Comments by "MRA" (@yassassin6425) on "Paul Joseph Watson" channel.

  1. Ryan Meijer Excellent - after all this time some firm evidence supporting the existence of chemtrails from someone that know's. What do you have?
    2
  2. "And I TOLD YOU I GOT IT didn't I? YES I DID." The only thing that you "get" on this thread is continually lampooned and schooled over your scientific illiteracy. "It's YOU who's not listening here jackass." I assure you that you have had nothing other than my undivided attention since you replied to my comment and I have duly responded and addressed every contention that you have made. "GO read the posted record again as many times as it takes you." I have no desire to trawl through the last three years of your nonsensical diatribe, I simply courteously requested that you summarise these contradictions that you refer to. I'm sure that after 36 months or so of relentlessly battering your keyboard on this thread you wouldn't object to the prospect of offering a brief synopsis of your main points. If you hadn't noticed, I only joined this discussion two days ago. Incidentally, your caps lock appears to be intermittently jamming. Perhaps that all the abuse that you have inflicted on your keyboard whilst frothing at the mouth has finally exacted its toll? Either that or it has been targeted by some clandestine technology that "they" have not yet disclosed - or perhaps it's your chemtrails? "Thickest head I've ever seen on youtube are you." Given your predilection for ludicrous conspiracy theorists and their baseless scientifically illiterate assumptions - I seriously doubt that. So, harnessing your claimed knowledge of "meteorological science", I'm sure you would be nothing other than forthcoming in respect of my request to summarise these contradictions that you perceive. I eagerly await your considered and erudite reply.
    2
  3. "Any child could look at that and ask,..whats that plane spraying." And any informed and responsible adult could explain the principle of an aerodynamic contrail to them. "We're being sprayed without consent end of the damn story!! " No you are not, you have been hoodwinked by baseless online conspiracy theory. "Tell me genius, this happened in Tennessee, except this time several doctors were on board the plane that couldn't turn off the sprayers after landing. The passengers were delayed being able to depart the plane Oh, and the doctors tested their clothing as well as themselves,.....they found; 1.Aluminum oxide 2.Thorium oxide, just to name a couple. The particles ranged in size from 10 to 100 microns." Source? Link please. "Don't believe were being sprayed? Go to the U.S. patent trademark office web page and simply type in weather modification." What does localised weather modification have to do with the aerodynamic contrails in this video and the chemtrail hoax?
    2
  4. "whoever you are." I thought that you knew? "And No, you qualified in none of the things you listed. Checked" Impeccable logic given that you don't know who I am. "I'm tired of all the troll emails asking me to prove,prove ,prove." Here's a revelation for you which you seem unable to comprehend. In making a claim you need to substantiate it. Also, as the one visiting this video and typing "Bullshit" then the troll you refer to will be none other than yourself. "I don't have to prove anything." Then your claims are baseless. "Like I told the other guy,..go to the U.S.patent and trademark office." Patents are proof of absolutely nothing. What's your point? "Type in weather modification" What does weather modification have to do with the chemtrail hoax which is the erroneous belief that contrails in the wake of commercial airliners are evidence of global sprayng. "days of reading complete with plane schematics and layout." Which "plane" in particular? What did you discover? "You'll find the type of sprayers used." Link? "Sad day when you can't just say, I saw a plane sitting on the runway after landing spraying something from nozzles not even attached to the engines." But you didn't "just say" that did you? To recap, what you actually said was that you video taped an aircraft at Tennessee Airport which was spraying a chemical substance whilst stationery on the runway and as a consequence the passengers were detained, whereupon subsequent examination undertaken by your Dad revealed that their clothing had traces of aluminium oxide and thorium oxide. I have simply asked you, not unreasonably to produce this video that bizarrely in spite of your beliefs, you have not elected to share - in addition to details of the flight, the airline the make of aircraft and the time and date. It's a sad day is it when someone calls you for bullshitting over the internet? "I suppose folks don't believe in crop dusters either,.." What does crop dusting have to do with commercial airline operations? "Just go read "ALL" the documents" What documents? "They will explain much better than I" That wouldn't be hard would it. Why don't you produce your video instead? Which reminds me, back to my questions which you have conveniently sidestepped. 1/ This flight that you refer to, what was the date, the airline and the make of aircraft? 2/ Your supposed video. Why did you not post it to YouTube? 3/ Do you regard the footage in this video as being evidence of your chemtrails? The answer to that question will explain much.
    2
  5. "Notice that trails WERE NOT coming from the Jet Engines !!" That's because they are aerodynamic contrails as opposed to exhaust contrails. Condensation can generally occur in accelerated air flows when the temperature drops locally due to conservation of energy in (nearly) adiabatic conditions (Bernoulli’s law). Near the ground and under relatively humid (but subsaturated) conditions, one can often observe the formation of short-lived clouds originating from vortices, lift, and transonic flows. Very basic science. You can observe the same effect generated by the wings and spoilers on a racing car.
    2
  6. You are referring to exhaust contrails, these are aerodynamic contrails - very common in high humidity. Formed by the pressure differential created by the wings.
    2
  7. "This video absolutely proves once and for all that Chemtrails are indeed real. " How? "This video was taken in Orlando on December 3, 2018." I'm fully aware of that, I had a very civilised exchange with the person that filmed it. I assure you that those are nothing more than contrails. Later in the week a frontal system moved across Southern Florida from the South West. Surely, you can't be suggesting that the overcast conditions captured in the culmination of this video are related? The cloud cover owed to low pressure migrating in from the gulf. "It clearly shows the same two airplanes in the sky" No it doesn't show anything of the sort. "You can clearly see the difference between the contrails and the Chemtrails." Which is? What does any of this have to do with the footage featured in this video of a Cathay Pacific Boeing 747-400 producing wingtip vortices upon landing at LAX?
    2
  8. +Joey MrNiceGuy 'Persistent con-trails dont last for over an hour.' Let's start with this. Well obviously they do or they wouldn't persist. That would depend entirely upon the conditions governed by a range of variables.
    1
  9. Ryan Meijer Hello?
    1
  10. Why?
    1
  11. Apologies if you regard it as a "dumb question" - I was asking from your perspective, what particular value you found in it and what did you learn?
    1
  12. Explain why he is lying
    1
  13. "That is your opinion that I am seeing contrails LOL Nice try tho." It is not a matter of opinion on either side - rather the laws that govern aviation and meteorological science rendering chemtrails a physical and logistical impossibility. Your anecdotal observations and incredulity is irrelevant.
    1
  14. "You can't have it both ways" Precisely my point. Chemtrails are a baseless internet hoax. "If I see a chemtrail you want me to fly up and capture some of it for a lab." You don't see a chemtrail - you think that you see a chemtrail because you have allowed the internet to condition what you believe. It is not a question of belief, rather critically challenging your preconceptions with objective science. Actually, it would be a routine endeavour to sample these supposed trails at source or through ground based mass spectrometry yet on the twenty years or so of this hoax no one has. Moreover, the skies are constantly monitored via remote sensing and were this spraying underway it would be blown wide open. "yet you want me to believe everything you see is a contrail with no proof." You obviously have no understanding of the burden of proof which, as the one making these claims, is entirely incumbent upon you. As I said, meteorlogical science is incontrovertible and axiomatic - the physical laws of aviation and the atmosphere are demonstrably not on your side. "Frankey you are an asshat. I am done arguing with you." This is the first and only time that you have engaged me on this thread and furthermore my name is not "Frankey". "You and the other guy insist that it's a logistic impossibility and at the same time you have no idea what they are spraying or what systems they use." Firstly have you any idea of the mass, volume and consequently the weight of these contrails that you erroneously ascribe to your "chemtrails"? The commercial aircraft that you people insist in posting as supposed evidence of this spraying have a typical MTOW of 200 - 280 metric tonnes max. A persistent contrail stretching over 100kms that you deem to be an irrefutable sign of a chemtrail would weigh millions upon millions of lbs. Secondly, condensation of invisible vapour in the atmosphere creates visible clouds - aerosols of tiny water droplets and/or ice crystal acretion via hydroscopic nuclei either present in the atmosphere or the aircraft exhaust. Contrails (short for condensation trails) are formed by the same process, either triggered by the pressure drop on the aircraft wing (aerodynamic contrails) and/or the injection of extra water vapour into the atmosphere a principle byproduct of the hydrocarbon fuel combustion process. No other chemical has been shown to have similar properties in the Earth's atmosphere. Although other chemical compounds can be sprayed into the air, they will not linger there for long as a visible cloud; they will quickly dissipate - just as smoke vanishes if a smoke generator is turned off. Geoengineering which is frequently conflated with the chemtrail hoax involves the deployment of very small quantities of novel solid aerosols at 16 miles in altitude. This does not resemble a large opaque white cloud and would not be occurring at the substantially lower altitudes in your videos - coincidentally at the level that commercial air traffic cruises. Until it is demonstrated experimentally, in laboratory conditions, that an alleged chemical compound or mixture can assume the behaviour of water vapour in the atmosphere, the hypothesis of some persistent trails being "chemtrails" can be rejected as lacking scientific basis. "I would suggest you watch this guys videos as they tie into chem spray. Or? Don't, I don't give a fuck, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxyJl0WxqZ0" As ever, the "evidence" of your conspiracy theories is a conspiracy video made by a conspiracy theorist about the conspiracy theory. I would strongly recommend that you balance and challenge your views with true critical examination, objective scepticism and independently verifiable science. Finally, why do you people respond so angrily and abusively when challenged? You elected to visit this page and the fact that you are utterly unable to substantiate your claims perhaps explains your indignance and indicts you and no one else. I was nothing other than civil to you in my response to your claim that this was a matter of opinion.. As much as they want your money, conspiracy theorists snare you with emotional investment hence your views are visceral instead of rational. "I post here to talk past YOU to others who come to read. Thank you for the platform." Which is precisely why this nonsense will always be the preserve of subjective YouTube conspiracy videos and forever remain sequestered on pseudoscientific fringe websites. Not one of the perpetrators of this fraud that you parrot will bring their claimed 'science' from out of this vacuous echochamber that you inhabit and into the genuine objective scrutiny of independent scientific examination. Your posts achieve little more than your own humiliation and are testament to your abject scientific illiteracy and innate gullibility. The only case that you have convincingly made in the three years of exchanges on this thread is that you are a very silly man with a search engine that doesn't know how to use it and that online access should be means tested.
    1
  15. "To believe your point of view you have to believe people are intentionally making up the things they put out in documentaries." As I have attempted to explain to you - this is not "my point of view". What you or I believe is irrelevant. This is not about belief, you are not challenging me - rather ineluctable, demonstrable physical laws and objective science which is incontrovertible and therefore cannot be subverted by subjective conspiracy theory. "That simply is not true." Yes I'm afraid it is. Where would you like me to start? Micheal J Murphy and the ludicrous assertions of the "What in the World..." series? These people are precisely that - liars and charlatans and you have been hoodwinked. What I fail to comprehend is why, when the questionable veracity of their claims are independently verifiable, you choose to put your faith in these people as opposed to known and objective science. So you would believe everything that you watch on the internet? That none of these conspiracy theorists could possibly have an agenda or are in the slightest bit disingenuous and that the videos that they produce are not in the slightest bit misleading, rather, truthful, factual, scientifically accurate and devoid of bias? Why is Dane Wigington telling you that a contrail cannot persist beyond minutes or that modern high bypass turbofan engines are incapable of producing contrails? Why does his list of supposed geoengineering patents include a design for a printer toner cartridge or a garden sprinkler system? Because he knows that you people lack the critical faculty to independently verify his claims. You are his target audience which is the reason such con-men reside construct their empires on the internet and run a mile at the merest suggestion of the scientific method. Once they have your emotional investment they can then target your money. People like Carnicom are nothing more than modern day faith healers.
    1
  16. "You like to talk in circles don't you? The only circuitous logic here is your own. "As I pointed out (and you ignored yet again), you don't know what technology is being used so you cannot comment on the impossibility. " Then you may as well speculate about whatever you wish - holograms, mysterious orbs, portals, cloaked aircraft, pixie dust, pink unicorn feces...oh wait, most of you do. Familiarise yourself with the concept of Russell's Teapot. "You are basing your view point not on laws of physics" Once again this is not about your viewpoint or mine - this is not about opinion. Such known laws of aviation and the atmosphere are immutable and until it can be demonstrated otherwise scientifically then anything else is pure conjecture. As I said, you can speculate about whatever you wish but that is precisely why your nonsense remains the preserve of fringe pseudoscientific websites and internet conspiracy theory. "nice try, trying to sound scientific to dazzle the reader with your BS" Please feel free to highlight any laws of physics that you deem that I have contravened in my posts in addition to highlighting anything that you identify as "BS". In order to do so you will need to summon independently the verifiable science that contradicts this in support of your contention - something that you evidently fail to comprehend. It's called the scientific method - and it's not on your side. Simply branding something on the internet as bullshit because it challenges your preconceptions will not suffice. "you don't know what technology is being used so you cannot comment on the impossibility." If it contravenes established and known physical laws of atmosperic chemistry and aviation then actually yes I can and will continue to do so. Anything else is unsubstantiated fantasised woo dreamed up by uneducated dullards and subscribed to by the grossly scientifically illiterate or extremely suggestible (almost invariably both). "You let me know when you are privy to the delivery systems and we can further discuss this. Until then talking to you is like talking to a wall." You can fantasise about whatever you want but as the one making these ludicrous claims, the burden of proof is entirely incumbent upon you - such is the fundamental principle of a criminal prosecution in a court of law, or the scientific method itself. This is precisely why you are afforded absolutely no credence outside of your conspiracy circles and are doomed to graduate no further than the comments section of YouTube. The only thing that you have convincingly demonstrated is your complete ignorance of meteorological science and aviation together with your continual susceptibility to logical fallacy.
    1
  17. "Your arguments comes down to you being right because you say so." No, as I have attempted to explain to you innumerable times, it is because the science says so not me. "You have nothing to offer here but your own self important opinions." Once again...it is not about your opinion or mine, rather, independently verifiable meteorological science which is demonstrable and speaks for itself. This is incontrovertible and renders your ludicrous conspiracy theory utterly defunct. "I am not impressed with your ability to try and fatigue me with your endless drivel of long winded postings." Once again, please feel free to challenge any of the content of my posts summoning the science that supports your contentions. "lowering your arguments to that of posting lies here shows you for the disingenuous rat you are." You are welcome to expose anything that you regard as being untruthful in my posts - again through invoking independently corroborated fact and acknowledged science. So far you have responded with irrational emotional ad hominem abuse, conjecture and unsubstantiated allegations. "I have of course demonstrated my knowledge of meteorological science" Could you clarify where precisely? Thanks. "I only pointed out that it does not explain what we are seeing" I disagree. Please explain why. "and you choose over and over to ignore the contradictions." Just as you choose to ignore the scientific explanations that myself and others have offered. If you wouldn't mind, would you be willing to briefly summarise what it is that you deem to be "contradictions"? We can then constructively address each point on an individual basis and systematically. That would be greatly appreciated.
    1
  18. "It's comical that in the face of your diatribes I can post a two line entry that puts you back in your place." It appears that the only "two line entry" that you posted in response to me was this naive and bewildering assumption... "To believe your point of view you have to believe people are intentionally making up the things they put out in documentaries. That simply is not true." Far from "putting me in my place" I duly highlighted your fallacious logic. "while you sit here and intentionally lie" I'll say again - please highlight anything that I have posted that you deem to be untruthful. If you insist on questioning the veracity and of my posts and the honesty of myself as an individual, you then need to substantiate that claim. "You are delusional." How richly ironic. Incidentally, earlier I noticed that you said this... "If Chemtrails did not exist we would not see any evidence to point to. NO oddities would exist." Again, what "oddities" - and come to that, "evidence" are you referring to?
    1
  19. Contrails you mean. No, that would be the atmosphere.
    1
  20.  @johnbaker3234  You are seriously suggesting that this footage is capturing chemical spraying?
    1
  21.  @johnbaker3234  That's precisely why I asked for clarification. You appear to be a proponent of the chemtrails conspiracy theory.
    1
  22.  @johnbaker3234  As you well know, your comment was ambiguous. I am simply asking you whether you subscribe to the chemtrail conspiracy theory?
    1
  23. "I don't know if those were chemtrails" Then educate yourself on wake vortices and aerodynamic contrails and dispel your credulity. "but look in the sky bud." As an ex alpine climber since childhood, with a Post Graduate qualification in Applied Meteorology and Climatology and a specialism in Remote Sensing, may I ask precisely what's your point? "If you don't see spraying from planes covering the sky you're either blind or delusional." Actually I see the increased prevalence persistent exhaust contrails propagated by condensed atmospheric water vapour in an ice saturated environment due to the exponential expansion of the commercial aviation sector.
    1
  24. "I personally video tapped (sic) this in Tennessee." Video taped what precisely? "No contrails while sitting still sorry, no these where sprayers. The pilot couldn't turn them off due to malfunction." How did you establish this. Why haven't you uploaded it? "Don't believe it" Funnily enough, no. "go to the U.S. Patent and trademark website and type in weather modification." What does localised weather modification have to do with the chemtrail hoax which alleges that contrails are evidence of a global programme of chemical spraying or your dubious anecdotal recollection of alleged chemtrails in Tennessee? To clarify, do you believe that this video is capturing chemtrails? (the answer to that question may well explain much).
    1
  25. "The plane sitting perfectly still on the runway. It was still spraying whatever is in this mixture." Can you upload this video that you shot? You also claimed this... "The passengers were delayed being able to depart the plane. Oh, and the doctors tested their clothing as well as themselves,.....they found; 1.Aluminum oxide 2.Thorium oxide, just to name a couple. The particles ranged in size from 10 to 100 microns" How did you establish this and where is the official report or evidence? "The patent numbers, sprayer types, all of it, can be found at the U.S. patent office." Patents are proof of nothing, you can find almost whatever you want in the U.S. patent office irrespective of how absurd it may be. There are indeed patents for spraying devices and apparatus for a range of different application. What does this have to do with the flight that you were on, the erroneous claim that contrails are evidence of chemical spraying and why would a commercial airliner be fitted out for the purposes o weather modification? For the second time of asking, do you believe that the footage in this video is also evidence of chemtrails? As I suggested, your response will explain much.
    1
  26. "Because one of the doctors "was" my dad. Believe it or not, I don't care if you do or not." One of the Doctors was your Dad. Ok. And no one, not one person spoke to the press? How did he sample their clothing? What was his prognosis? I'm not interested in anecdotal tales over the internet and no, I don't believe you. Substantiate it, start with the video you claimed to have shot which you oddly, as an advocate of this conspiracy theory cannot produce and have not uploaded. What flight was it, what was the airline and what was the date? - thanks. "You and yours are breathing this crap believe it or not." No we are breathing measurable harmful ground based and airborne industrial pollution which you seem oddly impervious to. "The fool is the one who would not even look into it because he or she just simply doesn't believe it." I have looked into chemtrails and I'm confident that I know infinitely more than you do about where and when these claims began, precisely who the main protagonists are in addition to all of the fallacious supposed "evidence" which has been deceptively circulated by the perpetrators of this hoax. In the absence of empirical data demonstrating cause and effect your nonsensical conspiracy theory is eternally consigned to the echochamber of YouTube comments section, subjective social media and fringe online conspiracy obsessed clickbait confirmation bias. "dare you to study it and then call anyone a lier!!" I qualified in Applied Meteorology and Climatology over a decade and ahalf ago and my current field is remote sensing, which I can assure you is infinitely more useful in understanding and measuring the atmosphere than an evening in front of baseless You Tube conspiracy theory. I have "studied it" as you say and until you are able to prove otherwise, yes, I am indeed calling you a liar. (Note the spelling). For the fourth time, do you believe that this footage in this video is capturing chemtrails?
    1
  27. "I'm gonna ask the questions." As opposed to answering them? How convenient. Merry Christmas, this is for you... https://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1499/94/1499948393552.png "Who do you work for, what is you interest in this subject?" I work for an NGO my field is remote sensing and part time as a lecturer and researcher for a UK University. "what is your interest in this subject?" I have no interest in the pseudoscience that is the chemtrail hoax other than debunking a dangerous, deceptive and damaging fraud together with the online charlatans associated with it. "Now, I'm done talking to absolute idiots" So you are actually renouncing your belief in chemtrails and those associated with it? "I dislike trolls like yourself" As the one that originally visited this page and saying this "Bullshit!!!!!" - conversely, you'll find that you are the one that is trolling this video not me. "AND PEOPLE THAT ALWAYS ASSUME OTHERS ARE LYING." You claimed to have shot footage onboard a stationery commercial aircraft of "chemtrail spraying during which PAX were detained from disembarking whereupon a team of doctors discovered chemical residues upon their clothing of which one of these was your Father. Oddly enough, no I don't believe you and I am asking you at the very least to produce the video. Easy to do - this is after all YouTube. (Incidentally, your caps lock appears to be intermittently malfunctioning). "No wonder this planet is doomed, complete and utter thick headed people like you that assume everything is a lie." Perhaps I should subscribe to unsubstantiated junk online conspiracy theory instead? "More important things to do than, listen to rambling of the uneducated!" As I mentioned, I qualified in Applied Meteorology and Climatology over two and half decades ago and currently work in the field of remote sensing and as a part time academic...will that do? And yourself? Ok, I answered your questions - now once again, here are mine (again)... 1/ This flight that you were on, what was the date, the airline and the flight number? 2/ Do you regard the footage in this video as being evidence of chemtrails?
    1
  28. You mean you read all of that? Yeah, trying to elicit a constructive conversation in this case is rather like pulling teeth, but that's online conspiracy theorists for you. Contrary to your assertion, It's reasonably effortless and not exactly what you'd call taxing to reply.
    1
  29. "Maybe he is feeling guilty about spraying and left it on so people can film it" It's an aerodynamic contrail. Did you not understand the explanation?
    1
  30. ???? Irrespective of your beliefs, this is a video of an aerodynamic contrail. What's your point? What lies? "You left the best part out that chemtrail is INDUSTRIAL COAL ASH WASTE with lots of nasty chems mixed in ." Could you provide hard data to substantiate this claim? In-situ analysis of one of your chemtrails at source will be a great place to start.
    1
  31. "Yes u showed contrails,( frozen ice crystals)." This video depicts aerodynamic contrails - nothing to do with ice crystals. "they take about 30 seconds to dissipate." The time that it takes a contrail to sublimate is entirely dependent upon the prevalent atmospheric conditions. They can disappear in seconds or can remain for hours, expand becoming indistinguishable from regular cloud. Now explain cirrus. "What about chemtrails dont u understand? They take up to dozens of minutes to dissipate." And that is your sole methodology to differentiate between the supposed two. What if you were to discover that a contrail can remain visible for hours? "LOOK UP and see them for yourself. They r spraying them over my town almost daily and I live on Southern Ontario, Canada." No, you are seeing persistent contrails - a phenomena observed and understood throughout the world since the early years of aviation and increasingly since the advent of the jet age. "UTube has lots of great videos on the subject including pictures of the spraying planes equiped to the nines witg spraying chemical tanks" Really? - they didn't by any change look like this did they?... https://cdn.jetphotos.com/full/1/63515_1132994444.jpg http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/8/4/4/1135448.jpg?v=v40 https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/contrailscience.com_skitch_Tour_an_Airbus_A380___seattlepi.com_20120720_165315.jpg https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/737-jpg.8969/ https://yandex.com/images/search?p=1&text=test%20aircraft%20ballast%20barrels&img_url=https%3A%2F%2Fbeta.images.theglobeandmail.com%2F59a%2Fincoming%2Farticle29957281.ece%2FBINARY%2Fw1100%2FGettyImages-2407478.jpg&pos=30&rpt=simage https://yandex.com/images/search?text=weather%20research%20aircraft%20probes%20and%20sensors&img_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dropletmeasurement.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fpictures%2FProducts%2FCCP%2FCCP_Rolls_Royce.png&pos=21&rpt=simage https://3dprint.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/gkn-aerospace-has-successful-first-flight-of-additive-manufactured-optical-ice-detection-probe-1.jpg Now would you like me to explain the actual purpose of these? "Do some research on this please." You are evidently unaware that an evening in front of You Tube and clickbait confirmation bias does not constitute "research".
    1
  32. No one has "admitted" to chemtrails. This is footage of a Cathay Pacific Boeing 747 - 400 producing aerodynamic contrails upon landing in humid conditions at LAX. What's your point?
    1
  33.  @MarshaMarshaMarsh4  That’s ok – I’ll come to you straight away if it’s all the same to you. Firstly, what precisely are you referring to? Bearing in mind that evenings spent in front of You Tube videos, clickbait cherry picked confirmation bias and baseless pseudoscientific conspiracy websites does not constitute “research”. Secondly, could you post one of these supposed “admissions” to chemtrails that you were referring to? Thanks. Thirdly, could you refer me to the in-situ spectrophotometrical analytical studies of a chemtrail at source? There are hundreds of such studies into the microphysical properties of contrails. Given the supposed two decades that this alleged spraying has been in progress and the availability and sophistication of remote sensing/atmospheric monitoring technology, there must be plenty of such analyses at your disposal. Just one will do. I’d also be interested in the optical properties of these “chemtrails” as determined by the application of the Ångström exponent. I’m sure that your “research” has addressed this. Finally, are you actually attempting to maintain that the footage in this video is capturing a “chemtrail”?
    1
  34. Idiot
    1
  35. What does a baseless homemade conspiracy video conflating geoengineering research with contrails and natural meteorological phenomena have to do with the wake vortices in this video?
    1
  36. Coincidental with what? It's LAX. This is an aerodynamic contrail - nothing whatsoever unusual and a common phenomena during approach and landing in conditions of high humidity. https://youtu.be/KlMXOZJzgKo https://youtu.be/hQ6Wy4S3hag
    1
  37.  @morgellonsassimilationtohu8424  ???? What sirens? And so what if there were? It's LAX, Runway 24R filmed from the perimeter road, Westchester Parkway. This is all you are seeing - an aircraft landing, same runway, same high humidity, similar aerodynamic contrails/wake vortex effect, only during the day. https://youtu.be/Fnds4VYislU Seriously, what's wrong with you?
    1
  38.  @morgellonsassimilationtohu8424  Nothing in the way of the paranoid delusions necessary to turn condensed water vapour into a conspiracy theory.
    1
  39. And you have established this precisely how?
    1
  40. On the contrary, in this post truth era of the internet we live in an age of disinformation - you think that online conspiracy theory isn't deliberately deceptive, monetised and agenda ridden? "Maybe you should educate yourself." Well, I qualified in Applied Meteorology and Climatology over two decades ago, worked as a mountain guide on four continents and my specialist field is environmental monitoring and remote sensing and active and ground-based passive remote sensing in the microwave frequency range (10-100 GHz or 3 cm to 3 mm wavelength). I work as a part time lecturer for a major research lead UK university and in consultation for an NGO. Will that do? And yourself? The question remains - how did you "educate yourself?" to determine that chemtrails are "100% real"?
    1
  41. "you really should be able to open your eyes and figure it out for yourself." Atmospehric chemistry? I measure it for a living. What's your point? "however I'm not in the business of debate" How convenient. "nor does your opinion change the facts as I have gathered them for the last decade on the subject." You mean you've spent the best part of a decade consuming junk conspiracy videos on You Tube and being hoodwinked by an online hoax? Opinion? Science is not about opinion. Not interested in that. The fundamentals of the atmosphere are axiomatic and incontrovertible. However, do feel free to falsify the physical laws of aviation and the principles of elementary meteorology. You'll be needing more than a lay You Tube conspiracy video or subjective monetised clickbait confirmation bias. 'but rest assured if you actually look for the truth you will find it." I assure you that I do. The role of science is to falsify and the role of a scientist is to constantly challenge what we think we know. But to do this one needs a genuine critical faculty and to adhere to the scientific method, which I might add has served me well. "God bless." Thank you. Likewise.
    1
  42. "anyone on YouTube who presents anything you might call a conspiracy has lost all income from YouTube so I don't think those sources have anything to gain. " On the contrary, here's the real reason that this nonsense keeps perpetuating... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI8tFmBIPak&feature=share
    1
  43. Patents are proof of nothing. Do you therefore believe that this video is depicting a pilot that forgot "to turn off chemtrails"?
    1
  44. What are you disputing or struggling to comprehend? Do you actually believe that this video has captured chemical spraying?
    1
  45. I assure you that I don't, nor does science or the rational world - I simply asked you a question that's all.
    1
  46. Explain why. So you are actually attempting to suggest that the aerodynamic contrails in the wake of this Cathay Pacific Boeing 747 landing at LAX are evidence of of chemical spraying because the pilot forgot "to turn chemtrails off"???
    1
  47. ??? Vapour is invisible. These are wake vortices formed by pressure differential. Wingtip vortices occur when a wing is generating lift. Air from below the wing is drawn around the wingtip into the region above the wing by the lower pressure above the wing, this then causes a vortex to trail from each wingtip. Water condensing at their core in conditions of high humidity makes them visible and in such ambient air, they can remain for several minutes. You can also observe them coming off the surface of the wing. https://youtu.be/dfY5ZQDzC5s https://youtu.be/ViKYFsN3p24 The same process causes the formation of aerodynamic contrails on a racing car... https://youtu.be/ZlDnd3B1rhs https://youtu.be/2zIAdrPlBTs https://youtu.be/6vZQXQ1pqOE - And, @2:56 and 4:04 - Discovery. The 'on and off' effect that chemtrails conspiracy theorists often refer to observed in the case of commercial aircraft is simply caused by flying through differing atmospheric conditions (temperature, pressure and humidity) at speed. https://youtu.be/Xtfnl_KOuCM?t=174
    1
  48. ??? No, simply wake vortices.
    1
  49. "Bullshit!" You mean you are actually attempting to suggest that this footage of a Cathay Pacific Boeing 747 - 400 landing at LAX is not capturing aerodynamic contrails, rather the pilot forgot to turn off chemtrails?? "There are chemtrail instances on absolutely fogless, dry days." How have you determined the altitudes of these trails and the temperature, pressure and humidity in the surrounding atmospheric conditions? "Chemtrail doesn't disappear so fast! It takes sometimes hours or even a whole day to be not vizible and those on this video disappear very fast." This video is capturing wake vortices in the form of aerodynamic contrails. Exhaust contrails in the regions in which commercial air traffic cruises - the tropopause and lower stratosphere - can last for hours, expand, agglomerate - and become indistinguishable from regular cirrus cloud.
    1
  50. Are you suggesting that the footage in this video is anything other than an aerodynamic contrail?
    1