It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Zig Zag Contrail (with picture)

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit
Good lord, people. It is a contrail at the border of two different air density/temperature layers, which has waves, like water. Air and water behave similarly, ya know, with respect to fluid dynamics. The peaks of the "waves" contain crosswinds and are dragging the contrail sideways.

NO NO NO!!! Its aliens.

But being more serious (or is it sirius?), two different "density/temperature layers" is plausible, but it all looks just a little too defined to me, like the sharp edges and even spacing of the zigzagy pattern.




posted on May, 9 2014 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Bloomoon

Cool thread. Could be geoengineering.

Microphysical responses to catalysis during a stratocumulus aircraft seeding experiment over the Sanjiangyuan region of China


This study explores the microphysical responses to a cloud seeding operation in the Sanjiangyuan region, China. The cloud seeding was performed using a zigzag flight pattern, while the detection phase was accomplished using a back-and-forth flight pattern through the top of a stratocumulus layer.


...or...it could be a bird.



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: luxordelphi

There are fighters that can't maneuver like that, but a big clunky geoengineering plane is going to?



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 11:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: luxordelphi

There are fighters that can't maneuver like that, but a big clunky geoengineering plane is going to?


Clunky? Forget the guy's name but the one who wanted to use Lear jets or some other executive jet to put tons of sulphur into the stratosphere wasn't talking clunky.



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 11:15 PM
link   
a reply to: luxordelphi

You think that a Lear, designed for cruising from point A to point B can turn like that, when a fighter, designed for high G turning can't do that? Yeah, that makes perfect sense to me. That's probably a 10G+ turn, and you think that this is capable of pulling a turn that tight? You need to study up a little more. All commercial or business aircraft are clunky compared to a fighter. I can think of two aircraft that might pull off turns like that, neither one of which is going to be used for geoengineering.



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 06:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: luxordelphi
Could be geoengineering.


Yep. I'll bet that's exactly what it is. Cleverly hidden as an "outrageously persistent contrail".
You make me smile.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58




That's probably a 10G+ turn, and you think that this is capable of pulling a turn that
tight? You need to study up a little more. All commercial or business aircraft are clunky compared to a fighter.


Some handle more g's than others.

SABER sky writes over downtown Los Angeles to protest mural moratorium

Also we could consider drones which don't have to worry about g's versus flesh & blood.

Did revisit the OP photo in line with your request that I "study up a little more."

Looks like the zig-zag is coming out of stratocumulus (6500 ft.) and getting ready to fly over cirri (20,000 ft.) This, viewed from the ground, would make the turns look a lot tighter and closer together than they are.

edit on 11-5-2014 by luxordelphi because: "how will I be the g that I was"

edit on 11-5-2014 by luxordelphi because: correct spelling stratocumulus



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: luxordelphi

That picture isn't even remotely close to the same. That was written with multiple passes, not tight turns. There is no large aircraft, either manned or unmanned that could do those turns.

UAV's still have to worry about Gs. Just because there is no pilot on board, doesn't suddenly magically make a large airframe capable of pulling massive amounts of Gs. The airframe is going to come apart at high Gs, regardless if there is a pilot on board or not. If it's going to carry enough of anything to stretch across the sky like that, it is going to have to be very large. That means Gs are a problem for it.

Those angles, even if they're slightly more spread out, would still require a very high G turn that no large aircraft is capable of performing. That is still going to be at minimum 5+ Gs. A large aircraft is capable of at best 3Gs, and that is pushing the limits of the airframe, and could result in major damage to the airframe, up to and including it coming apart and crashing.



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 01:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Stuck on large craft? How big (or how small) does a pane have to be to make a chemtrail?

067 Plane gliding on the sky ready for sky writing

How many g's here?

063 A jet plane doing skywriting

And, just in case, the visual difference between skywriting and geoengineering:

Skywriting VS geoengineering



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 01:34 AM
link   
a reply to: luxordelphi

To reach across the sky from horizon to horizon, and to turn like in the OP picture, you have to have both a large aircraft, and one that can pull high G turns. That doesn't exist. Anything that goes from horizon to horizon like so many claim chemtrails do, has to be able to hold a very large volume of material, or it's not going to stretch like that.

Your first video is a stunt plane. The smoke trail is to make it visible, not sky write, or chemtrail. It's a small volume tank that only lasts a few minutes.

Your second video is a stunt plane, which, yet again, has nothing to do with either. If they didn't have something to make them more visible people at the airshow couldn't see them when they went up higher to do some of their stunts. Again, a very small volume tank that lasts a few minutes.



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 06:03 AM
link   
a reply to: luxordelphi




Stuck on large craft? How big (or how small) does a pane have to be to make a chemtrail?

067 Plane gliding on the sky ready for sky writing

How many g's here?

063 A jet plane doing skywriting

And, just in case, the visual difference between skywriting and geoengineering:

Skywriting VS geoengineering


You are trying so hard to make a connection that you fail to realize that the man your replying to has more knowledge concerning aircraft than most of the members on ATS combined.

Now your trying to make a connection with skywriting and chemtrails/geoengineering how amusing.

As network dude told you before...You make me smile with your attempts to make everything aerial into a geoengineering experiment.


Here, learn how skywriting is done before you decide to lump it in with anything related to geoengineering or chemtrails please.

blogs.howstuffworks.com...
edit on 12-5-2014 by tsurfer2000h because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 06:47 AM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

If she is true to form, next you should expect a complaint about the toxicity of the liquid used in skywriting.



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: luxordelphi

As already pointed out neither of your clips show sky writing. How many airshows have you been to? Never rely on the title that a stock footage company give to their clips.

The first clip shows a Sukhoi in the colours of Jurgis Kairys. He is a Lithuanian aerobatic pilot. It is simply an aerobatic display with the use of smoke as a visual aid. Skywriting is completely different. Video of display by Jurgis Kairys.


edit on 12/5/2014 by tommyjo because: additional info added



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: tommyjo

Quick! Get the orgone crystals out, my pineal gland is being chemtarded!



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude




If she is true to form, next you should expect a complaint about the toxicity of the liquid used in skywriting.


I wouldn't expect anything less.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

You don't need tanks, beyond fuel tanks, to make a chemtrail.

You don't need tanks, beyond a small tank of liquid titanium tetrachloride, to smoke or skywrite.

You do need a combustion engine and you do need cold air.

And, visually, there's no difference between skywriting and chemtrailing except one.

Skywriting VS geoengineering

And the one visual difference is: can you guess? Skywriting lasts for, perhaps, 15 minutes, while chemtrails just go on and on like the famous eveready.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: luxordelphi

Oh really. And where exactly are they carrying this miracle chemical then?

And no, exhaust isn't a chemtrail.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: tommyjo

Cool video. This thread was actually about the unusual and seemingly perfect z formation trail shown in the OP. I was merely showing that this sort of formation can be artificially formed.

There is, actually, supposedly, a kind of ultra-perfect storm condition within a specific terrain, that could cause this. I'd just never heard of it in Idaho so I was skeptical. There was a tornado outbreak about a week later so perhaps...



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 07:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: luxordelphi
And the one visual difference is: can you guess? Skywriting lasts for, perhaps, 15 minutes, while chemtrails just go on and on like the famous eveready.


Yea, that's awesome how they skywrite at 30-35000 feet too. Oh wait, they don't.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join