Long Contrails/Chemtrails? across western sky

I was working outside all day today, Monday last day of January. From west santa Rosa I could see directly west a strange cloud contrail, chemtrail would be my guess across the whole horizon. It was so long that it curved with the earth. Those trails lasted all day and then the clouds in the west came from the trails. Visible from santa rosa, Sebastopol, and west Weird, very delicate and beautiful feathery, like plowed fields, very thin. The clouds either came up to the trails and stopped or came from them. Unfortunately I didn't see which. Can anyone coroborate my story. Anyone have anything to say. Ideas or possibilities.
How might we go about understanding or researching.
Thanks

Yup, I saw those mighty persistent contrails too and a whole slough (sp?) of them perfectly N/S and parallel towards the East. The largest one overhead stopped right about at the continent's Western edge. They were all over in the sky on those murky days last week. A normal contrail does not last for hours until dissipating into whitish mist.
I was hoping someone would bring this up. Now I will sit back and get ready to be ridiculed. However may I remind the naysayers that the scientists themselves admit this is in fact going on. It would be interesting to have a watch going on in Sonoma County so people can see what's up, for themselves. We are talking about right overhead.

I often notice that the skies get heavy with chemtrails when it's getting close to raining...few days before....good way to distribute the chemicals. I just posted several articles on this forum a week ago about chemtrails and weather modification.

History
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...ht=#post128170

Evergreen Aviation, one of the worlds largest private aviation companies admits to weather modification
https://coupmedia.org/arial-spraying...with-usaf-1401

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by alexmargolies:

I was working outside all day today, Monday last day of January. From west santa Rosa I could see directly west a strange cloud contrail, chemtrail would be my guess across the whole horizon. It was so long that it curved with the earth. Those trails lasted all day and then the clouds in the west came from the trails. Visible from santa rosa, Sebastopol, and west Weird, very delicate and beautiful feathery, like plowed fields, very thin. The clouds either came up to the trails and stopped or came from them. Unfortunately I didn't see which. Can anyone coroborate my story. Anyone have anything to say. Ideas or possibilities.
How might we go about understanding or researching.
Thanks

---

Yes, I saw it too. It was really white, shining in the sun, and just went on and on forever! I didn't see it "fan out" at the end because I got home before that happened.

I get some very interesting and controversial newsletters about these and other scary things going on these days. If you want to contact me privately, I'll forward some of them to you... I can't say if any of what they say is true, but it sure is interesting!

Blessings to All That Is!

Rev. Allorrah Be
Circles of Light Ministries
707/799-5565
[email protected]
:heart:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by alexmargolies:

I was working outside all day today, Monday last day of January. From west santa Rosa I could see directly west a strange cloud contrail, chemtrail would be my guess across the whole horizon. It was so long that it curved with the earth. Those trails lasted all day and then the clouds in the west came from the trails. Visible from santa rosa, Sebastopol, and west Weird, very delicate and beautiful feathery, like plowed fields, very thin. The clouds either came up to the trails and stopped or came from them. Unfortunately I didn't see which. Can anyone coroborate my story. Anyone have anything to say. Ideas or possibilities.
How might we go about understanding or researching.
Thanks

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sharingwisdom:

I often notice that the skies get heavy with chemtrails when it's getting close to raining...few days before....good way to distribute the chemicals. I just posted several articles on this forum a week ago about chemtrails and weather modification.

History
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...ht=#post128170

Evergreen Aviation, one of the worlds largest private aviation companies admits to weather modification
https://coupmedia.org/arial-spraying...with-usaf-1401

---

That was a classic example of the leading edge of a warm front coming in from the Pacific Ocean... you may have noticed it was a bit warmer today? That's why.

Ben Livingston is known as the father of weather weapons. He was assigned to Viet Nam in which he successfully carried out his duty and that was to cause tremendous rainfalls to occur. He details how this old technology which has been available for a long time is used by many other countries to control the weather including hurricanes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vT8GGHWSmIY

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by someguy:

Ben Livingston is known as the father of weather weapons. He was assigned to Viet Nam in which he successfully carried out his duty and that was to cause tremendous rainfalls to occur. He details how this old technology which has been available for a long time is used by many other countries to control the weather including hurricanes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vT8GGHWSmIY

---

This "technology" never worked very well, that's why the weather service abandoned it after blowing mega-millions trying to get it to work. It dates from a time before much was known about the dynamics inherent inside large storm systems like hurricanes.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Pterosapiens:

This "technology" never worked very well, that's why the weather service abandoned it after blowing mega-millions trying to get it to work. It dates from a time before much was known about the dynamics inherent inside large storm systems like hurricanes.

---

Hmm.. I guess that is a possibility... But then again Ben Livingston said that he became very confident in his abilities to control the weather. Are you trying to say that chemtrails aren't real, and that weather modification is impossible?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by someguy:

Hmm.. I guess that is a possibility... But then again Ben Livingston said that he became very confident in his abilities to control the weather. Are you trying to say that chemtrails aren't real, and that weather modification is impossible?

---

Weather modification? Personal confidence is no measure of reality, only of one's state of mind. We are just beginning to understand how the planet's atmosphere works let alone how to adjust it in any major way and I attribute much of what I've seen as "evidence" of so called "chemtrails" as exhibiting a profound lack of understanding of basic meteorology on the part of the person presenting.

I sure don't know where this thread is going, but I just want to say I've read they're also blowing the volcanos, but our Space Brothers and Sisters are using off-planet technology to shield us from most of the devastating effects of these nefarious activities.

Of course, they did cause the Haiti earthquake, the Indonesian tsunami and other disasters, flooding in Australia, etc. But WE are the ones we have been waiting for, and it is up to us to envision collectively the reality we prefer, and BRING IT!!

God/Goddess Bless us One and All!

Rev. Allorrah Be :heart:
Manifesting Minister
Circles of Light Ministries

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Pterosapiens:

This "technology" never worked very well, that's why the weather service abandoned it after blowing mega-millions trying to get it to work. It dates from a time before much was known about the dynamics inherent inside large storm systems like hurricanes.

---

Not to say it isn't possible, but I have never yet seen any compelling information or rigorous data that convinces me that "Chemtrails" are anything other than condensation trails. I'm sure that weather manipulation and cloud seeding has and probably does occur in some places, but how does one tell the difference between supposed "Chemtrails" and the normal condensation phenomenon that occurs when hot air from jet engines mix with cold surrounding air under certain atmospheric conditions?

The usual thinking I see goes something like this:

Cloud seeding and weather manipulation has happened + some planes somewhere have been designed so that they can disperse chemicals = proof that those jet trails I just saw is the shadow government controlling the population with mind-controlling chemical dispersants.

Or something like that.

Sorry, I need more. Particularly with the scare claim of high levels of barium and other such detected chemical residue having been discredited. Here's a link to the Wikipedia page on the subject which can give some other sources and views: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrails

However, I must admit that it does seem to explain the popularity of Glenn Beck.

Scott

"popularity of Glenn Beck." GLENN BECK???!! HA!!

What do you think those pilots are doing... taking acid and tripping around in the sky for the fun of it??

Yes, the one we started talking about was one chemtrail that went on for hours, on Monday. But did you look at the sky today?? It was "Ring around the Rosie" and "Whee, this is fun... and we're getting paid for this!!" What can you possibly believe they are doing, and why do you possibly believe they are doing it?

If you really read all the stuff that's been published about the chemtrails (contrails disappear quite fast and don't "spread" and make "feathery patterns in the sky" etc.) you will realize SOMETHING weird is going on there, and Glenn Beck is NOT broadcasting the Truth about it! :hmmm: and the other major media are MUM, too! And so is Washington!

So, that's my rant for the day... how do you like it so far?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Scott McKeown:

However, I must admit that it does seem to explain the popularity of Glenn Beck.

---

I disagree.. many of us have known for quite awhile that things have been working covertly to "adjust" things. https://www.rbs2.com/w2.htm https://coupmedia.org/arial-spraying...with-usaf-1401 Whether your criteria of studying metereology is evidence of truth about chemtrails is subjective. Obviously, you need to study meterology to know the difference between chemtrails from planes that spread to look like clouds, contrails that dissipate from planes, and real clouds. I think studying toxicology would be far better in accessing what is in them. You don't need to know how to grow Lepiota to know that it's a mushroom. You do need to taste it to realize it's poisonous. Or you can study it affects from those who have experienced it. So there are many ways to identify things.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Pterosapiens:

Weather modification? Personal confidence is no measure of reality, only of one's state of mind. We are just beginning to understand how the planet's atmosphere works let alone how to adjust it in any major way and I attribute much of what I've seen as "evidence" of so called "chemtrails" as exhibiting a profound lack of understanding of basic meteorology on the part of the person presenting.

---

So can I ask you nay-sayers what you think is going on when a plane leaves behind a trail from horizon to horizon that slowly dissipates over hours, and other airplanes will fly the same path, while the "chemtrail" is still afloat, and produce a contrail that disappears after a few minutes? Ive seen this with my own eyes in Petaluma while working on a farm. Any thoughts?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by someguy:

So can I ask you nay-sayers what you think is going on when a plane leaves behind a trail from horizon to horizon that slowly dissipates over hours, and other airplanes will fly the same path, while the "chemtrail" is still afloat, and produce a contrail that disappears after a few minutes? Ive seen this with my own eyes in Petaluma while working on a farm. Any thoughts?

---

'same path' ?? from a field miles away you have no way to know the real position or velocity of a high-flying object, certainly no way to reliably compare two sightings separated by any significant time. Plus the air's not a paved roadway with static conditions. The temperature and humidity are in constant flux.
Scott's post above is exactly right. People with too little knowledge extrapolate way too readily from what they do know. A plausible explanation of an observation does little to prove it to be true - but a different plausible explanation does a lot to cast doubt on the first... so by that logic, these chemtrail theories primarily serve to challenge standard meteorological explanations (???) maybe there aren't any naturally occurring skinny clouds...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

'same path' ?? from a field miles away you have no way to know the real position or velocity of a high-flying object, certainly no way to reliably compare two sightings separated by any significant time. Plus the air's not a paved roadway with static conditions. The temperature and humidity are in constant flux.
Scott's post above is exactly right. People with too little knowledge extrapolate way too readily from what they do know. A plausible explanation of an observation does little to prove it to be true - but a different plausible explanation does a lot to cast doubt on the first... so by that logic, these chemtrail theories primarily serve to challenge standard meteorological explanations (???) maybe there aren't any naturally occurring skinny clouds...

---

Yes same path... From south to north. I don't base my knowledge of chemtrails on that sighting alone, but many sources of information. I asked a question, will you be the one to answer it?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by someguy:

Yes same path... From south to north. ... I asked a question, will you be the one to answer it?

---

nope; I don't accept your observation, first off. As I pointed out in my post, the likelihood that someone, otherwise occupied in a field, can spot differences in the trajectories of any two planes is very small, and the atmospheric conditions are even more opaque to you on the ground. So you're asking me to explain something that doesn't happen. What you do see are two planes, moving across the sky at two different times, causing different atmospheric effects. Somehow that doesn't sound particularly surprising, even if you were looking in the same general direction each time.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sharingwisdom:

I disagree.. many of us have known for quite awhile that things have been working covertly to "adjust" things. https://www.rbs2.com/w2.htm https://coupmedia.org/arial-spraying...with-usaf-1401 Whether your criteria of studying metereology is evidence of truth about chemtrails is subjective. Obviously, you need to study meterology to know the difference between chemtrails from planes that spread to look like clouds, contrails that dissipate from planes, and real clouds. I think studying toxicology would be far better in accessing what is in them. You don't need to know how to grow Lepiota to know that it's a mushroom. You do need to taste it to realize it's poisonous. Or you can study it affects from those who have experienced it. So there are many ways to identify things.

---

It has to do with a number of things - altitude, relative humidity, temperature, pressure waves and wind velocity which are all very different in the stratosphere than what we experience down here in the troposphere. They have a really excellent meteorology course at the JC, you should maybe check it out. You seem to me to carry a lot of unnecessary anxiety around this. Education would go a long way toward freeing you of it.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Allorrah Be:

If you really read all the stuff that's been published about the chemtrails

---

There is your key... "all the stuff that has been published". Follow the money, these people are making a very good living keeping you tilting at windmills while they sell their books and receive their speaker's fees at the many conferences that go on over the course of the year. It's a huge business. What you write about contrails above is just ludicrous. Whoever told you that has absolutely NO background in even the most basic meteorology and should be ashamed of themselves.

I find it interesting that in us not agreeing, there seems a necessity for you to fix the situation by diagnosing my state of being to make it seem that I have an emotional unbalanced issue that can be fixed with a good dose of your education in meterology...assumptions that are then written as "facts" as if you're an authority on me and my state of being..."should'ing" me on what to do about it. I wonder what feelings are really coming up for you in having this conversation, whether it really seems like a good way to actually get a person to see your point of view and be excited about new ideas or experiences. Or is there something else going on for you that you would want to attempt to diminish me by your diagnosis and remedy. In a dialogue, I find it best to not project my state of emotion onto someone else. I support you in doing the same.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Pterosapiens:

It has to do with a number of things - altitude, relative humidity, temperature, pressure waves and wind velocity which are all very different in the stratosphere than what we experience down here in the troposphere. They have a really excellent meteorology course at the JC, you should maybe check it out. You seem to me to carry a lot of unnecessary anxiety around this. Education would go a long way toward freeing you of it.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sharingwisdom:

I find it interesting that in us not agreeing, there seems a necessity for you to fix the situation by diagnosing my state of being to make it seem that I have an emotional unbalanced issue that can be fixed with a good dose of your education in meterology...assumptions that are then written as "facts" as if you're an authority on me and my state of being..."should'ing" me on what to do about it. I wonder what feelings are really coming up for you in having this conversation, whether it really seems like a good way to actually get a person to see your point of view and be excited about new ideas or experiences. Or is there something else going on for you that you would want to attempt to diminish me by your diagnosis and remedy. In a dialogue, I find it best to not project my state of emotion onto someone else. I support you in doing the same.

---

Sorry, friend, I meant you no offense.

Wow, I wonder if you would have this same response if you were outside observing the same sky alongside someguy? I can understand discussing the philosophy and physics of these phenomena. I can also understand having differing opinions about something that you both have observed. I get the impression that you have not observed the same thing that someguy is talking about. I wonder if this impression if true? Flight paths around here are pretty consistent. Try it for a couple weeks. It might be interesting!

I have noticed a very significant difference between regular contrails (that dissipate within a minute or two) and these other things that folks are calling chemtrails. I don't know what they are, but they are a whole different critter, so to speak. They've only showed up in recent years and in the last couple years I have seen them linger for an entire day . . . often looking like regular clouds after a few hours. This is just simple observation by someone who happens to like watching the sky.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

nope; I don't accept your observation, first off. As I pointed out in my post, the likelihood that someone, otherwise occupied in a field, can spot differences in the trajectories of any two planes is very small, and the atmospheric conditions are even more opaque to you on the ground. So you're asking me to explain something that doesn't happen. What you do see are two planes, moving across the sky at two different times, causing different atmospheric effects. Somehow that doesn't sound particularly surprising, even if you were looking in the same general direction each time.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Orm Embar:

Wow, I wonder if you would have this same response if you were outside observing the same sky alongside someguy? I can understand discussing the philosophy and physics of these phenomena. I can also understand having differing opinions about something that you both have observed. I get the impression that you have not observed the same thing that someguy is talking about. I wonder if this impression if true? Flight paths around here are pretty consistent. Try it for a couple weeks. It might be interesting!
I don't know what they are, but they are a whole different critter, so to speak. They've only showed up in recent years and in the last couple years I have seen them linger for an entire day . . . often looking like regular clouds after a few hours. This is just simple observation by someone who happens to like watching the sky.

---

"I have noticed a very significant difference between regular contrails (that dissipate within a minute or two) and these other things that folks are calling chemtrails." - Here we go again...

The atmosphere is dynamic, it isn't a static thing that just hangs there. The differences you mention have to do with temperature and the amount of humidity already present in the atmosphere at a given level and in a given area. They have appeared "recently" because up until the advent of commercial jet travel there was very little air traffic in the stratosphere, which is by definition, pretty much weather free under natural circumstances. Unlike the troposphere where we live and where weather happens that can involve winds ascending and descending in response to areas alternately warmed and cooled by the play of sun, cloud shadow and night, in the stratosphere, air movement is horizontal and normally pretty dry and cold... ie little water vapor. When you start to fill that level of the atmosphere with the results of jet engine combustion, CO2, H2O vapor, carbon, etc, you begin over the decades to transform the very constitution of that layer of the Earth's atmosphere. In dry air, a contrail will dissipate rapidly, but should the airplane travel through an area that is already saturated with all the H2O it can hold, that moisture has nowhere to dissipate to and freezes in place and can, on occasion, due to all the additional condensation nuclei provided by the solid byproducts of burning, provide growth medium for cloud formation that can spread far beyond the area of the initial contrail... The people who would have you believe there is something insidious going on are charlatans living well off of the fear and ignorance of the people. This is what happens to a population where early science education is watered down to the point of boredom so that kids can't imagine what relevance this could possibly have to the "real" purpose of education as it has sadly become in this country, to get a job... so they cram for the test and forget it right after. They become easy pickings for people preaching all sorts of nonsense who because the general populace is so lacking in basic science can easily be convinced they are onto something.

The point is having large volumes of water vapor up there IS unnatural and IS a recent thing that will become more and more prevalent with time as another property of the stratosphere is that due to the high horizontal winds that define it - it takes a LONG TIME for anything once up there to settle out. Prior to jets the only natural phenomena that would occasionally push water vapor into the stratosphere were especially severe storm systems and volcanic eruptions... In the case of storms you'd see high cirrus clouds a day or so prior to the arrival of a storm system... or in the case of volcanoes, the dust and high clouds can cause "red days" for a long time after the eruption that cause it to be there. With jets, we are injecting millions of tons of water, CO2, ash into the stratosphere every day and it is building up so that in time, a crystal clear sky may become an extreme rarity rather than the norm it was when I was a kid.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Orm Embar:

Wow, I wonder if you would have this same response if you were outside observing the same sky alongside someguy?...I can also understand having differing opinions about something that you both have observed. I get the impression that you have not observed the same thing that someguy is talking about.....I have noticed a very significant difference between regular contrails (that dissipate within a minute or two) and these other things that folks are calling chemtrails......

---

Think through what you're saying about contrails vs. chemtrails. You've noticed (and someguy noticed) that, when you see planes move across the sky, you can generally fit the atmospheric effects into two categories. You've given names to the two groupings. That's as far as it goes!! Actually, splitting things into exactly two groupings is a human characteristic. There are a lot more than two kinds of visible trails left by moving planes, and there are other phenomena that look similar created without man-made objects involved.
I'm trying to be clear - when someone on the ground looks up into the sky, at a given 'point', you only know two of the three components of its position with any accuracy at all: its azimuth, its angle, but NOT its distance. Or imagine a clear globe around your head - you can tell the latitude and longitude only. And given the lack of landmarks in the sky, if any time has passed between observations you can't accurately claim even those two values were the same. That's the reason I don't accept his statement that he saw two identical planes have two different results.
This whole debate actually is fed by a lack of imagination. As some old guy observed "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy". The atmosphere isn't a fishbowl. Most of what goes on we can't see. Most of what we do see is hard to interpret. It's too limiting to think that the only way to put trails in the sky are (one) the equivalent of the trail left by an old Plymouth or (two) the equivalent of spraying salt on a road. That leaves out the possibilities that the aliens are doing it, or that it's a trick from Coyote, as well as the probability that it's just evidence that these are complex phenomena.

For those of you who really want to know the truth about whether or not chemtrails exist, check this link out here: https://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/d...ol2/v2ch14.pdf

As you can tell from the URL it is a government website. In this report you will find quotes such as these:
"Precipitation enhancement in the form
of cloud seeding has been practiced continuously in several
California river basins since the early 1950s. Most projects
are along the central and southern Sierra Nevada with some
in the coast ranges. The projects use silver iodide as the active
cloud-seeding agent, supplemented by dry ice if aerial seeding
is done. The silver iodide can be applied from ground generators
or from airplanes. Occasionally other agents, such as liquid
propane, have been used. In recent years, some projects have
also been applying hygroscopic materials (substances that
take up water from the air) as supplemental seeding agents."

"Policy statements by both the American Meteorological Society
and the World Meteorological Organization support the
effectiveness of winter orographic cloud seeding projects."

"A National Research Council (NRC) report on
weather modification (Box14-1) has limited material on winter
orographic cloud seeding, such as practiced in California and
other western states. However, the report does seem to concur
that there is considerable evidence that weather modification
does work, possibly up to a 10 percent increase."

And on and on it goes. So you see, whether or not I'm as knowledgeable as you are in meteorology, I can do a simple google search for cloud seeding California and click on the links as provided. Easy as pie.....

Final note: The government is spraying us with chemicals for the profit of PG&E, case closed. No matter how much you think it can't be done, it is being done.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by someguy:

For those of you who really want to know the truth about whether or not chemtrails exist, check this link out here: https://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/d...ol2/v2ch14.pdf

As you can tell from the URL it is a government website. In this report you will find quotes such as these:
"Precipitation enhancement in the form
of cloud seeding has been practiced continuously in several
California river basins since the early 1950s. Most projects
are along the central and southern Sierra Nevada with some
in the coast ranges. The projects use silver iodide as the active
cloud-seeding agent, supplemented by dry ice if aerial seeding
is done. The silver iodide can be applied from ground generators
or from airplanes. Occasionally other agents, such as liquid
propane, have been used. In recent years, some projects have
also been applying hygroscopic materials (substances that
take up water from the air) as supplemental seeding agents."

"Policy statements by both the American Meteorological Society
and the World Meteorological Organization support the
effectiveness of winter orographic cloud seeding projects."

"A National Research Council (NRC) report on
weather modification (Box14-1) has limited material on winter
orographic cloud seeding, such as practiced in California and
other western states. However, the report does seem to concur
that there is considerable evidence that weather modification
does work, possibly up to a 10 percent increase."

And on and on it goes. So you see, whether or not I'm as knowledgeable as you are in meteorology, I can do a simple google search for cloud seeding California and click on the links as provided. Easy as pie.....

Final note: The government is spraying us with chemicals for the profit of PG&E, case closed. No matter how much you think it can't be done, it is being done.

---

Yes, but what you are referring to here and what you were saying before are completely different things. Cloud seeding was done to approaching weather systems, usually while it is still forming out to sea. Silver iodide has been used since the 50s, it is dropped into a building system, the particles act as condensation nuclei, the hoped for result being they might increase the amount of condensation in the system and increase the chances of rain. The percentages of increased rainfall in the data you quote are very optimistic... generally there is little or no effect and cloud seeding has been largely abandoned in most places.

How you imagine weather modification would benefit a utility that generates the lion's share of it's energy from coal fired plants and nuclear plants is very interesting but I'm sure Google will have an answer you can fire back.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Pterosapiens:

Yes, but what you are referring to here and what you were saying before are completely different things. Cloud seeding was done to approaching weather systems, usually while it is still forming out to sea. Silver iodide has been used since the 50s, it is dropped into a building system, the particles act as condensation nuclei, the hoped for result being they might increase the amount of condensation in the system and increase the chances of rain. The percentages of increased rainfall in the data you quote are very optimistic... generally there is little or no effect and cloud seeding has been largely abandoned in most places.

How you imagine weather modification would benefit a utility that generates the lion's share of it's energy from coal fired plants and nuclear plants is very interesting but I'm sure Google will have an answer you can fire back.

---

Not sure how what Ive been talking about and this report are two different things.... And I don't need to do a google search or use my imagination to tell you how PG&E is benefiting, all you need to do is read the link provided and you'll see for yourself. Happy reading!!!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by someguy:

Not sure how what Ive been talking about and this report are two different things.... And I don't need to do a google search or use my imagination to tell you how PG&E is benefiting, all you need to do is read the link provided and you'll see for yourself. Happy reading!!!

---

I read it before and wonder if you did. Cloud seeding is done over established storm systems, in the troposphere by planes like the ones they modify into tankers to fight forest fires, not in clear skies in the stratosphere by airliners as you seem to believe. Interesting that they speculate if the existing hydroelectric facilities are sold that the new owners may not continue seeding, this is because, despite the claims of measurable increases to justify the cost of flying into storms, that in fact, cloud seeding has been shown to be largely ineffective and a waste of time and resources. Good luck to you...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Pterosapiens:

I read it before and wonder if you did. Cloud seeding is done over established storm systems, in the troposphere by planes like the ones they modify into tankers to fight forest fires, not in clear skies in the stratosphere by airliners as you seem to believe. Interesting that they speculate if the existing hydroelectric facilities are sold that the new owners may not continue seeding, this is because, despite the claims of measurable increases to justify the cost of flying into storms, that in fact, cloud seeding has been shown to be largely ineffective and a waste of time and resources. Good luck to you...

---

So now that I've proven that the government is spraying us with chemicals from planes, without any concern of toxicity and health effects, and for the profit of corporations, you have led me to why they are spraying us here where there are no storm systems.

It's Monsanto!!!! As always. They are developing aluminum resistant seeds. Why? Because someone or something is emitting toxic amounts of aluminum into our soil. Now, aluminum is found naturally in soil and always has. Aluminum in small amounts has never prevented us from growing crops before. Now Monsanto is claiming that they need to manufacture aluminum resistant seeds because there actually is way too much aluminum in our soil.

Now I know this is speculation. But it is seemingly the most logical explanation that can be made from the facts that Monsanto is creating these seeds, we haven't had a need for them before, airplanes have been seeding the sky for over 60 years and that our soils are becoming toxic with aluminum. This is my reasoning for believing that we are being sprayed by airplanes on clear days. Unless someone can give me reasonable explanation as to how our soils are being saturated with aluminum in all different types of terrain........

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by someguy:

... why they are spraying us here where there are no storm systems.
It's Monsanto!!!! .......

---

you forgot the :wink:. Cunning tie-in to the GMO thread though.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by someguy:

So now that I've proven that the government is spraying us with chemicals from planes, without any concern of toxicity and health effects, and for the profit of corporations, you have led me to why they are spraying us here where there are no storm systems.

It's Monsanto!!!! As always. They are developing aluminum resistant seeds. Why? Because someone or something is emitting toxic amounts of aluminum into our soil. Now, aluminum is found naturally in soil and always has. Aluminum in small amounts has never prevented us from growing crops before. Now Monsanto is claiming that they need to manufacture aluminum resistant seeds because there actually is way too much aluminum in our soil.

Now I know this is speculation. But it is seemingly the most logical explanation that can be made from the facts that Monsanto is creating these seeds, we haven't had a need for them before, airplanes have been seeding the sky for over 60 years and that our soils are becoming toxic with aluminum. This is my reasoning for believing that we are being sprayed by airplanes on clear days. Unless someone can give me reasonable explanation as to how our soils are being saturated with aluminum in all different types of terrain........

---

Look - The environment is saturated with aluminum because we have been casually USING the stuff in throw away containers for 5 or 6 decades... what do you think all those cans that get tossed absolutely everywhere and never picked up and recycled degrade into? Do you imagine they remain cans forever? Steel cans become rust, aluminum cans become aluminum oxide which is a fine, whitish powder that the winds then take and blow EVERYWHERE. (The same is true for all the radioactive fallout from the atmospheric bomb tests of the '40s, '50s and '60s which you never hear mentioned anymore even though the stuff remains active to this DAY and will for many generations to come. No one ever connects THAT to the spikes in cancer rates and other diseases over the same time period. That might call for some costly reparations to the people.) Stuff doesn't just GO AWAY when you toss it. It breaks down into other forms and persists virtually forever in some form or other. I wouldn't be surprised to find that all this hysteria about planes deliberately spraying aluminum might have been started by the corporations that produce all the toss away aluminum to create a way for them to avoid culpability. But that's another story.
I'm no fan of big agra, Cargill, Monsanto, et al. They have gotten so detached and corrupted by the billions they rake in every year that I think their concern for profits exceeds any care they might have for the people down wind of the pesticides they have farmers spray on their monoculture crops. I feel their efforts to eliminate organically produced foods by paying equally corrupt congress people to change the rules is a great evil that will bite us all on our collective ass. Either us directly or our children or their children.
My self talk is that you have a real need for this deliberate spraying deal to be so that borders on religious fervor and I have little interest in pursuing this further with you. You are welcome to believe as you will, it's not my job, nor is it an interest to engage in such debates. I thought I would attempt to clarify some things about the atmosphere and how it works and now I'm getting drawn into a lot of "Well what about this's"... I have other things I need to do so I wish you well, my friend. Nice conversing with you. I'm done with this thread.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sharingwisdom:

I find it interesting that in us not agreeing, there seems a necessity for you to fix the situation by diagnosing my state of being to make it seem that I have an emotional unbalanced issue that can be fixed with a good dose of your education in meterology...assumptions that are then written as "facts" as if you're an authority on me and my state of being..."should'ing" me on what to do about it. I wonder what feelings are really coming up for you in having this conversation, whether it really seems like a good way to actually get a person to see your point of view and be excited about new ideas or experiences. Or is there something else going on for you that you would want to attempt to diminish me by your diagnosis and remedy. In a dialogue, I find it best to not project my state of emotion onto someone else. I support you in doing the same.

---

You should take chill pill. Ooops..

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Pterosapiens:

Look - The environment is saturated with aluminum because we have been casually USING the stuff in throw away containers for 5 or 6 decades... what do you think all those cans that get tossed absolutely everywhere and never picked up and recycled degrade into? Do you imagine they remain cans forever? Steel cans become rust, aluminum cans become aluminum oxide which is a fine, whitish powder that the winds then take and blow EVERYWHERE. (The same is true for all the radioactive fallout from the atmospheric bomb tests of the '40s, '50s and '60s which you never hear mentioned anymore even though the stuff remains active to this DAY and will for many generations to come. No one ever connects THAT to the spikes in cancer rates and other diseases over the same time period. That might call for some costly reparations to the people.) Stuff doesn't just GO AWAY when you toss it. It breaks down into other forms and persists virtually forever in some form or other. I wouldn't be surprised to find that all this hysteria about planes deliberately spraying aluminum might have been started by the corporations that produce all the toss away aluminum to create a way for them to avoid culpability. But that's another story.
I'm no fan of big agra, Cargill, Monsanto, et al. They have gotten so detached and corrupted by the billions they rake in every year that I think their concern for profits exceeds any care they might have for the people down wind of the pesticides they have farmers spray on their monoculture crops. I feel their efforts to eliminate organically produced foods by paying equally corrupt congress people to change the rules is a great evil that will bite us all on our collective ass. Either us directly or our children or their children.
My self talk is that you have a real need for this deliberate spraying deal to be so that borders on religious fervor and I have little interest in pursuing this further with you. You are welcome to believe as you will, it's not my job, nor is it an interest to engage in such debates. I thought I would attempt to clarify some things about the atmosphere and how it works and now I'm getting drawn into a lot of "Well what about this's"... I have other things I need to do so I wish you well, my friend. Nice conversing with you. I'm done with this thread.

---

Hmm.... Okay. Well for starters I doubt that decomposed aluminum cans are covering a significant part of our country, never mind that aluminum cans take 200 years to biodegrade and they were only invented about 60 years ago.... But maybe my religious fervor is to blame for this logic. Anyhow, I thank you as well for the conversation and bid you a kind farewell.

And on and on it goes. So you see, whether or not I'm as knowledgeable as you are in meteorology, I can do a simple google search for cloud seeding California and click on the links as provided. Easy as pie.....

Final note: The government is spraying us with chemicals for the profit of PG&E, case closed. No matter how much you think it can't be done, it is being done.



Oh yes, and as Frank Zappa once said, "So many rumors have been spread about Studebaker Hawk..... Oh! It's gotta be true!!"

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by jbox:

And on and on it goes. So you see, whether or not I'm as knowledgeable as you are in meteorology, I can do a simple google search for cloud seeding California and click on the links as provided. Easy as pie.....

Final note: The government is spraying us with chemicals for the profit of PG&E, case closed. No matter how much you think it can't be done, it is being done.

Oh yes, and as Frank Zappa once said, "So many rumors have been spread about Studebaker Hawk..... Oh! It's gotta be true!!"

---

I always got to side with Frank.
If you look through this thread, it's the escalation that started to get a rise of of me and a couple of other commentators - the inference that there's a massive secret program going on with lots of noxious chemicals of various types being sprayed for a variety of nefarious goals, and that the evidence is easily visible if only you look upward to see it.
None of us has denied that cloud-seeding might occur, and there seems to be a general consensus that you can't trust the bastards - whichever group of bastards you may choose. Even your post takes a technically correct statement and makes it sound like the black helicopters are acting in service of our corporate overlords. But when the counter-people at the mall spray us with chemicals in service of Macy's profits, it draws less ire - even though I find it way more threatening.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

But when the counter-people at the mall spray us with chemicals in service of Macy's profits, it draws less ire - even though I find it way more threatening.

---

Maybe because you can choose to go into Macy's or not, but you really have no choice but to breathe air and eat food that comes from the ground.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sharingwisdom:

I find it interesting that in us not agreeing, there seems a necessity for you to fix the situation by diagnosing my state of being to make it seem that I have an emotional unbalanced issue that can be fixed with a good dose of your education in meterology...assumptions that are then written as "facts" as if you're an authority on me and my state of being..."should'ing" me on what to do about it. I wonder what feelings are really coming up for you in having this conversation, whether it really seems like a good way to actually get a person to see your point of view and be excited about new ideas or experiences. Or is there something else going on for you that you would want to attempt to diminish me by your diagnosis and remedy. In a dialogue, I find it best to not project my state of emotion onto someone else. I support you in doing the same.

---

Hey, sharingwisdom--

It seems to me like you're really negativizing Pterosapiens' comment. I don't see him as having "diagnosed" you as "emotional(ly) unbalanced", nor implying that he's an "authority on (you) and (your) state of being". I think you inferred stuff that just wasn't implied. Ironically, your response to him seems closer to diagnosing and psyching someone out ("Or is there something else going on for you that you would want to attempt to diminish me" etc. etc.) than does anything he said to you. To me it looks like he simply responded to your quite explicitly manifest anxiety around the "chemtrails" issue--anxiety which is an entirely reasonable response to your beliefs about the issue, whether or not those beliefs happen to be true. From his position of knowing a bit more than you or I about the relevant science, he thinks your beliefs on the subject are mistaken and suggested that you could assuage your anxiety about it by learning the relevant science. Regardless of who is right or wrong about the underlying issue, I saw him as responding to your obvious expressions of anxiety (or "concern", if you prefer) with a reasonable suggestion motivated by caring. I was surprised at your quite negative characterization of his post.

Having been a former "Fragrance Model" at Macy's and other stores, I was trained not to just indiscriminately spray people! I was trained to make eye contact, engage, offer my wrist ("layered" with cologne, body lotion, etc. of the same fragrance) and then ASK if the person would like to try some to see if it smelled the same on them... we would NEVER just spray at someone.

If someone did that to you at Macy's or anywhere, you would certainly want to report it to management, even if you are not sensitive to synthetic fragrances, etc. We are unable to report to management when we are sprayed with anything from the sky, whatever it may be. :hmmm:

If you find more threat from one individual at Macy's than what appears to be numerous giant planes flying around spraying stuff, I suggest you take advantage of some of the excellent therapies offered on WaccoBB to identify, experience and manage your emotions. FEAR in any form is still False Evidence Appearing Real... and there's enough REAL out there to be alert to and concerned about.

I'm not meaning to attack anyone, "I'm just saying..."

Rev. Allorrah Be
Circles of Light Ministries
:heart:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by someguy:

Maybe because you can choose to go into Macy's or not, but you really have no choice but to breathe air and eat food that comes from the ground.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Hey, sharingwisdom--

It seems to me like you're really negativizing Paul's ("Pterosapiens") comment. I don't see him as having "diagnosed" you as "emotional(ly) unbalanced", nor implying that he's an "authority on (you) and (your) state of being". I think you inferred stuff that just wasn't implied. Ironically, your response to him seems closer to diagnosing and psyching someone out ("Or is there something else going on for you that you would want to attempt to diminish me" etc. etc.) than does anything he said to you. To me it looks like he simply responded to your quite explicitly manifest anxiety around the "chemtrails" issue--anxiety which is an entirely reasonable response to your beliefs about the issue, whether or not those beliefs happen to be true. From his position of knowing a bit more than you or I about the relevant science, he thinks your beliefs on the subject are mistaken and suggested that you could assuage your anxiety about it by learning the relevant science. Regardless of who is right or wrong about the underlying issue, I saw him as responding to your obvious expressions of anxiety (or "concern", if you prefer) with a reasonable suggestion motivated by caring. I was surprised at your quite negative characterization of his post.

---

Where are you both reading anxiety from Sharingwisdom's posts? Facts and concerns are completely different than anxiety. I think that you and Paul are projecting your ideas of what a person who is concerned about chemtrails onto her, and seeing anxiety where there is none. You can find out from her yourself, but I know that shes not one to be anxious about this kind of thing, or much of anything in general. And I personally thought her response to Paul was full of tact and was very level-headed. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they need educating, especially from a third rate school such as the JC.....:wink:

Hey Dixon:
For clarification, I didn’t ask Paul how to be fixed since I had no anxiety about the situation. That was an assumption, and to me a “diagnosing” of my emotional state. A concern doesn’t need to have anxiety included. I can be a wondering. Are you in anxiety in writing to me because you have a “concern” around Paul being misinterpreted…to make sure that I really understand what he wrote? If not, then why did you feel you had to reiterate for him or interpret what you felt he said to me? He already apologized several days ago, so he took responsibility. We're fine, and life moves on.

Suggestions are fine to me if they are done in a way that is both inviting and have been invited. Wording and presentation is everything. There is a big difference between telling a person what to do when unsolicited, and inviting them to look at something because it was beneficial or supportive to them. One is very authoratative and feels like another is unable to make their own choices, and the other is welcoming and open.

And your understanding of negative characterization is definitely different than mine. I reflected back to Paul in what he said, looking at the patterns of how he communicated. I know that we are very different in how we see things and relate to others, Dixon, and I can totally agree to disagree with you. And that includes who you see as experts and how you interpret what I said to Paul.
Be well!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Hey, sharingwisdom--

It seems to me like you're really negativizing Paul's ("Pterosapiens") comment. I don't see him as having "diagnosed" you as "emotional(ly) unbalanced", nor implying that he's an "authority on (you) and (your) state of being". I think you inferred stuff that just wasn't implied. Ironically, your response to him seems closer to diagnosing and psyching someone out ("Or is there something else going on for you that you would want to attempt to diminish me" etc. etc.) than does anything he said to you. To me it looks like he simply responded to your quite explicitly manifest anxiety around the "chemtrails" issue--anxiety which is an entirely reasonable response to your beliefs about the issue, whether or not those beliefs happen to be true. From his position of knowing a bit more than you or I about the relevant science, he thinks your beliefs on the subject are mistaken and suggested that you could assuage your anxiety about it by learning the relevant science. Regardless of who is right or wrong about the underlying issue, I saw him as responding to your obvious expressions of anxiety (or "concern", if you prefer) with a reasonable suggestion motivated by caring. I was surprised at your quite negative characterization of his post.

---

Well, as you say below, sharingwisdom, I guess we'll have to "agree to disagree". It seems clear to me that some measure of anxiety was implicit in your earlier post, that there's nothing wrong with that, and that it wasn't an insult to you, nor a "diagnosing" of you to allude to that. I continue to think you interpreted the term "anxiety" in a negative, pathologizing way that was not intended by Pterosapiens, and inferred meanings that were not really implied in what he said, then gave him an unpleasant response based on your misperceptions of his meanings/intentions. I think he was being too nice by apologizing to you, because he did you no wrong, and I came to his defense because I don't like to see people catch a ration of shit when they've done nothing to deserve it.

That about sums it up from my end. Blessings on you.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sharingwisdom:

Hey Dixon:
For clarification, I didn’t ask Paul how to be fixed since I had no anxiety about the situation. That was an assumption, and to me a “diagnosing” of my emotional state. A concern doesn’t need to have anxiety included. I can be a wondering. Are you in anxiety in writing to me because you have a “concern” around Paul being misinterpreted…to make sure that I really understand what he wrote? If not, then why did you feel you had to reiterate for him or interpret what you felt he said to me? He already apologized several days ago, so he took responsibility. We're fine, and life moves on.

Suggestions are fine to me if they are done in a way that is both inviting and have been invited. Wording and presentation is everything. There is a big difference between telling a person what to do when unsolicited, and inviting them to look at something because it was beneficial or supportive to them. One is very authoratative and feels like another is unable to make their own choices, and the other is welcoming and open.

And your understanding of negative characterization is definitely different than mine. I reflected back to Paul in what he said, looking at the patterns of how he communicated. I know that we are very different in how we see things and relate to others, Dixon, and I can totally agree to disagree with you. And that includes who you see as experts and how you interpret what I said to Paul.
Be well!

---

It appears, from your repeated comments, that you assume, through your thinking, what other people's motives are and what you think they feel [It seems clear to me that some measure of anxiety was implicit in your earlier post, there's nothing wrong with that, and that it wasn't an insult to you], but you don't really know. Your "clarity" is just an opinion based on a perception of someone you don't know at all.

I wonder what makes you think that Paul isn't capable of handling his own affairs? He’s a grown man. Did you ask him if he needed support to clarify his position?

And I wonder, just wonder, if there might be some anxiety for you. [“I don't like to see people catch a ration of shit when they've done nothing to deserve it.”] I wonder if this statement doesn’t say more about what is happening for you than protection for Paul.

What I notice in the pattern of your writing is that you again wrote about what you thought I was feeling, but this time attempting to make it ok for me to admit something that wasn't true for me. Do you think that if you tell me enough times that I had anxiety when I wrote Paul, that it becomes true for me?

I am definitely not in denial of my feelings. In fact, I work with them on a daily basis, checking within myself, examining my patterns, thoughts and beliefs, and creating lots of space to grow and be. Does it not make sense that when I wrote “There is a big difference between telling a person what to do when unsolicited, and inviting them to look at something because it was beneficial or supportive to them. One is very authoritative and feels like another is unable to make their own choices, and the other is welcoming and open,” there was an opening to change the pattern of communication?

There are wonderful books on how to communicate in healthy ways that invite people to participate in conversations w/o telling them what things are for them, w/o assumptions, in reflective listening, w/o blaming, allowing them to come to their own conclusions, that are invitational. Marshall Rosenberg PhD. is a world peace leader and has many educational, practical and inspirational books along this line. I took 8 years of parenting courses when my children were growing up so I could communicate in ways different than how I was raised. The 3 R's of parenting a child is being Respectful (allowing choices), consequences that are Related, & Responsibility for our actions through self reflection in how we make our choices. Not many of us learned in this way, and many continue the old dysfunction patterns today.

I welcome communication that exhibits the 3 R's and hope that this group is open to this. We all want peace in the world, but we cannot have it unless it starts with us first, in how we communicate so others can hear us and we can be heard. We are here to make the changes.

I appreciate this forum. Blessed be.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Well, as you say below, sharingwisdom, I guess we'll have to "agree to disagree". It seems clear to me that some measure of anxiety was implicit in your earlier post, that there's nothing wrong with that, and that it wasn't an insult to you, nor a "diagnosing" of you to allude to that. I continue to think you interpreted the term "anxiety" in a negative, pathologizing way that was not intended by Pterosapiens, and inferred meanings that were not really implied in what he said, then gave him an unpleasant response based on your misperceptions of his meanings/intentions. I think he was being too nice by apologizing to you, because he did you no wrong, and I came to his defense because I don't like to see people catch a ration of shit when they've done nothing to deserve it.

That about sums it up from my end. Blessings on you.

---

Finally, after all this accusatory and off-topic chatter, something worth reading! I nearly unsubscribed from this thread some time ago, but hung in there... and I'm glad sharingwisdom finally shared some! I hope others are "getting it!"

Rev. Allorrah Be
Circles of Light Ministries
:waccosun: