How does a chemtrailer explain this?

originally posted by: Azureblue


Something of a rather savage thread starter but never-the-less, perhaps it might help if we could agree on a rule of thumb about how to distinguish a chem trail from a contrail.

A contrail, as a rule, tends to be short in length and dissipates as in disappears, rather quickly whereas a chem trail is usually very long, hangs in the sky for a long time, dissipates very slowly, in fact, it never really goes away but flattened out until the sky is covered by a grayish indistinct cloud.

Might this distinction help in the contrail - chem trail argument ??

Actually, the thread is asking for an explanation as to how this picture can exist, and show contrails persisting along with the cirrus, but dissipating in the rest of the sky. This is textbook contrail behavior, and has been noted, analyzed, and understood for almost 100 years.

If these are chemtrails, (because they obviously did persist), then why are they only in the patch of sky that has the cirrus in it?

(hint- I am trying to show that what you think are chemtrails, are actually contrails, as proven by this photo)

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: smurfy
Where is the part about elements changing to other elements or unidentifiables in the exhaust?

Correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I get the impression you're trying to rationalize a lack of ''chemtrail'' juice evidence in exhaust. No?

Far from it, the chemtrail 'juice' is there in abundance, it's just generally underplayed in some quarters for PR reasons.

where is the chemtrail 'juice', and what's it made of?

originally posted by: Azureblue
A contrail, as a rule, tends to be short in length and dissipates as in disappears, rather quickly whereas a chem trail is usually very long, hangs in the sky for a long time, dissipates very slowly, in fact, it never really goes away but flattened out until the sky is covered by a grayish indistinct cloud.

It isn't a "rule".

The persistence and spreading out of a contrail has been a characteristic of contrails since they had first been observed at the beginning of the age of high-altitude flight. So you can't use trail persistence as a guide in distinguishing a contrail from what people call a chemtrail.

Granted -- chemtrail believers make the claim that contrails can't persist and spread out, so THEY may use that as a distinguishing characteristic between what they call a contrails and what they call a chemtrail, but that claim is false, and the distinction is untrue.

a reply to: skelly1178

Yes, "you're picture is correct, so it's contrails. Chemtrails are whatever else I feel like defining as such." People wouldn't hesitate for a minute to call these chemtrails if it weren't spelled out for them that they are not. So, how exactly do YOU spot the difference? Or you do you just look at the sky, point, and arbitrarily make that determination?

a reply to: neveroddoreven99

So, how exactly do YOU spot the difference?

If they tell you they have to kill you.

Or you do you just look at the sky, point, and arbitrarily make that determination?

That is the scientific way for chemtrail believers.

originally posted by: neveroddoreven99
a reply to: skelly1178

Yes, "you're picture is correct, so it's contrails. Chemtrails are whatever else I feel like defining as such." People wouldn't hesitate for a minute to call these chemtrails if it weren't spelled out for them that they are not. So, how exactly do YOU spot the difference? Or you do you just look at the sky, point, and arbitrarily make that determination?

I don't think I've ever seen anything that would qualify as being a chemtrail. That is to say: I've never seen a plane fly at cruise altitude 'spray' anything that shouldn't be there. I've seen thousands of contrails though, which do have the ability to persist.

But then it really helps to know 1 or 2 things about meteorology and aviation. The more you know about those disciplines, the fewer 'chemtrails' one sees. So it comes as no surprise that those who claim to see 'chemtrails' know close to nothing about aviation or meteorology. They do usually know all about Alex Jones, Dane Wigington or Michael Murphy though. And they in turn know that most people know nothing of meteorology and/or aviation, so they can get away with the most ludicrous claims.

It must be wonderful to know that there is this crowd of people who never look up anything for themselves, who believe you unconditionally and who keep pushing the 'donate' button to support the 'great work' you're doing. Al lthey have to do is keep up that serious tone, give you the feeling that you're special (since you're one of the awakened ones who knows the real truth) and that the revalation that no-one can deny is just around the corner, if you just push that donate button a few more times and give the most generous gift you can give!

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: smurfy

No, I mean that they persist when they wouldn't previously. If you watch contrails not persisting for a week, and suddenly they start persisting, then that's a damn good clue that a front is moving in.

Contrails can be persistent without a weather front in the offing, on a clear blue sky day, it all depends on the differential of heat and cold where the plane is flying. As for and impending weather front, that usually signalled by the formation of high cirrus stratus, a faint milkiness spread over the sky, there's no sign of that in the OP's picture, just a bit of wispy Cirrus, a few contrails, and what really looks like a plethora of older persistent contrails.
Like I have said before, I live right under aircraft flightpaths, very few have contrails that sublimate immediately, and most persist...and No, I'm not saying that these are chemtrails, because there is no way of knowing anyway. It's a simple fact that, 'ordinary' contrails can persist end of story, the OP seems to have a problem with that because he thinks there is a need for all 'chemtrailers' to believe a persistent contrail is persistent only because it is really a chemtrail. Things have moved on from that. My interest in contrails was only ever because they have a net warming effect in themselves, and are far from clean, both items also known for some time.

So, the real question is why are those old patents from Hughes, Welsbach, and others, still on the cards for some key players today like David Keith, a contributor to the IPCC on global warming no less, and also has his own company called...wait for it, Carbon Engineering! Keith of course, is also on record as saying the use of aircraft for such a function is one way as he sees it, and he's probably not alone in the IPCC grouping who would contemplate such uses, or at least say so. It's a big question, and the thing is, (as someone once reminded me) Honey bears don't care.

a reply to: smurfy

Read the rest of the post. If you watch and most of them don't persist, then suddenly they're persisting there's a reason for that. I've used them to predict fronts moving in for years. They aren't always associated with fronts but if you go from non persistent to persistent, something changed.

a reply to: smurfy

Keith of course, is also on record as saying the use of aircraft for such a function is one way as he sees it,

That statement is way too vague. What aircraft, how high, and why?

Still waiting on answers to previous questions.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: smurfy
Where is the part about elements changing to other elements or unidentifiables in the exhaust?

Correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I get the impression you're trying to rationalize a lack of ''chemtrail'' juice evidence in exhaust. No?

Far from it, the chemtrail 'juice' is there in abundance, it's just generally underplayed in some quarters for PR reasons.

where is the chemtrail 'juice', and what's it made of?

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: smurfy
Where is the part about elements changing to other elements or unidentifiables in the exhaust?