If You Think These Are Just “Contrails” Think Again – Here’s What They Really Are

a reply to: network dude

Network Dude,

Yes I think it's a good place to get some more knowledge about it.
Thanks

a reply to: waynos

Waynos,

Thank you for explaining!

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Tsurfer,

Even though your reply sounds logical, I can't buy that HAARP was shut down because Government(s) went broke, when we all know money is never a problem in military / technology R&D.

I don't like to provide links to back up my theories because I prefer to use logic and thinking. However since you asked, I have come across to this one right now, which seems to sustain some of my points:

Link: gizadeathstar.com...

Hope this will help to give people some thoughts about any "official statements" from Governments about their programs. When Einstein said that Nothing in the Universe is created or destroyed, but... that's a universal law to me.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Soylent,

Thanks for explaining

a reply to: Imagewerx

Imagewerx,

If you guys get so technical about engines structure and chemical reactions due to weather conditions I can't but take notes and keep reading.

What I am gathering after the several explanations I received is that generating contrails as result of a natural process made the introduction of chemical trails very comfortable, as any plane expert would think that is a normal emission.
So when I see a trail straight and short, or a see a trail which is actually spreading in front of my eyes, covering the sky and lingering up there for a while, I should be led to think that it is a matter of different humidity, altitude, engine model, fuel, etc...right?

Anything coughed out of that pipe, as long as white and invisible, would go unnoticed.

A lousy way to get there, but the bluest and clearest skies I've seen in the U.S. in a long long time were during the days (a week?) that airline flights were grounded after 9/11. That's when I really knew, on an experiential level, that the skies (low earth atmosphere) were in trouble.

originally posted by: LaCommissioneTXP
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Tsurfer,

Even though your reply sounds logical, I can't buy that HAARP was shut down because Government(s) went broke, when we all know money is never a problem in military / technology R&D.

it didn't shut down because the Govt went broke - it shut down because it achieved all it was intended to achieve, and there are now other ways of studying the same thing - eg from here

At a Senate hearing on May 14, Walker said the Air Force has no interest in maintaining the site, and is moving in another direction in ionospheric research.

so they are still going to study the ionosphere - but using something else - which isn't specified in that artice.

I don't like to provide links to back up my theories because I prefer to use logic and thinking.

showing the underlying foundations of your logic and thinking will help people follow it, and/or help them show where it is not correct.

However since you asked, I have come across to this one right now, which seems to sustain some of my points:

Link: gizadeathstar.com...

Hope this will help to give people some thoughts about any "official statements" from Governments about their programs.

that link uses Eastlund's "patents" and Nick Begiches "Angels don't play with this HAARP" as a basis for it's assumptions - both are nonsense -you can find many references to why online.

When Einstein said that Nothing in the Universe is created or destroyed, but... that's a universal law to me

He didn't say that at all - so there's one place where your logic falls down.

originally posted by: LaCommissioneTXP
a reply to: tsurfer2000h
I don't like to provide links to back up my theories because I prefer to use logic and thinking.

Seriously, how can you hope to get anything out of a conversation here on ATS without sourcing information like this? Most people's idea of using "logic and thinking" boils down to a very uneducated guess based on opinions of others.

It has been stated time and time again, in thread after thread, if the chemtrail believers thought something was going on, why hasn't there been a solid testing of the supposed chemtrails?

It is my (much less than humble) opinion that until such real research is done (testing) these chemtrail threads should be banished to the HOAX bin.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Aloysius,

That's the reason why I don't like provide links. If you don't agree on something, you can always state that links, sources, statements, have no value.
So I prefer that you disagree on what I say based on my own thinking, then you are free to do your own research.

Same thing with the Law of Conservation of Energy...if we must argue on who really wrote the Hamlet or Bacon's studies, and argue and counter-argue about historical "facts", we can prolong this endlessly and to no avail.

I think chemtrails are real, they may have positive and negative effects upon us like everything in this world. The fact that they can be confused with exhaustion trails and that we don't fall drop dead to the ground when you see them, does it mean they can't be questioned?

I quote again the Law of Conservation of Energy because we are subject to that law. Shutting down HAARP project means zero. Attempts or Acts to control the weather for military purposes is too big a game to make me believe that Government went broke and end of games.

a reply to: ChaosComplex

Chaos,

I get your point but even if I don't post links, it doesn't mean I don't read

This matter is indeed vast and requires a lot of knowledge in chemistry and aerodynamics, and I am no expert in either ones.
Based on what I read about major Governmental Programs and Corporations' R&D, I am deeply convinced that anything which can influence (read: control) the environment would be a huge advantage for military, political/economical, and business purposes.
HAARP is (or was) the most popular program trying to achieve that result, but of course it's not the only one. The secret programs are secret for a reason, right?

About the trails, I am reading all comments with interest but getting to your opinion, if nobody can test the existence of chem-trails, that doesn't mean it's a hoax.
On the other hand, IF by a continuous emission of substances in the air would cause clouds to gather or dissipate, water to freeze or melt, or radio frequencies (or UV) to alter their course...well ANY government would jump on it and find the money to keep it afloat.
This is my opinon

a reply to: LaCommissioneTXP

HAARP shutting down is not something that is up for interpretation as far as I know. What you might want to think about is what they have now. I am not usually worried about things until I need to worry about them, so I don't care at the moment. But, the usefulness of HAARP is over apparently. And,when it was open, they were giving guided tours. Did you go? If not, why?

As far as worrying about chemtrails, you can, but it's kind of pointless. The trails look and act just like contrails, so if they are something else, how will anyone know? It's like worrying about nuclear war. I sure don't have a button to push, and have no control over those that do. So why not just smile and wave? Sure some folks think you're nuts, but they tend to leave you alone.

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: sn0rch
Areal spraying, for any reason, and contrails are completely different things.

Indeed. But the OP still has a point about weather modification relation to contrails, for contrails cast shadows on the ground and contribute to (albeit a minor) cooling of the surface.

From NASA:

Contrails can spread into cirrus clouds that reduce sunlight during the day, thus causing a cooling effect.

15 years ago that was never the case. All Contrails would quickly dissipate. I don't care what anyone says. NASA is full of CRAP!

originally posted by: LaCommissioneTXP
About the trails, I am reading all comments with interest but getting to your opinion, if nobody will test the existence of chem-trails, that doesn't mean it's a hoax.

I changed the bolded word to better fit my opinion of the situation. The only 'proof' we ever see is lame photos of clouds, maybe the occasional active 'activist' like the crazy lady spraying vinegar in the air from her backyard, but never a real test.

There is a member here on ATS who claims that a "sticky, web-like material" has fallen from the sky onto his/her kids and dog on multiple occasions, and that it has been happening for about 7 years...yet the only 'proof' they have provided is a bunch of pictures of clouds. No pics of the material on the ground, no pics of it on the kids, and no pics of it on the dog. Once on CNN there was a guy with a jar of water, they tested it and found some chemicals...whoa! You mean to tell me that just about anyone can get a sample of material analyzed in a lab?? Mind Blowing Indeed!

I'm not saying that the idea of spraying chemicals in the air for whatever sinister plot is impossible, I'm saying that it is just a bunch of bark and absolutely no bite when it comes to rehashing all the same thoughts.

In the end, I will lean on proof before I lean on anyone connecting a bunch of (possibly unrelated) dots.

originally posted by: Patriotsrevenge

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: sn0rch
Areal spraying, for any reason, and contrails are completely different things.

Indeed. But the OP still has a point about weather modification relation to contrails, for contrails cast shadows on the ground and contribute to (albeit a minor) cooling of the surface.

From NASA:

Contrails can spread into cirrus clouds that reduce sunlight during the day, thus causing a cooling effect.

15 years ago that was never the case. All Contrails would quickly dissipate. I don't care what anyone says. NASA is full of CRAP!

It was the case 15 years ago as I was seeing them with my own eyes back in the 1970s,and my mum and dad were seeing them over the south of England in the early 1940s while the Battle of Britain was taking place over head.

originally posted by: Patriotsrevenge
15 years ago that was never the case. All Contrails would quickly dissipate.

Well what about these pictures which apparently show contrails which clearly defy your statement?

I don't care what anyone says.

originally posted by: LaCommissioneTXP
a reply to: Imagewerx
So when I see a trail straight and short, or a see a trail which is actually spreading in front of my eyes, covering the sky and lingering up there for a while, I should be led to think that it is a matter of different humidity, altitude, engine model, fuel, etc...right?

High humidity and low air temperature are just about all that's needed for visible contrails to form.Their formation is normally triggered by the invisible particles of burnt fuel coming out of the aircrafts engines,these are purely the trigger and do not make up the trail itself which is just water in the form of ice crystals.They are still officially clouds in the eyes of clever people who know about these things who have given them the technical name of 'cirrus aviaticus'.

When the trails spread out,they do this because more water molecules stick to the ice crystals already in the trails in a kind of snowball effect.There is a proper scientific name for this process,but I'm buggered if I can think what it is after my brain is fried from a frantic day at work.

originally posted by: LaCommissioneTXP
a reply to: [post=18730180], I am deeply convinced that anything which can influence (read: control) the environment would be a huge advantage for military, political/economical, and business purposes.
HAARP is (or was) the most popular program trying to achieve that result, but of course it's not the only one. The secret programs are secret for a reason, right?

yeah, these things would be classified top secret.
anyway , chemtrails were heavy above NOLA today, but the temps maintained around 75f. also there was a small chembow in the morning, by noon the chemtrail jets had the sun completely blocked out , the sky like a white VOG.

originally posted by: Patriotsrevenge

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: sn0rch
Areal spraying, for any reason, and contrails are completely different things.

Indeed. But the OP still has a point about weather modification relation to contrails, for contrails cast shadows on the ground and contribute to (albeit a minor) cooling of the surface.

From NASA:

Contrails can spread into cirrus clouds that reduce sunlight during the day, thus causing a cooling effect.

15 years ago that was never the case. All Contrails would quickly dissipate. I don't care what anyone says. NASA is full of CRAP!

I had a science teacher in 8th grade (the late 1970s) who was really really into weather phenomenon. We would occasionally have class outside and discuss the cloud types and other things we saw while out there. I remember distinctly one day someone noticed a persistent contrail that was in the sky that day, and asked why some trails disappear quickly while other spread out and become clouds.

We spent the next class indoors learning why. He had Appleman charts and samples of weather balloon soundings, and we all learned why. I remember that specific lesson because I (as were many 13 or 14 year old boys) was really into aviation and aerospace, so that lesson caught my interest.

But the point is, those persistent contrails really were around back then, and there are photos and reports that they were even back before that. Plus, I remember them.

originally posted by: SmikeS

originally posted by: LaCommissioneTXP
a reply to: [post=18730180], I am deeply convinced that anything which can influence (read: control) the environment would be a huge advantage for military, political/economical, and business purposes.
HAARP is (or was) the most popular program trying to achieve that result, but of course it's not the only one. The secret programs are secret for a reason, right?

yeah, these things would be classified top secret.
anyway , chemtrails were heavy above NOLA today, but the temps maintained around 75f. also there was a small chembow in the morning, by noon the chemtrail jets had the sun completely blocked out , the sky like a white VOG.

It certainly wasn't 75 degrees F at 30,000+ feet altitude. If it was, that would be some sort of record! Global warming would have nothing on that!

Most likely it was -40 degrees F (that's MINUS 40), or even colder, at the altitude that contrails form above NOLA. The reason I say this is because no matter how warm it is on the ground, the temperatures at 30,000 to 35,000 feet (where contrail-producing planes fly) is usually -40 or -60 F.


EDIT TO ADD:

Here are weather balloon soundings today for Slidell, Louisiana. As I suspected, the temperature at about 30,000 feet was colder than -40 C (which coincidentally is also -40 F). In fact at 35,000 feet (about 10,600 meters), which is a common cruising altitude for most jets, it was almost -50 degrees C (-58 F).

weather.uwyo.edu...

a reply to: Patriotsrevenge

15 years ago that was never the case. All Contrails would quickly dissipate. I don't care what anyone says. NASA is full of CRAP!

And what about these...stories about missions in the war way longer than 15 years that discuss contrails and the problems they caused because they didn't just quickly disipate?

www.457thbombgroup.org...

Well here you go not from NASA...

cimss.ssec.wisc.edu...

www.wrh.noaa.gov...

www.faa.gov...

www.pbs.org...

Will those work for you?