Doing the Rounds with Chemtrail Hype
This image on the left, from WorldTruth.tv (sic) purports to be an air plane landing and the pilot has forgotten to turn off his chemtrail generator. They disingenuously headline with,
“Busted Pilot Forgets To Turn Off CHEMTRAILS While Landing”
Below the amazing image is a video of another plane, landing during a very misty night, ditching fuel possibly, while emergency vehicles rush to the scene (the sirens are wailing after all).
If you think the plane is chemtrailing while landing you need to check your eyes and ears because that is not my opinion of the video.
There are also several earlier websites listed which all ultimately point to the source of the photo, here, on the right. You can see it all here: Steve Morris’s original photo from 2005
Far from being chemtrail pollution, the Boeing 757 is landing at Gatwick on a typically humid British day. Morris has captured the plane in low sun and emphasised the colours produced in the air from the London vehicle pollution for effect, IMHO.
Morris’s page 2 has some fantastic images, none of which are chemtrail proof, but could of course be used as such – he actually has hundreds of images. A busy, skilled, dawn and dusk photographer.
WorldTruth TV seems more like place to generate visits to further their financial gains from advertising, since the site is plastered with adverts, many, what I’d call very dubious in nature, gambling and big tit adverts for instance. It is typical of the genre, much like the Daily mail’s website.
Doing a Google image search shows hundreds of so-called chemtrail images as some sort of proof. Similarly as a standard page search.
But I’m an old guy now and I’ve seen a lot of sky.
I’m also a scientist with a physics and polictical background. I understand fears and have witnessed government corruption and wheeler-dealing for decades now.
Despite that, I cannot see how chemtrailing is at all cost-effective and no clear reason for doing it has ever been eschewed. It is all, guesswork.
The atmospheric proof is nothing. I’ve seen many, many weird skies ever since I was very young and I have grown up and witnessed a phenomenal growth in:
- air travel,
- motor vehicle usage,
- rain forest destruction,
- changing agricultural methods
…..on a global scale.
All of these influence the atmosphere and its water-particulate balance with water in each of its triple states. See this link on the triple point of water. Both water and carbon dioxide (both highly important greenhouse gases) have unusual triple points and triple states of matter.
The state of the atmosphere can produce very weird effects, especially when combined with the global air corridors that planes must use, many criss-crossing the jet-streams several times. Undoubtedly, high altitude cirrus has increased and would be expected to increase from increased jet travel, along with the natural aerosol injections from volcanoes and forest fires. This cirrus is one of the components that naturally modifies global climate. So stop air travel? Yeah, that’ll happen.
- If you cannot understand triple points then you will of course be taken in by the very atmospheric images obtainable of flying aircraft.
- I you cannot understand that an aircraft flies by the vacuum sucking it into the sky then you will of course be taken in by the very atmospheric images obtainable of flying aircraft.
- If you cannot understand how photographers can use light and technology to take and process images then you will of course be taken in by the very atmospheric images obtainable of flying aircraft. Check out Steve Morris’s photos for more “examples” of chemtrail…. http://www.airteamimages.com/steve-morris_pid1507.html – he has hundreds! LOL.
It’s not my fault that you are allowing yourself to be deceived by the chemtrail theory if you cannot understand the above.
What we need is proof. If you understand aircraft flight, photography and physics, then please supply some proof of chemtrails, the reasons for doing it and how and why any government in collusion with others would do such a thing.
I have not read a single definitive proof.