Chemtrails, Geo-engineering And HAARP

Realearth wrote:
don't tell me what to do

Since MarkWilson fail silent my guess is you've taken over for Mark?

Chemtrails, we don't need know stinking physical proof.

Schpankme wrote:

Realearth wrote:
don't tell me what to do

Since MarkWilson fail silent my guess is you've taken over for Mark?

Chemtrails, we don't need know stinking physical proof.

Do as you please Schpankme, but don't tell me what to do, that's my wife's job.
lol

Schpankme wrote:

Realearth wrote:
don't tell me what to do

Since MarkWilson fail silent my guess is you've taken over for Mark?

Chemtrails, we don't need know stinking physical proof.

If you think I've fallen silent, much less "failed" (did you mean "fall" instead of "fail"?), you better think again. Because if you did indeed mean "fail," you haven't proved that boast at all.

We have an obvious problem here. Earlier, Just Vital wrote this; "Remember, almost all fears that are being promoted are based on FICTION, like nukes, terrorism, climate change, viruses and most likely chemtrails and 5G as well."

Do you see it? "FICTION" is chemtrails and 5G.

Just Vital, in another place wrote, "I think this: frequenties [sic] like 4/5G or wifi can really be harmfull, [sic] if you actually BELIEVE it is harmfull. [sic] If you think that everyday when you wake up you are surrounded by 'invisible killers', and you live in fear, that will have a tremondous [sic] effect on (mental) health."

So if we "actually BELIEVE" a thing is harmful, it is "harmful." Question; when the United States, and others, were bombing the bejesus out of Dresden, did it only kill those innocents because they were "BELIEVING" it would?

Schpankme is taking the same position, is he not?

And I see over in this thread, Schpankme and Just Vital are quite the tag-team duo: https://ifers.123.st/t92p25-gps-cell-tower-microwave-5g

In that thread, Just Vital wrote, "This documentary is supposed to awaken people of the dangers of 5G. I watched it, and it is 1+ hour long video filled with fear propaganda "

Do you see it? Information regarding 5G is "fear propaganda." This gal discusses 5G, frequencies and the harmful impact on the human body they can have, here:



What I see going on is analogous to a glober refusing to assent to what his eyes see when looking at a swimming pool filled with perfectly calm water. We've all been there. They flat-out refuse to agree with that demonstrable fact in nature.

The same is going on in this thread for some reason. Schpankme and Just Vital are reminded that there are two disparate things going on to effect either 1) a contrail, or, 2) a chemtrail. BOTH refuse to assent to fact.

Fact. Take a bucket of ice particulates to the top of the Empire State Building. Throw ice from bucket to ground. Particulate ice will be seen coming from the bucket but will evaporate as it falls toward the ground on a hot day. Evaporate. Once evaporated, is it seen as it was when particulate ice just out of the bucket?? But it was seen coming from the bucket. It was seen coming from the jet in the video I shared with Schpankme yesterday showing a jet leaving a condensation trail behind it, which he has foolishly poo-pooed.

Contrails are particulate ice evaporating. This isn't hard.

So the question now becomes why Schpankme and Just Vital (and others), refuse to assent to demonstrable facts in nature regarding the spraying of particulate chemicals into the air, which LINGER forming clouds, as opposed to the disparate conditions causing contrails to quickly evaporate behind the jets when conditions are right to create such contrails.

markwilson wrote:
So the question now becomes
why Schpankme refuse to assent to chemicals into the air

UNTIL YOU produce physical evidence for CHEMICALS you are talking about Contrails.

HELLO!

Schpankme wrote:

markwilson wrote:
So the question now becomes
why Schpankme refuse to assent to chemicals into the air

UNTIL YOU produce physical evidence for CHEMICALS you are talking about Contrails.

HELLO!

You're replying much too quickly now, Schpankme. Do you think that lazy effort gives cover to your errant position? Care to address my points?

I'm not talking about a conflation between two disparate things I know can't be conflated. You are. Regardless if the particulate clouds are benign or malevolent, the cause effecting chemtrails, is not the cause effecting contrails. And in this, you are either a liar, or incapable of understanding it.

Do you see contrails evaporate?
Do you see chemtrails evaporate? Or do you not rather see them waft, forming persistent clouds remaining in the air above us?
Do you understand the difference now between a contrail and chemtrail?

markwilson wrote:

Do you see chemtrails evaporate

Just like the photo taken in 1945 of B-17 Bombers creating Contrails that filled the sky, so too are the current JET ENGINES capable of these same Contrails caused by ice cyrstals.

UNTIL YOU produce physical evidence for CHEMICALS you are talking about Contrails.

Schpankme wrote:

markwilson wrote:

Do you see chemtrails evaporate

Just like the photo taken in 1945 of B-17 Bombers creating Contrails that filled the sky, so too are the current JET ENGINES capable of these same Contrails caused by ice cyrstals.

UNTIL YOU produce physical evidence for CHEMICALS you are talking about Contrails.

[/url]

How about I go out and grab, copy/paste some videos, pictures of the fake nukes dropped on Hiroshima, even though Hiroshima was firebombed as was Dresden.

I shared a video from my cheap phone as to what a CONTRAIL looks like, its property to evaporate timely behind the aircraft. You can look up today and you will see the SAME thing. Which came first? Contrails or chemtrails? And since I am old enough to KNOW that only contrails dotted the skies briefly as airplanes passed over in my youth, LEAVING pristine sky behind them, I KNOW two things cannot be conflated, and that since CHEMTRAILS did not exist as a child, and CONTRAILS DID, a SYNTHETIC cloud forms in the skies now, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT CONTRAILS.

Cause and effect. The cause chemtrails came second, is that men were NOT spraying chemical particulates at the time when only contrails existed, a natural byproduct of airplanes in flight when conditions exist to cause them.

markwilson wrote:[
CHEMTRAILS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT CONTRAILS

UNTIL YOU produce physical evidence for CHEMICALS you are talking about Contrails.

Contrails created by British bombers at the rally point, St. Paul's Cathedral, London, 1944.

You never seen these as a child.  

markwilson wrote:

UNTIL YOU produce physical evidence for CHEMICALS you are talking about Contrails

markwilson wrote:

Schpankme, I'm 65 in June. I grew up with clear skies sans these massive chemtrails wafting out forming sun-obscuring manmade clouds. They did not exist in my childhood. If it's not toxic chemicals being sprayed, what is it you believe they're spraying causing these unnatural cloud formations everyplace the spraying occurs? Is it your position that what we are seeing are harmless contrails, contrails that always evaporated in short order behind the aircraft when flying along when I was a young man?

My physical evidence is the clouds themselves

Don't go whining after calling me out by name and then not wanting me to respond.

Schpankme wrote:

markwilson wrote:

UNTIL YOU produce physical evidence for CHEMICALS you are talking about Contrails

markwilson wrote:

Schpankme, I'm 65 in June. I grew up with clear skies sans these massive chemtrails wafting out forming sun-obscuring manmade clouds. They did not exist in my childhood. If it's not toxic chemicals being sprayed, what is it you believe they're spraying causing these unnatural cloud formations everyplace the spraying occurs? Is it your position that what we are seeing are harmless contrails, contrails that always evaporated in short order behind the aircraft when flying along when I was a young man?

My physical evidence is the clouds themselves

Don't go whining after calling me out by name and then not wanting me to respond.

This has been a quite telling exchange.

markwilson wrote:

This has been a quite telling exchange

Stop whining and show physical evidence for these Chemicals falling from the sky.

UNTIL YOU produce physical evidence for CHEMICALS you are talking about Contrails

Contrails occur when conditions exist to cause them (i.e., temp, altitude, etc.). We see them ocularly sans any WWII pictures. Water evaporates leaving no trace.

Chemtrails occur because added ingredient(s) are introduced into the sky that is absent in a contrail. We see them ocularly sans any WWII pictures. Chemtrails leave trace.

Contrails quickly evaporate as ice particles do (see above video taken from my phone), chemtrails do not.

Chemtrails are not the untainted water of a contrail, hence, do not evaporate as do contrails. What goes up, comes down.

markwilson wrote:

British bombers leave Contrails over St. Paul's Cathedral, London, 1944

These are either Chemtrails from WWII or Contrails?

You tell everyone what is shown.

My point is moot, then another picture. Picture over practical experience. That you promote the picture rather than practical demonstration, kind of exposes you, Schpankme.

markwilson wrote:
practical demonstration

These are either Chemtrails from WWII or Contrails.

You tell everyone what is shown.

Let's try it this way. You either agree/disagree with the following. Please address each point individually with a true or false, followed by a succinct rejoinder of only that one, or those, you find false. Because I'm tired of your tit-for-tats.

1) Contrails occur when conditions exist to cause them (i.e., temp, altitude, etc.). We see them ocularly sans any WWII pictures. Water evaporates leaving no trace.

True/False?

2) Chemtrails occur because added ingredient(s) are introduced into the sky that is absent in a contrail. We see them ocularly sans any WWII pictures. Chemtrails leave trace.

True/False?

3) Contrails quickly evaporate as ice particles do (see above video taken from my phone), chemtrails do not.

True/False?

4) Chemtrails are not the untainted water of a contrail, hence, do not evaporate as do contrails. What goes up, comes down.

True/False?

markwilson wrote:

British bombers leave Contrails over St. Paul's Cathedral, London, 1944

These are either Chemtrails from WWII or Contrails?

You tell everyone what is shown.

Schpankme wrote:

markwilson wrote:

British bombers leave Contrails over St. Paul's Cathedral, London, 1944

These are either Chemtrails from WWII or Contrails?

You tell everyone what is shown.

No follow your own rules buddy. Prove that chemtrails didn’t exist in WWII.

Lightning_Peasant wrote:
British bombers leave Contrails over St. Paul's Cathedral, London, 1944




Prove that chemtrails didn’t exist in WWII

Well there it is; prove that the photo from WWII is not Chemtrails.  bahaha

Both of you can make this more productive by not making it a binary discussion of true or not. But first looking at what surrounds the chemtrails discussion and debunk that. Obviously just like in 5g the things attributed to chemtrails are out of proportion. It is at least clear to me at least that there is a large belief around chemtrails that claims anything from weather modification to chemical warfare. People who do claim this what does it do exactly and how is that exactly showing?

I don't like all this bickering.

You peeps might like to have a look around Jim Lees site;

https://climateviewer.com/

It's massive but I'm sure there is a presentation explaining the terms, differences, engines and other stuff related to air-trails. He seems to be a deep researcher. If I have time I will find the vid an post a link.

He's also got a hug archive on weather modification that's been going on since the 20's i think. Many many newspaper micro-fiches.

enjoy.

I did a little analysis on the photograph. Maybe somebody with experience in photo analysis, other than the one biased in his comments, could investigate a little further than this non-expert photo analyst.

Link to Forensically, here: https://29a.ch/photo-forensics/#pca

In the first photo it is analyzed "component 1."




In the second photo it is analyzed "component 1, inverted." Light becomes dark, dark becomes light.




In the third photo it is analyzed "component 2."




In the fourth photo it is analyzed "component 2, inverted." Dark becomes light, but not all dark. The dome doesn't seem to become light like the sky next to it, and becomes pretty indistinguishable.



What I'm looking at, specifically in the fourth screen-grab, is the darkness of the sky left of the dark dome of the Capitol. You can see the Capitol dome becomes pretty much indistinguishable even though the darkness of the sky, next to it, becomes what I would call bright. As a layman I would expect a similar effect to both Capitol dome in its darkness, and the sky next to it in its darkness. I have no expertise in photo analysis and just comment on what is revealed to me in simplistic forensics. "Forensically" is the name of the website.

Point proved. Photographs can be manipulated, but not necessarily are all photos manipulated. A photo is not a practical demonstration. Zapruder films can be manipulated, but not all films are manipulated to deceive others with; blocky "planets" can be pasted into fraudulent NASA photographs (WHICH HAS IN FACT REVEALED NASA FRAUD, by way of photograph analysis), etc. Pictures are not good science even if Mark doesn't know what he's talking about in regards to the photo analysis of the photo used in an effort to prove something by Schpankme. But perhaps an expert at photo analysis can step in and provide some guiding light.

I don't need, though, any help from somebody telling me that the photograph in question proves a point; it doesn't. But anybody can go out and do what I did yesterday if you doubt my little video from phone was doctored. Look with your own eyes at an airplane leaving a distinct contrail evaporating behind it.

It's funny, actually. If clouds are obscuring the sun, as seems to be the case in his "bombers" pic above, which he thinks proves something, would it not make sense that the contrails from those airplanes extend further to the rear of the aircraft because they aren't evaporating as fast?

And is it not true that in his "bomber" pic above, that the picture only affords a view of what is between the lead ariplanes and subsequent airplanes in the sky? Can we say definitively how long those contrails were? AND WHAT'S THAT CRAP WITH THE LITTLE TINY AIRPLANES BETWEEN THE THIRD GROUP OF PLANES AND THE LEAD PLANES?? PERSPECTIVE! THEY CAN'T BE FARTHER AWAY FROM CAMERA THAN THE LEAD PLANES. THE LITTLE TINY PLANES ARE FLYING ABOVE THE CONTRAILS! HOW CAN THEY BE SO MUCH SMALLER THAN THE LEAD AIRCRAFT, EVEN THOUGH THE LEAD AIRCRAFT ARE FURTHER FROM THE CAMERA, WITH THE TINY PLANES ON TOP OF THE CONTRAILS LEFT BY THE LEAD AIRCRAFT?? Somebody boo-booed when doctoring Schpankme's "bomber" pic above!

Let's review. The lead aircraft are leaving contrails behind them as they fly a straight line (i.e., no curvature displayed in the contrails between lead airplanes and camera's position). The closer airplanes (the tiny ones) flying closer to the camera, should be BIGGER than the ones further away in the lead. THEY. ARE. NOT. They should certainly be larger than the lead aircraft, which are further from the camera, since the tiny planes fly ABOVE, and inline to, the contrails left by the lead formation flying straight and true.

Who manipulated the "bomber" pic, and for what purpose? I didn't know Soundly was in here!

When I ask a man to agree/disagree with 4 simple statements, and he refuses, while posting yet another picture he thinks proves something, I become suspicious of his motivation to avoid such open discourse.

He avoids, without addressing, and posts another picture.

Have I proved anything other than a photograph shouldn't trump practical demonstration? And have I practically demonstrated the truth—Schpankme's refusal to take the time to thoughtfully address 4 statements I asked him to discourse on so we can make headway is an attempt to avoid that which he can't give satisfactory answer to? Is what I asked in my 4 statements for him to address, deception on my part? He refused to answer any of them.

"It's photoshopped. It, it, has to be."

Here's where we're at; I asked Schpankme to respond forthrightly to 4 statements (all demonstrated individually to each of us by simply looking up at overhead airplanes), so that we might find out how much separates us. He refused. I asked him to discourse on what his eyes actually see, looking up into the sky at aircraft leaving in their wakes either a contrail or chemtrail, each with its own properties of causation, contrails being distinct from chemtrails. He has refused.

But maybe if somebody posts a still shot of Clooney and Bullock cavorting in space, I'll believe they actually went to space. Thanks in advance.

markwilson wrote:
I asked Schpankme to respond forthrightly to 4 statements

Now, the photo is fake because its shows Contrails that spread during WWII.

You've set this up as a match between you and I, and you will loose; for you have NO PROOF OF CHEMICALS.


Was the video also fake?

Time of my lengthy post 1455. Time of his post 1500