As predictable, you end on a rude curse. Are you saying you do NOT agree with the theory I instanced? A little yes or no would be appreciated.
What gives me so much confidence is the amusement at how completely off-target you are with me.
All you are saying is that you suspect the government of crimes. And so do I. But I have no right to suspect them of imaginary crimes, and all this talk of "chemtrails" is imaginary, by people who don't even understand contrails. Or what it would actually take to do something that would have a significant effect. Imagine: all this spraying...and no results?
No. It starts with a profound ignorance of the phenomenon, and I don't back down from that because it is my area of expertise. Persistent contrails are still only contrails, and you have nothing else to go on except prejudicial suspicion.
Of course there is a theory, namely that Hollywood is luxuriating in a life of satanic excess and worship. I take no particular issue with the theory. But this clip is really proof of nothing---the more so that it seems to validate your (plural) theory, yet you are antagonistic to it. Very puzzling.
I chuckle because (1) I am not low-IQ, (2) I'm not a LARP, (3) I haven't lied about anything, and (4) YAL-1A was not "worthless." Unless you think the Obama decision to scrap it was a testament to its unworthiness. Since you have read me wrong, you shouldn't break your arm patting yourself on the back.
The complaint is that airliners are emitting "chemtrails." This is bunk.
The fact that the Air Force has developed aircraft in secret is not pertinent to the above. Airliners are not built in secret, as I said. I have been where they are built and seen for myself. I have been privy to the management reviews of development programs, where there is no mention of "chemtrail" equipment. In this respect, I have the real-world experience you do not.
As for fluoride, I have heard the caution ever since I was old enough to read. But I have never seen an iota of evidence that the caution is substantiated. How can something be bad for you---but have no effect?
I have no idea where the metals are coming from, but I did offer two reasonable possibilities. The point is, you have no idea where the metals are coming from, just a huge dose of prejudice.
The "grid patterns" are just the result of crossing airplane trajectories, with no plan associated with them. High-altitude contrails slowly dissipate in shreds, or unwrap, because they are only clouds, often stirred up by admixture into the trailing air vortices made by the wings. As clouds, they are only water. You might pay more attention to how water actually acts, than to your imagination of how water is supposed to act.
The presence of contrails is determined by the relative humidity of the air they are in. It has always been so. When your car putters a steamy exhaust on a cold winter morning, it is the same thing.
You're beautiful. You propose a scheme out of thin air. People take the time and effort to show that the scheme has no substance. And then you dismiss their points by declaring that their very opposition is proof that you have hit the jackpot. This totally insulates you from any refutation. You are living in your own bubble.
It's up to you. I'm not holding your feet to the fire. But you do have a history in this conversation of avoiding my points and reverting to insubstantial prejudices.
"Told" by the eyewitness survivors. The alternative being...what? The Kraken?
That it was NOT the Olympia has been confirmed by comparison of ship configuration, measurements, and construction numbers observable on the wreckage.
Well, I've read about the Titanic before all this crazy theorizing emerged (e.g., the nutty idea that it was a substituted ship). There is consistent historical agreement that the shipping lanes were warned of possible icebergs. And there was one, of course...unless you are saying there wasn't one.
Once again, I point to the fact that this is an atmospheric phenomenon and the air may have regions of higher (persist) and lower humidity (fade).
You can detect all kinds of things in rain water and ground water. The problem is finding out where they are coming from. "Acid rain" was a big cause celebre, until it was shown to be entirely natural, having nothing to do with the rain per se.
Brennan? CIA? Weather modification? Where and when? What corporations? Any actual effort to seed clouds, for example, can occur only on limited scales due to the necessity of large operations. Where would it be a crime? Weather modification has been (rainmaking) has been attempted since the 1950s with spotty success. No crime in making rain. You are conflating occasional, limited exercises with a large-scale, all-enveloping, and effective program. I haven't seen any evidence of weather control and I live where there is plenty of weather. No control for the past 70 years. Seems like a useless investment, if it is real.
I have my doubts about the metal concentrations, but the sources are unidentified. Could it be that airplanes corrode/erode in service? More of them are flying now than before. Much more. "These scientists" sound more like people who have axes to grind, which is a poor basis for doing science, and one that will fail to objectively consider all angles. Any data on the net production of aerosols from volcanic events? More questions than answers.
I worked in compartmented activities, so, yes, I know all about compartmentalization. I also know that there is hardly anything less "secret" than the construction of an airplane, having been in the factories and on the program development review boards. I was also involved in the early work on the KC-46 tanker program. Can you say the same?
The problem is not that I haven't seen things. It is that you are "seeing things" that are not what you suppose they are. "Chemtrails" is one of them. You clutch your ignorance about atmospheric effects to your chest to protect you from the prosaic truth that they are only contrails after all, different because they are occurring at higher altitudes where there is greater persistence.
They are commercial aircraft. Perhaps you haven't noticed that air routes overlap and cross each other. I see this all the time, and I live near a large international airport. It is not too unusual on cross-country flights to look out and seen another airplane passing us, going in a different direction. Since my experience backs what I say, I have to wonder about your experience.
That's because you are not thinking closely. All I was addressing was this stupid video clip. Stupid bad taste does not imply anything else. And the whole point of the video was that your anti-Hollywood theory was correct, so what is your beef?
"Known for a fact." Documented in what book?
The attack was conducted by Hamas, whether or not you want to consider them "Arabic." They are so politically toxic that the actual Arabs want nothing to do with them. If it was not Hamas, one might expect them to deny having conducted the attack---but they haven't denied it. They celebrate it and they still have hostages. You need to get a grip on reality.
As a collateral of attacking Hamas elements embedded in the civilian infrastructure, I do not condemn the results, which are entirely on Hamas' head for exploiting human shields. You seem to approve of human shields, which are forbidden by international treaty. You also seem to approve of what Hamas did, by way of saying Israel should be blamed---and the Hamas perpetrators should be disregarded. You show your hand by the reflexive collectivism in your point of view. I don't agree that "Israel" did anything amiss. But if some Israeli individuals participated in genocide against other Israelis, I think the Israeli public authorities have courts and penalties sufficiently condign for the case.
All that was shown was a clip from a movie, which is fiction. And all that was on display was bad taste. Show more? Assert less?
If the air is "dry" (relative humidity lower than 100%), the contrails sublime into vapor. Easier if the air is "warm." For someone who designs deathrays, which must propagate through the atmosphere, and has observed contrails for nearly 70 years, my ability to know my material is solid. Your ability to comprehend atmospheric science is zero.
But since they are only contrails, what does it make of you who are convinced of a hoax? There is no "evidence." All you have are stray pieces of information that would add up to something ONLY if the actual activity could be proven to occur. You don't seem to consider what that would mean. (1) The actual act would have to be detected and confirmed by chemical assay of the contrail. (2) The culprit airplane would have to be legally identified and impounded. (3) Specific and unique systems would have to be identified by open analysis of the airplane's flight systems. Then you would have a case. Short of that, all you have is "It might be true." As for the odd metals in the environment, "acid rain" was a thing, too, until they finally found out it was the chemistry of beds of conifer needles that was causing the acidity. That topic has been over with for decades. You don't ask yourself what becomes of the ~50 tons/day of meteoric dust. Or actual industrial pollution. You jump to an assumption...which is not just bad logic, it is the absence of logic.
Speaking of chumps, I have seen a popular photograph purporting to show a commercial airplane with a "chemtrail" tankage system being installed below decks. This was a hoax, because the reality was that it was a photo of a Boeing airplane in its developmental process, and they had a water ballast system installed so they could change the location of the center of gravity while in flight (as contrasted with having to land and rearrange ballast weights). No such systems are installed on operational aircraft. How would I know? Gee, whiz. I only worked for a company where the planes were built and participated in program development reviews of several such. No discussion of "chemtrail" subsystems. You don't keep secrets in an environment with thousands of people working on an airplane that is open to view.
That's your problem. You tell me, then, where this production "ended," since there was no argument presented.
Any evidence? Documents? Confessions? Beautiful tall story.
The most practical interpretation of interference is that they didn't want any live nuclear devices near them during their operations. Who could argue with that prudence?
I watched "Frankenskies" for a sample extending to 36 minutes into it. As far as I could tell, it was simply a recitation of history of limited experiments and speculations. No discussion of actual "chemtrails." I expect it is all a matter of suggestion and supposition.
Persistent contrails are the result of high relative humidity at their altitude. That they should be an effect of rain-bearing clouds at lower altitude is not surprising. You are seeing a leading indicator of incoming rainy weather.
The dangling cloud wisps are probably batches of rain coming down that re-evaporate before they can reach ground. This is not common, but it happens. I have seen them, too.
Persistent contrails form when the air at that altitude is essentially at saturation water vapor concentration. Should it be a surprise that it may be a leading indicator of an approaching high-humidity weather formation? The rain-bearing weather could be a cause of the persistent contrails, not an effect.
Patents are proof of nothing, except possibly the feasibility of technology to do something. Not proof of implementation, only of an intent to protect a market opportunity. (I have 9 patents, not a single one of which has been implemented as described.)
If you rely on Dane Wiggington, you are relying on a consummate hoaxter. His "chemtrail" photos are simply contrails. I have seen him narrate a video clip of sheeting from an airplane's wing, ignorant of the fact that it is a phenomenon related to the local change in pressure and temperature from the flowfield over a wing's upper surface. It is the same phenomenon that produces stationary lenticular cloud "caps" over mountain peaks.
And nobody seems to be aware of the fact that the Earth receives ~50 tons/day of microscopic dust from meteors entering the atmosphere.
Zero effect. I see persistent contrails all the time, living below the approach corridor of an international airport. If we only had contrails to worry about, we would have the sunniest climate in North America. The people who worry about solar blockage have not lived in a cloudy climate.
Turbojet vs. turbofan is an irrelevant issue. The cause is the production of water vapor, which is independent of engine type and only depends on fuel consumption. Airplanes now fly at much higher altitudes than decades ago, where the formed ice crystals are at a lower ambient temperature and less able to sublimate into vapor.
Nope. Iron Dome is indigenously developed. Along with the Arrow system.
Back in the 1980s, I attended an Army industry workshop at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama, on the subject of air and missile defense. Lots of presentation slides with fancy artwork about proposed system developments. Israel was present with slides showing their progress on Arrow hardware. Generally, the U.S. attitude was dismissive: "Oh, look at the grotty hardware." 40 years later, Israel has a better air defense system than any major U.S. city.
Stupid mistake. Not everything is "pushed." You have to keep an open mind, not set up a brainless reflex, or you just become a mirror image minion. It is wise to be scrutinous, but there is absolutely no guarantee that assuming the contrary is going to lead you to truth.