I am a Chemtrail Advocate . . . I believe there is an Aerosol Injection Program

[George B]

Because if you actually did research and looked for information, you would have these answers. But to you, suspicions are more important than reality.

You just saw the term "Open Skies" and never bothered to do a single bit of research on it. Thats the only possible way, that you could have been spreading so
much false information. I can not think of a single thing that you stated in regards to it, that is factually correct. And the problem is, that when things are pointed out where you posted false statements, you just continue on like nothing ever happened.

Just came out and state the obvious, you never bothered to actually read the text of the Open Skies Treaty, you just prefer to let your imagination run wild, with all these foreign aircraft running amuck in US airspace, with no one knowing who they are, and somehow secretly spraying secret aerosols.

Unfortunately, reality gets in the way of this. You made it out to sound like this treaty gives other countries unlimited rights to fly over others, without restriction as you said, and that was patently false. Are you ever going to apologize for posting things that are not true?

Again, I asked before. How many Open Skies flights have there been? How many flights over the US?

And why you say that flights could be staged out of other countries, when there is no provision in the treaty for that at all?

Yes the number is entirely relevant. How could a few aircraft in a year, really do anything at all?

The only thing we have evidence of, is that you have a wild imagination where if you can picture something going on, then it must be true.

I will say this one more time . . . THE PUBLIC . . . NOT ATC or government officials . . . (The Public) Has no access at all or timely access to information regarding any unrecorded or blocked aircraft . . . Information about Military, Diplomatic, and blocked flights are NOT in the PUBLIC available databases . . . Unless there is some reason for the authorities to question a flight's behavior or mission . . . Nothing happens . . . Why would the authorities question a flight under the provisions of the treaty if they are meeting all necessary pre-conditions . . . Why would a flight under the treaties management break any provision to bring attention to its self? Any FOIA when ever the authorities got around to answering it would only report normal process and procedure . . . Or they wouldn't answer at all under the provisions of maintaining
national security Protection . . . You have to understand . . . I have answered several Congressional inquiries my self and I know the tricks of the trade . . .

 

[George B]

Maybe its time to revisit from whence George came to this point and time.
Above is where he started.

I have no problem with that . . .

 

[firepilot]

I will say this one more time . . . THE PUBLIC . . . NOT ATC or government officials . . . (The Public) Has no access at all or timely access to information regarding any unrecorded or blocked aircraft . . . Information about Military, Diplomatic, and blocked flights are NOT in the PUBLIC available databases . . . Unless there is some reason for the authorities to question a flight's behavior or mission . . . Nothing happens . . . Why would the authorities question a flight under the provisions of the treaty if they are meeting all necessary pre-conditions . . . Why would a flight under the treaties management break any provision to bring attention to its self? Any FOIA when ever the authorities got around to answering it would only report normal process and procedure . . . Or they wouldn't answer at all under the provisions of maintaining
national security Protection . . . You have to understand . . . I have answered several Congressional inquiries my self and I know the tricks of the trade . . .

And again, yes they do. You can access transponder data, I know people that do so from their computers. But the reality is, that even if you knew how to do such things, you would not bother to do so or go through the effort. And yes, aviation enthusiasts would know about such flights, because they are not covert. Just the planes get to be inspected by the overflown country, and there are restrictions. Anyone can monitor aviation communications too.

You tried to hide from us that there actually are restrictions on open skies aircraft and how they are used, the numbers of flights too. You insist its covert, and they are not. You claim that aircraft could stage from foreign countries to overfly the US, and thats not true either. You said that the US can not control who flies over, thats not true.

​

George, can you tell us, at least just one of your claims, that was actually true?

For anyone who actually wants to read the Open Skies Treaty, here it is. Warning, it is absolutely nothing like what George claimed.

http://www.osce.org/library/14127

 

[George B]

And again, yes they do. You can access transponder data, I know people that do so from their computers. But the reality is, that even if you knew how to do such things, you would not bother to do so or go through the effort. And yes, aviation enthusiasts would know about such flights, because they are not covert. Just the planes get to be inspected by the overflown country, and there are restrictions. Anyone can monitor aviation communications too.

You tried to hide from us that there actually are restrictions on open skies aircraft and how they are used, the numbers of flights too. You insist its covert, and they are not. You claim that aircraft could stage from foreign countries to overfly the US, and thats not true either. You said that the US can not control who flies over, thats not true.

​

George, can you tell us, at least just one of your claims, that was actually true?

For anyone who actually wants to read the Open Skies Treaty, here it is. Warning, it is absolutely nothing like what George claimed.

http://www.osce.org/library/14127

I stand by what I state. . . soon after you made your point about my first comment. . . The exact provisions of the treaty ARE NOT RELEVANT to individuals engaged in covert operations. . . .they can use the existence of any flight to cover their activities . . .if they are able to use these aircraft and any inspectors are involved or cannot detect their hidden Mission their mission will proceed as planned. . . My only point is foreign aircraft can be seen in US airspace and someone can point to this treaty and say it is allowed . . .

"My point is, simply this treaty gives plausible legal cover and a cover story for
foreign aircraft to get access to US airspace. . . That is all. . . The number, frequency, and other details are something that can be manupulated by a very few people in the know. . . NOT the PUBLIC. . .

 

[firepilot]

Ummmmm foreign aircraft are in the US all the time in our airspace. Its called "Airlines", and they are here every day. Why would they have to go through the trouble of a program where aircraft have to go from a US airport or base, get inspected, could be refused the flight, and probably only a few flights a year happen over the US if any, all to spray some dust, and where if any nonstandard equipment was found, would be an international incident?

And first you claim that Open Skies gives other countries carte blanche to fly over the US without restriction, which was patently false, and now you are saying the provisions do not matter anyways. Not that you actually have any evidence of covert flights anyways.

http://www.coaa.co.uk/planeplotter.htm


You should do more research and less imagining. You would have found out that you can access lots of ATC data, directly from the airplanes themselves, to your computer.

Lets face it, you have no evidence still. No evidence of covert flights, no evidence of subterfuge, and seem to be more related to the Michael J Murphy or Roxy Lopez school of research when it comes to this. You insist you have given us evidence, but all you have evidence of us your suspicions and imaginations, and that your aviation knowledge is quite lacking.

You first seemed to imply that aircraft could originate from the other countries and just fly over the US, which was not possible, and then you changed it to that they could stage out of Mexico or Canada, which is apparently again not true. It is a little insulting, that you do not really inform yourself on what you come up with, whether it is NOAA articles, or how the Open Skies Treaty works. Its like you would rather have us do your research for you.

Have you gone to the authorities or media with your concerns about these very rare flights? You still try to avoid the question about the numbers of these flights.

 

[GregMc]

George, it would be interesting to hear more about yourself.
Many of your comments seem to infer your intuitive capacities and ability to "connect the dots" regarding hunches or "feelings" that something is wrong.
You seem to write that you feel compelled to defend or promote the chemtrail advocate position.
Do you think this awareness characteristic you seem to feel you have is an innate characteristic of yours? Is it nature or nurture ? Perhaps as a result of upbringing or perhaps you have undergone a consciousness expanding training regimen of mental exercises or some form of dietary supplements, herbs, vitamins etc that may have expanded your awareness or sensitivity to such connections?

 

[George B]

"You tried to hide from us that there actually are restrictions on open skies aircraft and how they are used, the numbers of flights too. You insist its covert, and they are not. You claim that aircraft could stage from foreign countries to overfly the US, and thats not true either. You said that the US can not control who flies over, thats not true."

I hid nothing . . . I read the provisions presented on Wikipedia and don't care about the specific details regarding the types of aircraft, number or how they may enter the US airspace or where they may be staged from . . . The important thing is . . Foreign aircraft and their crews may enter US airspace . . . A covert operation may use these aircraft or different aircraft and crews and if no one is asking questions one can accomplish missions as long as they do not call undo attention to
themselves. . . YOU DON'T THINK THEY CAN? IF NOT . . . WHY?

 

[George B]

George, it would be interesting to hear more about yourself.
Many of your comments seem to infer your intuitive capacities and ability to "connect the dots" regarding hunches or "feelings" that something is wrong.
You seem to write that you feel compelled to defend or promote the chemtrail advocate position.
Do you think this awareness characteristic you seem to feel you have is an innate characteristic of yours? Is it nature or nurture ? Perhaps as a result of upbringing or perhaps you have undergone a consciousness expanding training regimen of mental exercises or some form of dietary supplements, herbs, vitamins etc that may have expanded your awareness or sensitivity to such connections?

I do not have any capabilities or secret training, diet, supplements or anything but just a confidence in my abilities to survey data, evidence, research, history, and along with my own experience and knowledge of human nature and large institutional inclinations . . . analyze the total picture, eliminate noise, read between the lines, and propose IMO a reasonable and rational appraisal of reality. . . I am for a lack of a better way to communicate how I process information. .(I am a feeler) . . I do so beyond just empirical process . . . Why? I find empiricism is not always correct . . . Why? . . . Deception is at play . . .one must account for the lack of absolute accuracy of data and the fact that truth is being withheld. . . .this has saved my neck many times in my career . . .

 

[firepilot]

"You tried to hide from us that there actually are restrictions on open skies aircraft and how they are used, the numbers of flights too. You insist its covert, and they are not. You claim that aircraft could stage from foreign countries to overfly the US, and thats not true either. You said that the US can not control who flies over, thats not true."

I hid nothing . . . I read the provisions presented on Wikipedia and don't care about the specific details regarding the types of aircraft, number or how they may enter the US airspace or where they may be staged from . . . The important thing is . . Foreign aircraft and their crews may enter US airspace . . . A covert operation may use these aircraft or different aircraft and crews and if no one is asking questions one can accomplish missions as long as they do not call undo attention to
themselves. . . YOU DON'T THINK THEY CAN? IF NOT . . . WHY?

Yes, you hid from us that the aircraft have to get inspected, , that there is a small number of flights allowed, and that the crew members need to all have proper visas, and that the overflown country can even supply the airplane if needed, and that there are specific limitations on allowed equipment, and that those flights that overfly the US, have to originate in the US, and these flights have to be requested beforehand, and can be turned down too, and that its not covert or some black project.


You just ignored the comment about foreign aircraft enter the US daily - airlines. And you just showed that you do not care about actual details, when the details are facts which are needed to prove anything. How can you ever prove your conspiracy, when you actively choose to not learn details and facts about an issue? You just want to sit there, brainstorm conspiracies in your overactive imagination, and then leave it to everyone else to find the facts. Thats intellectually lazy of you.

And yes, I do not think that foreign aircraft as part of Open Skies, are part of some covert program to spray particles over other countries. There is ZERO EVIDENCE, its not practical, the aircraft get inspected for illegal equipment, and only a small number of flights occur, and its not some hidden covert program.

You read the provisions on Wikipedia as well as you read that NOAA article too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Open_Skies

Aircraft

Observation aircraft may be provided by either the observing Party or (the "taxi option") by the observed Party, at the latter's choice. All Open Skies aircraft and sensors must pass specific certification and pre-flight inspection procedures to ensure that they are compliant with treaty standards

 

[George B]

Yes, you hid from us that the aircraft have to get inspected, , that there is a small number of flights allowed, and that the crew members need to all have proper visas, and that the overflown country can even supply the airplane if needed, and that there are specific limitations on allowed equipment, and that those flights that overfly the US, have to originate in the US, and these flights have to be requested beforehand, and can be turned down too, and that its not covert or some black project.


You just ignored the comment about foreign aircraft enter the US daily - airlines. And you just showed that you do not care about actual details, when the details are facts which are needed to prove anything. How can you ever prove your conspiracy, when you actively choose to not learn details and facts about an issue? You just want to sit there, brainstorm conspiracies in your overactive imagination, and then leave it to everyone else to find the facts. Thats intellectually lazy of you.

And yes, I do not think that foreign aircraft as part of Open Skies, are part of some covert program to spray particles over other countries. There is ZERO EVIDENCE, its not practical, the aircraft get inspected for illegal equipment, and only a small number of flights occur, and its not some hidden covert program.

You read the provisions on Wikipedia as well as you read that NOAA article too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Open_Skies

Let me see you have thrown up so many issues on the treaty and to respond . . . it is hard to keep up on an IPad because I can only see a tiny part of
your points at one time so forgive me if I miss something. . . .

1) How do you think I would or could try to hide anything from you about a treaty you have as much information as I do . . . ?

2) A right for officials to inspect and/or even provide an aircraft of their choice (if they desire) to the flight crews of a foreign participant in the treaty is not IMO a detail that prevents an aircraft from being used for Injection purposes. . . It might make it more probable . . . If the officials are part of the conspiracy . . .

3) Sure foreign commercial and authorized military flights are in US air space all the time. . . I never said otherwise. . . They along with US aircraft cannot be ruled out. . . That is why Advocates have an impossible task of identifying any of the thousands of possibilities. . . .a needle in the ocean. . . . As I have said the treaty only gives some plausible explanation of strange airframes in case one is observed. . . that is really my only point

4). How does having a program to track transponders help an Advocate figure out what is going on . . .educate me ? The only thing I can come up with is . .
A. I may be able to (depending on the program) deduce the gps coordinate of an aircraft, can I then get the altitude, speed and direction? If so what then? How do I then visually confirm it is the aircraft from the transponder reading?
B. Even if I am able to do all the above what if it isn't leaving a persistent trail what have I accomplished?
C. If it is leaving a Persistent Trail how do I get precise enough atmospheric soundings to predict the likelihood of persistent contrail formation versus something else?
D. Only if I can prove conditions are not sufficient for persistent contrail formation by a wide margin do I have anything of interest to followup on. . . And even then what? . . . I send my ready fleet of 'contrail in situ measurement' aircraft into action?

 

[George B]

I will be checking back later in the afternoon. . .

 

[Noble1965]

I had hunches a few times that substances testing positive for explosives and others for biochemical warfare agents were false positives. . . saving much time and expense. . .confirmation testing proved me right. . .If I had been wrong I wouldn't be here. . . . Is that good enough. . . ??

.

Are false positives something that often occur in these tests? Were you trained to keep this in mind during such tests? Or, are you the person who first found out that false positives could happen during such testing?

 

[Noble1965]

I will say this one more time . . . THE PUBLIC . . . NOT ATC or government officials . . . (The Public) Has no access at all or timely access to information regarding any unrecorded or blocked aircraft . . .

I'm having a hard time understanding why you think "The Public" NEEDS information about these flights? Or has any right to the information about these flights? But, have you ASKED for any info about them?

And now share with us, "The Public" ALL the information about your explosives/ biochemical testing. If you feel that all flights should be common knowledge...then you obviously think "the public" should have access to knowledge about explosives/ biochemical testing...Such as, where it's performed, at what times of the day/night, the types of agents used.

I'm waiting...

I agree...the public has the right to know everything.

 

[PCWilliams]

. . . (The Public) Has no access at all or timely access to information regarding any unrecorded or blocked aircraft . . . Information about Military, Diplomatic, and blocked flights are NOT in the PUBLIC available databases . . .

Where do you get your information? Please, give your sources for this disinformation.

In real life, if an aircraft transitions civilian airspace at 18,000 feet or higher, there's no such thing as "flight data not available to the public."

As a very quick and dirty test of your theory, go buy a radio scanner and listen in on air traffic control. Then ask yourself, how could any flight be kept from the public record if transmissions to and from these "blocked from public record" aircraft are being openly broadcast for the general public to hear?

Even better, prove your theory using the scanner. Record ATC communications for a period of time over a location, then file a FOIA with the FAA for that location and compare the FAA's certified recording against your own recording.

But then again, what i'm asking … the pursuit of direct evidence … would be destructive to your theory, so it will be ignored. As usual.

 

[Noble1965]

...

Fine, replace "Chicken" with "Afraid".

My apologies. Is that the reason you couldn't be bothered to reply to the content?

 

[Noble1965]

Maybe its time to revisit from whence George came to this point and time.
Above is where he started.

OK, let's start with #1.

"1. Is thereevidence of particulate or aerosols in the atmosphere which are unaccounted forby any source identified by Atmospheric Scientists? . . . Yes"

Actually, I see no such evidence of a "yes" answer for this. There are plenty of people in science who claim that there are natural and man made sources of everything we find in the atmosphere. Do they know how much from each source? Or how they are spread through the atmosphere and what factors increase or decrease concentrations? Maybe not.

Just because a source for each particle isn't identified, that doesn't mean that the science doesn't ADEQUATELY identify the potential sources...man made and natural.

 

[George B]

Are false positives something that often occur in these tests? Were you trained to keep this in mind during such tests? Or, are you the person who first found out that false positives could happen during such testing?

I am not going to discuss the above incidents further . . .

 

[George B]

I'm having a hard time understanding why you think "The Public" NEEDS information about these flights? Or has any right to the information about these flights? But, have you ASKED for any info about them?

And now share with us, "The Public" ALL the information about your explosives/ biochemical testing. If you feel that all flights should be common knowledge...then you obviously think "the public" should have access to knowledge about explosives/ biochemical testing...Such as, where it's performed, at what times of the day/night, the types of agents used.

I'm waiting...

I agree...the public has the right to know everything.

The information is blocked or not available for a multitude of reasons . . . national security interests, diplomatic sensitivity, safety, business competition, and simple personal privacy reasons . . . I have no objection to them being blocked . . . I just made a fact statement . . . without the ready access to the information it probably makes it harder for someone interested to ID aircraft to ID aircraft and find their altitude and flight plan . . .

 

[George B]

Where do you get your information? Please, give your sources for this disinformation.

In real life, if an aircraft transitions civilian airspace at 18,000 feet or higher, there's no such thing as "flight data not available to the public."

As a very quick and dirty test of your theory, go buy a radio scanner and listen in on air traffic control. Then ask yourself, how could any flight be kept from the public record if transmissions to and from these "blocked from public record" aircraft are being openly broadcast for the general public to hear?

Even better, prove your theory using the scanner. Record ATC communications for a period of time over a location, then file a FOIA with the FAA for that location and compare the FAA's certified recording against your own recording.

But then again, what i'm asking … the pursuit of direct evidence … would be destructive to your theory, so it will be ignored. As usual.

Can I track military aircraft? What about presidential movements in Air Force One? (Back to top)

FlightAware does not track military aircraft and presidential movement flights (e.g., Air Force One, Marine One, etc.) are operated by the US military.
http://flightaware.com/about/faq.rvt#military


Can I block my aircraft on FlightAware? (Back to top)

Yes, there are two ways to accomplish this:
FlightAware Selective (Un)blocking

Enroll in FlightAware's selective unblocking service for a tail number that is not already blocked.*

FlightAware can process your request with next-day service and will block your operations from the general public. Your FlightAware account(s) will continue to be able to securely view and track your aircraft. FlightAware will complete the paperwork necessary for blocking your aircraft on other flight tracking services and will provide you with everything you need to accomplish the block.

Blocking request through NBAA BARR

The NBAA (National Business Aviation Association) operates and maintains the BARR (Blocked Aircraft Registration Request) in conjunction with the FAA. This service is free although it may take 30-45 days to take effect and will not allow your user account to track your aircraft on FlightAware unless you subscribe to FlightAware's selective unblocking service.*

For us to submit your request, simply contact us to walk you through the process.
http://flightaware.com/about/faq.rvt#military

>>>>>>>>>>>

"As a very quick and dirty test of your theory, go buy a radio scanner and listen in on air traffic control. Then ask yourself, how could any flight be kept from the public record if transmissions to and from these "blocked from public record" aircraft are being openly broadcast for the general public to hear?"


Hmmmmm . . . and what is this going to tell me . . . "This is Flight . . . ZERO, ZERO, NINER, DELTA, request permission to climb to Thirty Three Thousand Feet to begin Chemtrail Operations . . . Over" I don't think so . . .

Scanners, Transponder tracking software, Radio communications . . . all give me little or no information to deduce anything . . . Please help me here . . . educate me . . . how does it help me detect chemtrail operations ?????

 

[George B]

OK, let's start with #1.

"1. Is thereevidence of particulate or aerosols in the atmosphere which are unaccounted forby any source identified by Atmospheric Scientists? . . . Yes"

Actually, I see no such evidence of a "yes" answer for this. There are plenty of people in science who claim that there are natural and man made sources of everything we find in the atmosphere. Do they know how much from each source? Or how they are spread through the atmosphere and what factors increase or decrease concentrations? Maybe not.

Just because a source for each particle isn't identified, that doesn't mean that the science doesn't ADEQUATELY identify the potential sources...man made and natural.

For the very reasons you specified above . . . aerosol injections are not eliminated as a potential source . . . that is about all I can say about the item . . .

 

[George B]

Fine, replace "Chicken" with "Afraid".

My apologies. Is that the reason you couldn't be bothered to reply to the content?

Yes it did upset me and would you be kind enough to repeat your question . . . ?

 

[Noble1965]

I am not going to discuss the above incidents further . . .

Of course not....

 

[Noble1965]

For the very reasons you specified above . . . aerosol injections are not eliminated as a potential source . . . that is about all I can say about the item . . .

Yeah, "injections"...

 

[Noble1965]

Yes it did upset me and would you be kind enough to repeat your question . . . ?

No

 

[Noble1965]

I am not going to discuss the above incidents further . . .

Of course not...I made my point well. Suggesting that finding a false positive is part of your training...not intuition. Just as I have to keep an eye out for strange voltage feedback through circuit boards. I may get a strange value, but I'm trained to look at other circuits to see if I'm getting a false reading.


Oh well, I'm not surprised that you make the rules of debate up as you go along. I've seen you do it before.

I'm not surprised that you would refuse to answer the question as I asked it.

 

[George B]

Of course not...I made my point well. Suggesting that finding a false positive is part of your training...not intuition. Just as I have to keep an eye out for strange voltage feedback through circuit boards. I may get a strange value, but I'm trained to look at other circuits to see if I'm getting a false reading.


Oh well, I'm not surprised that you make the rules of debate up as you go along. I've seen you do it before.

I'm not surprised that you would refuse to answer the question as I asked it.

I will go as far as say this and no more . . . there was no training involved . . . the tests detected what they should have . . . the false part of the tests was similar substances are found in a broader subset of substances than understood at the time . . . it was a surprise to everyone . . .

 

[Noble1965]

Yeah....sure.

 

[firepilot]

Can I track military aircraft? What about presidential movements in Air Force One? (Back to top)

FlightAware does not track military aircraft and presidential movement flights (e.g., Air Force One, Marine One, etc.) are operated by the US military.
http://flightaware.com/about/faq.rvt#military


Can I block my aircraft on FlightAware? (Back to top)

Yes, there are two ways to accomplish this:
FlightAware Selective (Un)blocking

Enroll in FlightAware's selective unblocking service for a tail number that is not already blocked.*

FlightAware can process your request with next-day service and will block your operations from the general public. Your FlightAware account(s) will continue to be able to securely view and track your aircraft. FlightAware will complete the paperwork necessary for blocking your aircraft on other flight tracking services and will provide you with everything you need to accomplish the block.

Blocking request through NBAA BARR

The NBAA (National Business Aviation Association) operates and maintains the BARR (Blocked Aircraft Registration Request) in conjunction with the FAA. This service is free although it may take 30-45 days to take effect and will not allow your user account to track your aircraft on FlightAware unless you subscribe to FlightAware's selective unblocking service.*

For us to submit your request, simply contact us to walk you through the process.
http://flightaware.com/about/faq.rvt#military

>>>>>>>>>>>

"As a very quick and dirty test of your theory, go buy a radio scanner and listen in on air traffic control. Then ask yourself, how could any flight be kept from the public record if transmissions to and from these "blocked from public record" aircraft are being openly broadcast for the general public to hear?"


Hmmmmm . . . and what is this going to tell me . . . "This is Flight . . . ZERO, ZERO, NINER, DELTA, request permission to climb to Thirty Three Thousand Feet to begin Chemtrail Operations . . . Over" I don't think so . . .

Scanners, Transponder tracking software, Radio communications . . . all give me little or no information to deduce anything . . . Please help me here . . . educate me . . . how does it help me detect chemtrail operations ?????

Yes, you can track military aircraft. You are just coming up with excuses, as to why you should not even try to though, or to listen to aircraft communications. You, like most every other chemtrailer, insists that it would all be secret anyways, so why bother.

Who said you have to go through flightaware, or the FAA? I think I pointed out ways to do it without them.

http://www.coaa.co.uk/planeplotter.htm
http://www.kinetic-avionics.com/sbs-1.php
http://www.airnavsystems.com/radarbox/

Mode-S transponders can be recieved at home, and there is no forcefield that blocks you from getting it. The government can not put a shield over your house to block you from seeing it. Neither can companies block their transponder returns and turn them off. Of course there is a cost to get the reciever, but you can even watch military aircraft on there.

Well if you truly think that foreign aircraft are penetrating our airspace, then why have you not tried to prove this? Oh yeah, its just all secret, so you figure its just better to imagine that it all is happening, rather than to prove it.

You can get an airnav or sbs-1 mode-S decoder, and watch aircraft fly over in real time. Also many other people have these programs running where their computers worldwide upload what they receive, so you can watch in other places too. And yes, if there was some foreign aircraft flying over releasing some of your magical pixie dust aerosols, they could just not fly over with their transponders turned off and not talking to anyone. Mode S includes lots of data, besides just altitude, airspeed and flight number/reg.

Why should you do this? Well you theorized that Open Skies gives foreign air forces the abilities to just overfly the US as much as they wanted, and can not be stopped. So, you could prove this true, if you actually wanted to. You think that they can fly out of Europe with some super long range plane, or that they can just stage out of Mexico. Well, why not prove these things right?

The problem is, is that you do not want to disprove any of it. You want to live in your imagination, and be comfortable in your fears. You want to live in a world of foreign planes secretly overflying us, where Open Skies Treaty is some covert program, and there are secret nefarious activities going on, like something out of a spy novel. Its more comfortable to you to imagine a sky full of airplane released particles, when Jay has proven there is not even some increase in aerosols, but in your imagination there is.

Maybe thats more exciting for you, than trying to learn about details and facts, which you admittedly do not even care about. You even stated the number of flights was meaningless, which is bizarre considering the massive fleet that would be required to do your conspiracy. What you do care about is speculating, having faith, having hunches, and imagining that bad things are going on overhead.

How can you then state than you have given us evidence, when things like details and facts are of no interest to you. If you were truly able to give evidence, you would have done all kinds of research and would have details to give us, but from the first page on, you have only give us speculation and fear.

Maybe its because details and facts are not on the side of the chemtrail conspiracy/hoax. Thats why they avoid them at all cost, and prefer to deal in imagination.

 

[firepilot]

For the very reasons you specified above . . . aerosol injections are not eliminated as a potential source . . . that is about all I can say about the item . . .

Here we have it in a nutshell so to speak, this is the conspiracy mindset. Evidence is not required to believe in something, it is going to be imagined, then believed in until disproven. Because those scientists did not come out and specifically say something (secret airplanes with secret spray gear with secret aerosols), than that must mean it is true. Nothing needs to be proven, it just all needs to be disproven.

Guess what? Those same scientists did not disprove that Robot Cats were spraying aerosols either some secret internal aerosol tanks. In that NOAA article you linked to, there was no mention of aerosol dispensing Robot Cats being eliminated as a source. Or maybe it was the Reptilians, since they were not ruled out either as a source.

Someday George will even figure out that NOAA article was not even about aerosols being emitted, or injected for that matter.

 

[Noble1965]

Someday George will even figure out that NOAA article was not even about aerosols being emitted, or injected for that matter.

I'm not so sure

 

[George B]

Here we have it in a nutshell so to speak, this is the conspiracy mindset. Evidence is not required to believe in something, it is going to be imagined, then believed in until disproven. Because those scientists did not come out and specifically say something (secret airplanes with secret spray gear with secret aerosols), than that must mean it is true. Nothing needs to be proven, it just all needs to be disproven.

Guess what? Those same scientists did not disprove that Robot Cats were spraying aerosols either some secret internal aerosol tanks. In that NOAA article you linked to, there was no mention of aerosol dispensing Robot Cats being eliminated as a source. Or maybe it was the Reptilians, since they were not ruled out either as a source.

Someday George will even figure out that NOAA article was not even about aerosols being emitted, or injected for that matter.

The Bottom line. . .

1) The Chemtrail Conspiracy. . . If there were direct, verifiable evidence of its existence it would be an area of study not a conspiracy. . .
2) Because of the above those who find themselves Advocates are struggling with how the details could fit together. . . What evidence may be available to help prove or disprove their existence. . .
3) One finds there is little evidence that disproves their possible existence except opinions and The official statements of the Air Force, NASA, and the Geo-engineering symposium briefs etc. . . and of course your website, etc. . .
4) Do we trust the official announcements of primarily governmental entities which may have rogue elements involved in the activities they are denying . . .
5) We have a few people saying they have inside information and are whistleblowers, etc. . . .some of their information seem plausible. . . But admittedly so far we have no way to verify or deny their information. . .
6) What are the whistleblowers motives if they are lying . . .? Good question. . . .? Please give me some ideas. . . .

7) To my knowledge I have never seen such continual emphasis upon a conspiracy . . except for JFKs assassination that has engendered such continual assertions of theories and debate without resolution. . .
8) My thought is the atmosphere, biosphere along with human and human institutional behavior is sooooo dynamic and multifaceted that to try to investigate,measure, and analyze such a theory quickly becomes beyond most peoples knowledge base and ability to wrap their brain around. . . .
9) Since we can neither prove or disprove such a conspiracy with hard verifiable evidence . . It remains in the relm of speculation and belief. . .
10) Do I trust the pronouncements of the government? . . .No, not really . . Do I believe the statements of the whistleblowers? . . .No, not really. . . But place as much faith in the whistleblowers as I do the government. . .
11) What to do. . . I feel after my investigating . . .there is something ongoing. . . Can I prove it. . . .NO!!!!!! Most evidence provided by advocates and debunkers is IMO interesting but not adequate. . . .I can find errors in logic and reasons to question both sides of the debate. . . .so I am on a journey while I believe I am still searching for the proof CHEMTRAILs exist or cannot exist. . . .

 

[Mick West]

It's not so much that there's a lack of evidence to prove the existence of a conspiracy.

It's that there's not enough good evidence to justify your advocacy of this particular conspiracy.

 

[Noble1965]

6) What are the whistleblowers motives if they are lying . . .? Good question. . . .? Please give me some ideas. . . .

How many times are you going to ask that? It's already been addressed...several times.

They aren't really insiders. They are advocates PRETENDING to be "whistleblowers". They are DECEIVING their fellow advocates so they will "think" there is an actual whistle blower...

 

[George B]

How many times are you going to ask that? It's already been addressed...several times.

They aren't really insiders. They are advocates PRETENDING to be "whistleblowers". They are DECEIVING their fellow advocates so they will "think" there is an actual whistle blower...

They are deceiving to deceive . . . Why?

 

[Mick West]

For the lulz.



Not everyone, of course. Some people just do it to promote their story, believing that it's essentially true, even if not factual. Some people may do it because that's how they make their living.

There are many possible reasons.

 

[Noble1965]

They are deceiving to deceive . . . Why?

So it LOOKS like there is an actual "whistle blower"! To keep OTHER "advocates" believing...and posting...and recruiting. They are DESPERATE, so they create a whistleblower so they can say ..."See, this guy works for them and admits it's all real...and you people thought we were just ignorant [chemtrailers]...here's proof that there is more to this story!"

I could make up a whistle blower to push the robotic cats...

Here, I'll do it right now!

I work for the robotic cat factory..they are real..they are coming for you...I have decided to post this because my conscience has gotten the better of me and I feel I have a duty to my fellow man to warn them about the impending robot cat army.... The cats are coming, don't let anyone tell you this is a hoax! They are armed and dangerous"


Get it?!

 

[Mick West]

Another potential reason - skeptics sometimes perform hoaxes that they later reveal, as a way of attempting to persuade people that they should not be so gullible.

Unfortunately it does not work, as you get a big "blowback" effect. Witness the the TankerEnemy "KC-10" video. Posted as a hoax (and quite obvious to a native english speaker familiar with contrail formation), but still being posted several times a day on Facebook as someone new discovers this "proof".

Here's the original spoof:

​

Or take the "chemtrail forecast" site.

http://www.chemtrailforecast.com/main.html

That's a combination of reasons. Kevin Martin, who runs the site, wants attention and site traffic. He also wants to expose chemtrails as a hoax, and claims he'll let them know in a year or two. He's also a bit neuroatypical. He probably also get the lulz from some of what he does. But basically this is a hoax, but one that is contributing massive blowback, even making it into the Case Orange document.

 

[PCWilliams]

Can I track military aircraft? What about presidential movements in Air Force One? (Back to top)

FlightAware does not track military aircraft and presidential movement flights (e.g., Air Force One, Marine One, etc.) are operated by the US military.
http://flightaware.com/about/faq.rvt#military

I'm talking real world. Screw flightAware. If you want to track down the movement of aircraft in the real world you can do it. Easily. Choose a time and location and submit a FOIA request to the FAA.

Air Force One, Marine One, etc., are controlled by military only when the aircraft are in military airspace. When these aircraft are in civilian airspace they are controlled by civilian air traffic controllers. Stop relying on that dopey site for your information.

Hmmmmm . . . and what is this going to tell me . . . "This is Flight . . . ZERO, ZERO, NINER, DELTA, request permission to climb to Thirty Three Thousand Feet to begin Chemtrail Operations . . . Over" I don't think so . . .

Scanners, Transponder tracking software, Radio communications . . . all give me little or no information to deduce anything . . . Please help me here . . . educate me . . . how does it help me detect chemtrail operations ?????

Get a copy of the airways flown above you in your area. Get a copy of the FAA radar sectors (and the boundaries) responsible for the airways above you in your area. Get the frequencies for the radar sectors above you in your area. Lay out your airways/sector maps as a visual reference while listening to the scanner and you can track who is doing what above you in the skies. I can't help if you can't deduce anything from this information. You're not deducing anything meaningful standing on the ground staring at the sky, you might as well try digesting real information.

At a minimum you won't hear pilots screaming about all those crazy chemicals pouring out of their planes and the planes around them. You might actually come to understand all those grid patterns are actually benign by-products of the ATC system. If the president is flying across your sky you will actually here the ATCers talking to the president's plane (because Air Force One is not worked exclusively by the military).

Hold on … come to think of it, you're right … what you won't hear is evidence of chemtrails. But that's the problem, right?

 

[George B]

It's not so much that there's a lack of evidence to prove the existence of a conspiracy.

It's that there's not enough good evidence to justify your advocacy of this particular conspiracy.

I am not there yet . . . Obviously

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Yes, you can track military aircraft. You are just coming up with excuses, as to why you should not even try to though, or to listen to aircraft communications. You, like most every other chemtrailer, insists that it would all be secret anyways, so why bother.

Who said you have to go through flightaware, or the FAA? I think I pointed out ways to do it without them.

http://www.coaa.co.uk/planeplotter.htm
http://www.kinetic-avionics.com/sbs-1.php
http://www.airnavsystems.com/radarbox/

Mode-S transponders can be recieved at home, and there is no forcefield that blocks you from getting it. The government can not put a shield over your house to block you from seeing it. Neither can companies block their transponder returns and turn them off. Of course there is a cost to get the reciever, but you can even watch military aircraft on there.

Well if you truly think that foreign aircraft are penetrating our airspace, then why have you not tried to prove this? Oh yeah, its just all secret, so you figure its just better to imagine that it all is happening, rather than to prove it.

You can get an airnav or sbs-1 mode-S decoder, and watch aircraft fly over in real time. Also many other people have these programs running where their computers worldwide upload what they receive, so you can watch in other places too. And yes, if there was some foreign aircraft flying over releasing some of your magical pixie dust aerosols, they could just not fly over with their transponders turned off and not talking to anyone. Mode S includes lots of data, besides just altitude, airspeed and flight number/reg. .

This is excellent info I ever knew about, it sheds a whole new light on what chemmies could do if they wanted to.

George, this is probably the best thing you never thought of.
Firepilot, many thanks for this info.