims of "chemtrails" have been the laughing stock of anyone who understood the weather. The reason they can sell their "theory" is because idealistic people like themselves prefer to believe there's some evil plot rather than accept contrails are perfectly natural environmental phenomena due to the circumstances.

People are more likely to believe chemtrails exist if they don't look further than the lines in the sky. Who can really blame them. There are more "interesting" videos and books about chemtrails than there are about "meteorology".

Cloud seeding is something entirely different.

I'm amazed we've reached page 8 of this thread and absolutely no one has mentioned "Morgellan's disease"...

Throw some fuel on the chemtrail argument why don't ya! :p

Morgellons was invented by a single person:* Mary Leitao, in 2001. Leitao claims that her two year old son complained of “bugs” under his skin and had irritation that no doctor was able to diagnose to the satisfaction of Leitao.

From Wikipedia: Dr. Fred Heldrich, a Johns Hopkins pediatrician with a reputation “for solving mystery cases,” examined Leitao’s son.* Heldrich found nothing abnormal about the boy’s skin, wrote to the referring physician that “Leitao would benefit from a psychiatric evaluation and support,” and registered his worry about Leitao’s “use” of her son.* Psychology Today reports that Leitao last consulted an unnamed Johns Hopkins infectious disease specialist who after reviewing her son’s records refused to see him, suggesting Leitao herself might suffer from “Munchausen’s by proxy, a psychiatric syndrome in which a parent pretends a child is sick or makes him sick to get attention from the medical system.”* This opinion of a potential psychological disorder, according to Leitao, was shared by several medical professionals she sought out:
“(Leitao) said she long ago grew accustomed to being doubted by doctors whenever she sought help for her son, who is now 7 and still suffering from recurring lesions. ‘They suggested that maybe I was neurotic,’ Leitao said, ‘They said they were not interested in seeing him because I had Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy.’”
Leitao says that her son developed more sores, and more fibers continued to poke out of them. * She and her husband, Edward Leitao, an internist with South Allegheny Internal Medicine in Pennsylvania, felt their son suffered from “something unknown.” She chose the name Morgellons disease (with a hard g) from a description of an illness in the monograph A Letter to a Friend by Sir Thomas Browne, in 1690, wherein Browne describes several medical conditions in his experience, including “that endemial distemper of children in Languedoc, called the morgellons, wherein they critically break out with harsh hairs on their backs.” There is no suggestion that the symptoms described by Browne are linked to the putative modern cases.

From http://depletedcranium.com: The alleged condition has been speculatively linked to chemtrails, electromagnetic fields, genetically modified foods, big corporations and a government conspiracy.* The fact that the WHO, CDC and every other organization that has looked into the disease has found no evidence that it exists is used as proof of the conspiracy.
The "disease" is more likely to be Delusional parasitosis.
Wikipedia reference: a form of psychosis or false belief, a "loss of contact with reality". In delusional parasitosis, sufferers have a strong delusional belief that they are infested with parasites, whereas in reality no such parasites are present.

From http://depletedcranium.com: Nobody has produced any clear scientific evidence or analysis of the fibers that demonstrates them to be anything other than very mundane and explainable fibers.** The best they seem to offer is that some labs can’t identify them. Which is not surprising given the variety of fibers in the world.

Check out Morgellons Watch

There is no scientific support of this disease and so far, these fibers have not been proven to be anything out of the ordinary.

The second I read all the different causes of Morgellons, I felt it was bunk. Not even the people supporting the disease can agree with it's cause. Each conspiracy camp claims it as an ailment to their hero conspiracy.
 
lol.. not a chance. no time to play your games right now tho. i have 4,287 more photos to work on tonight.
 
Back
Top