Whatever they are, they are not normal cloud formations

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Newt22
a reply to: network dude

I am actually not claiming one thing or the other. I don't care if it is a chem-trail. Contrails seem to fit the bill just fine.

Why have they becomes so dramatic? Sky milking clouds that eat the blue. Stationary bands as clouds race by.

For some reason 'it' is taking place. It may be shear numbers.

I do not like anything 'terra-forming' and then dismissed in flippant manners.

And, is it not simply easy enough to speculate? However, we are not allowed formulation... other than that which has been agreed on the status quo, the royal we, the imperial science.

Yet, we as people have been 'preached' the truth so many times only to have found them to have been so wrong so many times.

The stock answer.

It's contrails.

Is not good enough for now. They behave, different.

The sheer number of planes in the sky easily answers why there are so many contrails. It's changed so much from when we were all young and laid on the grass looking at clouds. It's something that those who adamantly push the chemtrail theory seem to miss. How could there not be a sky full of trails if the conditions were right?

Of course anything is 'possible', but the stock, standard boring answer seems to fit the narrative quite well. But the good news is, nobody is ignoring it. The effect contrails have on us is being studied.

Is it though? The maths has been shown countless times, proving that no plane in existence can lift anywhere near the required amount of any chemical to do what is claimed. I also submit that its impossible for chemicals to be surrepticiously added to fuel or loaded into tanks on planes without anyone knowing and leaking this to the press in over 20 years.

I know you are not suggesting otherwise of course, but i read "well, of course it IS possible that this is happening, but there is no proof" quite a lot in this sub forum to which i reply...no, it categorically is impossible for large scale spraying on the scale that is suggested by chemmies. Impossible.

a reply to: Newt22

How persistent were they because these ones are LONG ball...Start in A.M., stay, growing whiter and denser. That is some pretty amazing energy from jet-wash.

There is more that makes contrails persist than just jet wash...it takes the atmosphere to be in the right conditions for it to persist.

science-edu.larc.nasa.gov...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.ipcc.ch...

irishweatheronline.wordpress.com...

And that is NOT possible unless the contrail has another chemical in it besides water.

Such as?

I am going to stop now... We know. Contrails. But I'll reply later... just be cool people. ..Like Admire the Distance and Network Dude.

You can reply whenever you want but that doesn't change the fact chemtrails do not exist...and nobody has been able to provide any evidence to show they do, and that is very telling after 20 years of this so called conspiracy.

a reply to: Newt22

Some criss-crossed tic tac toe looking skies. Next it was

And here is how those criss-crossed tic tac looking skies happen.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Newt22
a reply to: network dude

I am actually not claiming one thing or the other. I don't care if it is a chem-trail. Contrails seem to fit the bill just fine.

Why have they becomes so dramatic? Sky milking clouds that eat the blue. Stationary bands as clouds race by.

For some reason 'it' is taking place. It may be shear numbers.

I do not like anything 'terra-forming' and then dismissed in flippant manners.

And, is it not simply easy enough to speculate? However, we are not allowed formulation... other than that which has been agreed on the status quo, the royal we, the imperial science.

Yet, we as people have been 'preached' the truth so many times only to have found them to have been so wrong so many times.

The stock answer.

It's contrails.

Is not good enough for now. They behave, different.

The sheer number of planes in the sky easily answers why there are so many contrails. It's changed so much from when we were all young and laid on the grass looking at clouds. It's something that those who adamantly push the chemtrail theory seem to miss. How could there not be a sky full of trails if the conditions were right?

Of course anything is 'possible', but the stock, standard boring answer seems to fit the narrative quite well. But the good news is, nobody is ignoring it. The effect contrails have on us is being studied.

Is it though? The maths has been shown countless times, proving that no plane in existence can lift anywhere near the required amount of any chemical to do what is claimed. I also submit that its impossible for chemicals to be surrepticiously added to fuel or loaded into tanks on planes without anyone knowing and leaking this to the press in over 20 years.

I know you are not suggesting otherwise of course, but i read "well, of course it IS possible that this is happening, but there is no proof" quite a lot in this sub forum to which i reply...no, it categorically is impossible for large scale spraying on the scale that is suggested by chemmies. Impossible.

This is the problem with being a skeptic though: you have to be open minded and argue from a falsifiable position. Conspiracy theorists get to deal in what they see as absolute facts and close their minds to any possibility that they are wrong

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Newt22
a reply to: network dude

I am actually not claiming one thing or the other. I don't care if it is a chem-trail. Contrails seem to fit the bill just fine.

Why have they becomes so dramatic? Sky milking clouds that eat the blue. Stationary bands as clouds race by.

For some reason 'it' is taking place. It may be shear numbers.

I do not like anything 'terra-forming' and then dismissed in flippant manners.

And, is it not simply easy enough to speculate? However, we are not allowed formulation... other than that which has been agreed on the status quo, the royal we, the imperial science.

Yet, we as people have been 'preached' the truth so many times only to have found them to have been so wrong so many times.

The stock answer.

It's contrails.

Is not good enough for now. They behave, different.

The sheer number of planes in the sky easily answers why there are so many contrails. It's changed so much from when we were all young and laid on the grass looking at clouds. It's something that those who adamantly push the chemtrail theory seem to miss. How could there not be a sky full of trails if the conditions were right?

Of course anything is 'possible', but the stock, standard boring answer seems to fit the narrative quite well. But the good news is, nobody is ignoring it. The effect contrails have on us is being studied.

Is it though? The maths has been shown countless times, proving that no plane in existence can lift anywhere near the required amount of any chemical to do what is claimed. I also submit that its impossible for chemicals to be surrepticiously added to fuel or loaded into tanks on planes without anyone knowing and leaking this to the press in over 20 years.

I know you are not suggesting otherwise of course, but i read "well, of course it IS possible that this is happening, but there is no proof" quite a lot in this sub forum to which i reply...no, it categorically is impossible for large scale spraying on the scale that is suggested by chemmies. Impossible.

This is the problem with being a skeptic though: you have to be open minded and argue from a falsifiable position. Conspiracy theorists get to deal in what they see as absolute facts and close their minds to any possibility that they are wrong

Sure. I mean, i guess i could be wrong in the sense that maybe they have built planes that can lift 100's or 1000's times their own weights. I guess that remotely possible. Also remotely possible that they built these planes and declined to make trillions of dollars by using them to ship freight. And yes, its remotely possible that in 20 years every single person working on this project has kept schtum

Ill take my chnaces by saying all that is impossible and live with the consequences if i turn out to be wrong.



I think my point is that we should be firmer i believe with our statements to chemmies. No, its NOT possible. By saying yes anything is possible, i believe that send out the wrong message (for lack of any other word)

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Newt22
a reply to: network dude

I am actually not claiming one thing or the other. I don't care if it is a chem-trail. Contrails seem to fit the bill just fine.

Why have they becomes so dramatic? Sky milking clouds that eat the blue. Stationary bands as clouds race by.

For some reason 'it' is taking place. It may be shear numbers.

I do not like anything 'terra-forming' and then dismissed in flippant manners.

And, is it not simply easy enough to speculate? However, we are not allowed formulation... other than that which has been agreed on the status quo, the royal we, the imperial science.

Yet, we as people have been 'preached' the truth so many times only to have found them to have been so wrong so many times.

The stock answer.

It's contrails.

Is not good enough for now. They behave, different.

The sheer number of planes in the sky easily answers why there are so many contrails. It's changed so much from when we were all young and laid on the grass looking at clouds. It's something that those who adamantly push the chemtrail theory seem to miss. How could there not be a sky full of trails if the conditions were right?

Of course anything is 'possible', but the stock, standard boring answer seems to fit the narrative quite well. But the good news is, nobody is ignoring it. The effect contrails have on us is being studied.

Is it though? The maths has been shown countless times, proving that no plane in existence can lift anywhere near the required amount of any chemical to do what is claimed. I also submit that its impossible for chemicals to be surrepticiously added to fuel or loaded into tanks on planes without anyone knowing and leaking this to the press in over 20 years.

I know you are not suggesting otherwise of course, but i read "well, of course it IS possible that this is happening, but there is no proof" quite a lot in this sub forum to which i reply...no, it categorically is impossible for large scale spraying on the scale that is suggested by chemmies. Impossible.

This is the problem with being a skeptic though: you have to be open minded and argue from a falsifiable position. Conspiracy theorists get to deal in what they see as absolute facts and close their minds to any possibility that they are wrong

Sure. I mean, i guess i could be wrong in the sense that maybe they have built planes that can lift 100's or 1000's times their own weights. I guess that remotely possible. Also remotely possible that they built these planes and declined to make trillions of dollars by using them to ship freight. And yes, its remotely possible that in 20 years every single person working on this project has kept schtum

Ill take my chnaces by saying all that is impossible and live with the consequences if i turn out to be wrong.

I think my point is that we should be firmer i believe with our statements to chemmies. No, its NOT possible. By saying yes anything is possible, i believe that send out the wrong message (for lack of any other word)

I see exactly where you're coming from but when you're basing your case on facts and honesty you shouldn't really make bold claims that cannot be supported - leave that to the conspiracy theorists.

If you make the claim that it is impossible and then they come back with a (as they invariably do) "ah but what if..." that you have to honestly concede is a possibility - however remote; then you've been caught out making false claims and spreading disinformation.

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Newt22
a reply to: network dude

I am actually not claiming one thing or the other. I don't care if it is a chem-trail. Contrails seem to fit the bill just fine.

Why have they becomes so dramatic? Sky milking clouds that eat the blue. Stationary bands as clouds race by.

For some reason 'it' is taking place. It may be shear numbers.

I do not like anything 'terra-forming' and then dismissed in flippant manners.

And, is it not simply easy enough to speculate? However, we are not allowed formulation... other than that which has been agreed on the status quo, the royal we, the imperial science.

Yet, we as people have been 'preached' the truth so many times only to have found them to have been so wrong so many times.

The stock answer.

It's contrails.

Is not good enough for now. They behave, different.

The sheer number of planes in the sky easily answers why there are so many contrails. It's changed so much from when we were all young and laid on the grass looking at clouds. It's something that those who adamantly push the chemtrail theory seem to miss. How could there not be a sky full of trails if the conditions were right?

Of course anything is 'possible', but the stock, standard boring answer seems to fit the narrative quite well. But the good news is, nobody is ignoring it. The effect contrails have on us is being studied.

Is it though? The maths has been shown countless times, proving that no plane in existence can lift anywhere near the required amount of any chemical to do what is claimed. I also submit that its impossible for chemicals to be surrepticiously added to fuel or loaded into tanks on planes without anyone knowing and leaking this to the press in over 20 years.

I know you are not suggesting otherwise of course, but i read "well, of course it IS possible that this is happening, but there is no proof" quite a lot in this sub forum to which i reply...no, it categorically is impossible for large scale spraying on the scale that is suggested by chemmies. Impossible.

This is the problem with being a skeptic though: you have to be open minded and argue from a falsifiable position. Conspiracy theorists get to deal in what they see as absolute facts and close their minds to any possibility that they are wrong

Sure. I mean, i guess i could be wrong in the sense that maybe they have built planes that can lift 100's or 1000's times their own weights. I guess that remotely possible. Also remotely possible that they built these planes and declined to make trillions of dollars by using them to ship freight. And yes, its remotely possible that in 20 years every single person working on this project has kept schtum

Ill take my chnaces by saying all that is impossible and live with the consequences if i turn out to be wrong.

I think my point is that we should be firmer i believe with our statements to chemmies. No, its NOT possible. By saying yes anything is possible, i believe that send out the wrong message (for lack of any other word)

I see exactly where you're coming from but when you're basing your case on facts and honesty you shouldn't really make bold claims that cannot be supported - leave that to the conspiracy theorists.

If you make the claim that it is impossible and then they come back with a (as they invariably do) "ah but what if..." that you have to honestly concede is a possibility - however remote; then you've been caught out making false claims and spreading disinformation.

But is IS impossible that a plane exists that can carry that amount of chems. Thats the end of the discussion surely?

Im not being stubborn, correct me if i'm wrong and ill gladly accept it. But surely the entire argument ends with that fact?

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Newt22
a reply to: network dude

I am actually not claiming one thing or the other. I don't care if it is a chem-trail. Contrails seem to fit the bill just fine.

Why have they becomes so dramatic? Sky milking clouds that eat the blue. Stationary bands as clouds race by.

For some reason 'it' is taking place. It may be shear numbers.

I do not like anything 'terra-forming' and then dismissed in flippant manners.

And, is it not simply easy enough to speculate? However, we are not allowed formulation... other than that which has been agreed on the status quo, the royal we, the imperial science.

Yet, we as people have been 'preached' the truth so many times only to have found them to have been so wrong so many times.

The stock answer.

It's contrails.

Is not good enough for now. They behave, different.

The sheer number of planes in the sky easily answers why there are so many contrails. It's changed so much from when we were all young and laid on the grass looking at clouds. It's something that those who adamantly push the chemtrail theory seem to miss. How could there not be a sky full of trails if the conditions were right?

Of course anything is 'possible', but the stock, standard boring answer seems to fit the narrative quite well. But the good news is, nobody is ignoring it. The effect contrails have on us is being studied.

Is it though? The maths has been shown countless times, proving that no plane in existence can lift anywhere near the required amount of any chemical to do what is claimed. I also submit that its impossible for chemicals to be surrepticiously added to fuel or loaded into tanks on planes without anyone knowing and leaking this to the press in over 20 years.

I know you are not suggesting otherwise of course, but i read "well, of course it IS possible that this is happening, but there is no proof" quite a lot in this sub forum to which i reply...no, it categorically is impossible for large scale spraying on the scale that is suggested by chemmies. Impossible.

This is the problem with being a skeptic though: you have to be open minded and argue from a falsifiable position. Conspiracy theorists get to deal in what they see as absolute facts and close their minds to any possibility that they are wrong

Sure. I mean, i guess i could be wrong in the sense that maybe they have built planes that can lift 100's or 1000's times their own weights. I guess that remotely possible. Also remotely possible that they built these planes and declined to make trillions of dollars by using them to ship freight. And yes, its remotely possible that in 20 years every single person working on this project has kept schtum

Ill take my chnaces by saying all that is impossible and live with the consequences if i turn out to be wrong.

I think my point is that we should be firmer i believe with our statements to chemmies. No, its NOT possible. By saying yes anything is possible, i believe that send out the wrong message (for lack of any other word)

I see exactly where you're coming from but when you're basing your case on facts and honesty you shouldn't really make bold claims that cannot be supported - leave that to the conspiracy theorists.

If you make the claim that it is impossible and then they come back with a (as they invariably do) "ah but what if..." that you have to honestly concede is a possibility - however remote; then you've been caught out making false claims and spreading disinformation.

But is IS impossible that a plane exists that can carry that amount of chems. Thats the end of the discussion surely?

Im not being stubborn, correct me if i'm wrong and ill gladly accept it. But surely the entire argument ends with that fact?

Oh yeah, as things stand we're not aware of any way a trail composed solely of aluminium/barium/strontium (or whatever is the flavour of the week) that is more than a few miles long could be sprayed from an existing aircraft.

That's the honest answer. I think it needs to be as specific as that

Obviously if you can pin them down on an actual definition of what a chemtrail is then it becomes easier but that's never really going to happen

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Newt22
a reply to: network dude

I am actually not claiming one thing or the other. I don't care if it is a chem-trail. Contrails seem to fit the bill just fine.

Why have they becomes so dramatic? Sky milking clouds that eat the blue. Stationary bands as clouds race by.

For some reason 'it' is taking place. It may be shear numbers.

I do not like anything 'terra-forming' and then dismissed in flippant manners.

And, is it not simply easy enough to speculate? However, we are not allowed formulation... other than that which has been agreed on the status quo, the royal we, the imperial science.

Yet, we as people have been 'preached' the truth so many times only to have found them to have been so wrong so many times.

The stock answer.

It's contrails.

Is not good enough for now. They behave, different.

The sheer number of planes in the sky easily answers why there are so many contrails. It's changed so much from when we were all young and laid on the grass looking at clouds. It's something that those who adamantly push the chemtrail theory seem to miss. How could there not be a sky full of trails if the conditions were right?

Of course anything is 'possible', but the stock, standard boring answer seems to fit the narrative quite well. But the good news is, nobody is ignoring it. The effect contrails have on us is being studied.

Is it though? The maths has been shown countless times, proving that no plane in existence can lift anywhere near the required amount of any chemical to do what is claimed. I also submit that its impossible for chemicals to be surrepticiously added to fuel or loaded into tanks on planes without anyone knowing and leaking this to the press in over 20 years.

I know you are not suggesting otherwise of course, but i read "well, of course it IS possible that this is happening, but there is no proof" quite a lot in this sub forum to which i reply...no, it categorically is impossible for large scale spraying on the scale that is suggested by chemmies. Impossible.

This is the problem with being a skeptic though: you have to be open minded and argue from a falsifiable position. Conspiracy theorists get to deal in what they see as absolute facts and close their minds to any possibility that they are wrong

Sure. I mean, i guess i could be wrong in the sense that maybe they have built planes that can lift 100's or 1000's times their own weights. I guess that remotely possible. Also remotely possible that they built these planes and declined to make trillions of dollars by using them to ship freight. And yes, its remotely possible that in 20 years every single person working on this project has kept schtum

Ill take my chnaces by saying all that is impossible and live with the consequences if i turn out to be wrong.

I think my point is that we should be firmer i believe with our statements to chemmies. No, its NOT possible. By saying yes anything is possible, i believe that send out the wrong message (for lack of any other word)

I see exactly where you're coming from but when you're basing your case on facts and honesty you shouldn't really make bold claims that cannot be supported - leave that to the conspiracy theorists.

If you make the claim that it is impossible and then they come back with a (as they invariably do) "ah but what if..." that you have to honestly concede is a possibility - however remote; then you've been caught out making false claims and spreading disinformation.

But is IS impossible that a plane exists that can carry that amount of chems. Thats the end of the discussion surely?

Im not being stubborn, correct me if i'm wrong and ill gladly accept it. But surely the entire argument ends with that fact?

Oh yeah, as things stand we're not aware of any way a trail composed solely of aluminium/barium/strontium (or whatever is the flavour of the week) that is more than a few miles long could be sprayed from an existing aircraft.

That's the honest answer. I think it needs to be as specific as that

Obviously if you can pin them down on an actual definition of what a chemtrail is then it becomes easier but that's never really going to happen

I understand what you are saying

originally posted by: Newt22

They never had another plane go threw the trail while not leaving it's own... I saw that happen this year and it freaked me out.

Also, I live by a place where flights pretty much route a certain way for that period of time. I know this because I have been here so long, and, know people that know why are flights overhead are the way they are... So we always watch them. It is classified so we always sort of chuckle.

Anyway hope you get that point - my overhead flights are routed. We watch the skies here - I guess it is a little weird.

In 1997 and before... Never cross-hatched patterns. And I am sure a Contrail can cross hatch.

See it shouldn't even take place over my houses air. Because the reason contrails cross-hatch, would not be allowed here.... They fly between Upside down Wedding Cakes here... the higher the further you have to be. Windershins, never crossing. Or you are not allowed in the 'other' air space. Classified.

I have some very specific routes overhead and the consistent contrails, chem what evers don't follow the other 90% of flights.

So why not indicate your general location? Even the nearest large city will do. You claim that you were freaked out by a plane apparently going though a trail and not producing its own. How do you know that the two aircraft were at the same altitude? Was this by just looking up? Surely you can't be serious? Also take into consideration that different engines operate at different temperatures. Low, Medium, and Hi-bypass engines can all make a difference as to when a contrail will form. How do you know that the other aircraft not producing a contrail was not fitted with a different bypass engine type?

You make all these claims in regards to your upper airspace, but is it accurate?

Go to the following website and make sure that the "World Hi" is selected from the tab on the right. Zoom into your region for the upper air routes.

skyvector.com...

Again you make specific claims in regards to criss cross traffic. Why not back them up by indicating the region where you live or take pictures or videos?

Everything is there at your disposal. Such as the following apps.

www.flightradar24.com...

www.flightradar24.com...

The claims you are making are nothing new. These sort of claims are widespread among the chemtrail community. They claim to know the upper air space and flight routes in their region.

For example this guy is Tucson, Arizona. To the west of him there are upper air routes but he sticks to the same old story that there are no upper air routes and that the aircraft simply go back and forth "spraying" all day. He will never attempt to use flight tracking software or to identify the flights that he films.

www.youtube.com...

So why not attempt to back up your claims by documenting what you are seeing in your region?

Some things to take into consideration. In addition to chemtrail believers not really knowing their upper airspace there is also the factor of judging contrail distance.

contrailscience.com...

a reply to: Newt22

To further back up my claims of chemtrailers not understanding their upper air space. See the following videos from a guy in the UK. He is filming from Blackburn, Lancashire in the North West of England and claiming in his video descriptions and audio the following.

I am NOT ON A COMMERCIAL FLIGHT PATH! / And I AM NOT ON A MAJOR FLIGHTPATH!!

In fact he is surrounded by commercial upper air routes and is like many chemtrailers not understanding just how far away those contrails can be seen.

For example approx 8 miles south of him is the CROFT way point. You can use this with the Sky Vector link that I posted in the previous reply to see the true upper air space that he is filming.

www.fallingrain.com...

Type in CROFT into the "Flight Plan" box on the Sky Vector link and click "Go".

skyvector.com...

As I highlighted before this is a deep mindset fostered by numerous chemtrailers on the internet that they truly don't understand the upper air space in their region. They also can't get their heads around distance and just exactly what they are filming. You never see these people even attempt to back up their claims with data from the likes of Flight Radar 24. Even if they do they stumble into the distance comprehension fault and claim that the aircraft are not on Flight Radar 24, etc. It is a common, common theme. For example this guy in Scotland. I instructed him how to use Flight Radar 24 accurately as he was failing to grasp distances in relation to aircraft and contrails. He is now happily documenting and matching up "spraying aircraft" all day long!

www.youtube.com...

So why not back up your claims and let others examine the upper airspace in your region?

a reply to: tommyjo

Thanks for the Vector link... And those Contrails You tubes. I really, really, hate loosing any form of anonymity, I will say I live NW of Minneapolis... Between Anoka, St. Francis and Princeton, but not in any of those towns. I wonder if the test site is even listed... You can not even drive a car there.

a reply to: Newt22

I will say I live NW of Minneapolis... Between Anoka, St. Francis and Princeton, but not in any of those towns.

It doesn't matter as you can see planes fly over much of where you are located...

a reply to: waynos

In this I agree with you... "If it is not a contrail, why is it not a contrail?" - I can not answer that.... I wish I could have taken a picture of the last 2 things I saw.

1st The Plane behind the other not making a line in the sky - happened two fast - I always have a camera about me and I still couldn't get it. I see what the 717 and 707 picture was for... An example that it can happen. Thanks, cause that was bothering me.

2nd. Was the Rainbow Fire (I am well aware it is natural) on the edge of the cloud/line - I couldn't get a picture of it because I was and had to shoot into the Sun... you see rainbows at 22 degress, the Sun was between 60 and 90 degrees to us but still the Rainbow Fire on the edges almost directly in line with me and the Sun while looking up... that shouldn't take place, unless there is more then water in the line. Like Metal Chafe, or maybe a crystalline.

And the soft 3rd) They are LOW... so low, but perspective is skewed unless something can anchor it when looking at the sky so I didn't bring it up. What I saw looks nothing like what the You Tube vids... They were low, or they were huge and I perceived them low. Again, no picture no proof.

Huh, now look who is changing the goal post. Sorry about that :-) But I didn't come into this discussion to verify a chem/con... Just helping INEVERQUIT a bit in that I was pointing out other examples of our motive, and technology(s), that can 'do' what chem-trails do. That Contrail is more then likely, but, it like anything a tool - or tool induced - made by a human can be either good/evil depending on the wielder of such tool - be it whatever. So I must always stay, suspicious. And these lines are weird - as I said. So, to be scrutinized.

Since I try to stay in the realms of 'site' - it is the best testing equipment I have, my eyes - I try to find 'site' ways of deducing what I see.

That is why I question them. Not all of them, not even most of them. And Chemtrail is a Contrail, but what is in them?

It is said just water/small amount of non-combustible particulate.

However, that rainbow in line (and not away) of the Sun is now the last piece to explain... which can be the very thing I mentioned earlier... I live by a test place (non-government but private and deeply classified) ... it could have been a communication enhancing spray. Maybe just the particulates and it was all a freak double occurrence at the same time... or maybe it wasn't and I would like the freedom to question that.



Tommyjo - So what is that TAC on the Vector for? Are those straight lines of enter and exit for in my neck of the woods for if not to keep flights routed? I know they did a different flight process in 2015 - (I wonder if that caused the rash of landing crashes in the 2015 year...) don't have specific dates of phenomenon I witnessed so it doesn't help, but, in another arena it does. Thanks

Anyway, it will be interesting to see what you say as that Vector map is a bit confusing to the layman, but, I believe you can see where I live and how it is highly routed/not routed - allowed certain ways. Upside down Wedding Cakes, Straight lines in/out, steep climbs or non at all.

Does it show evidence I can have cross patterned flights?

originally posted by: Newt22
a reply to: waynos



2nd. Was the Rainbow Fire (I am well aware it is natural) on the edge of the cloud/line - I couldn't get a picture of it because I was and had to shoot into the Sun... you see rainbows at 22 degress, the Sun was between 60 and 90 degrees to us but still the Rainbow Fire on the edges almost directly in line with me and the Sun while looking up... that shouldn't take place, unless there is more then water in the line. Like Metal Chafe, or maybe a crystalline.

Sounds like iridescent clouds

originally posted by: Newt22
2nd. Was the Rainbow Fire (I am well aware it is natural) on the edge of the cloud/line - I couldn't get a picture of it because I was and had to shoot into the Sun... you see rainbows at 22 degress, the Sun was between 60 and 90 degrees to us but still the Rainbow Fire on the edges almost directly in line with me and the Sun while looking up... that shouldn't take place, unless there is more then water in the line. Like Metal Chafe, or maybe a crystalline.

No, it can only happen if there are ice crystals in the contrail (which, of course, is exactly what contrails are, replicating natural cirrus) to refract sunlight

earthsky.org...

www.timeanddate.com...

cimss.ssec.wisc.edu...

See also:

www.atoptics.co.uk...

The point being: if you are seeing atmospheric optics in contrails, it proves they are comprised of ice crystals

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Newt22
a reply to: network dude




Im not being stubborn, correct me if i'm wrong and ill gladly accept it. But surely the entire argument ends with that fact?

Not only would it have to carry the chemicals but would have to carry the fuel to taxi out, take off, climb to 38-39,000 feet and then cruise long enough to spray the stuff. Aircraft have carefully calculated weights. The first is the Empty weight. Let's use the aircraft I'm most familiar with, the Boeing 747-400ER. Each aircraft has its own empty weight, depending on options and manufacturing variances, but a common empty weight for a -400 is 394,000 pounds. Then there is the maximum gross weight, which is the empty weight plus crew, fuel, passengers, baggage, and cargo. On the -400 it is 875,000 pounds. The difference is called the useful load, although sometimes I wonder how useful some of my newbie copilots are. A normal -400 useful load is about 480,000 pounds. The -400(ER) holds 425,000 pounds of fuel, so one would be limited to 55,000 pounds of crew, containers and chemicals. That is not much since pure water without any additives weighs 8 pounds/gallon. It is often said by the chemtrailers that the trail goes from horizon to horizon. Horizon to horizon for an aircraft at 39000 feet is 560 miles. Think about how much paint it would take for one coat on a wall 80 feet high (the minimum width resolvable by the human eye at a distance of 39,000 feet) and 560 miles long. Think about it.

edit on 29-6-2016 by F4guy because: duplicate

a reply to: Newt22

Thanks for providing the info for your region. Yes, you will see criss-cross upper air route and way point traffic south of Princeton and North West of Minneapolis. Anoka to Princeton is approximately 28 miles. Remember what I said about how deceptive it can be when viewing contrails?

contrailscience.com...

See it in practice with the playback on FlightRadar24.

I've set up a FlightRadar24 link with a height filter for 29th June, 2016. Roughly 20,000 feet to the max into the 60,000 feet plus.

Speed up the playback from the controls bottom left. The playback should be available for the next few days.

Times are in Greenwich Mean Time. The playback runs from 1000 GMT.

Flight Radar 24 Playback 29th June, 2016 1000 GMT

You can click on an aircaft and get the flight number. Enter the flight number and flightaware into a search engine and see the route.

For example.

flightaware.com...

Why not try it for yourself and download the following app to track the flights in your region? All you need to do is point a mobile or tablet into the sky.

www.flightradar24.com...

Do you mean the VORTAC for Minneapolis?

wikimapia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

In reference to the "steep climbs". Is this what you are seeing yourself with contrails seemingly rising from the horizon? Apologies if I have misinterpreted your description but this is also a common theme with chemtrail believers. They seem to think that they are filming chemtrail aircraft shooting up into the skies. They make the claim that they must be no passengers or drones to carry out these maneuvers.

The reality is that they are simply being fooled by perspective. The aircraft is flying parallel to the ground but the illusion is that the aircraft is shooting up into the sky.

For example this person in Chicago being fooled by perspective.

a reply to: tommyjo

Thanks for the info, I will be digging into that like Sunday Dinner. The Vector Map is so full of information. The rest I need time to go over. So your saying that the Princeton to MPLS is floating over my way, or I see it here.. I do not quite live in Princeton, I can not see the Planes but I do see the clouds from much higher. So if they are floating on over that makes sense.

By the way the place I referred to TAC is not the place I thought I was a little off orientation. However, the place I think I am is a lot more interesting then 'don't fly here'. I will be trying to plot a flight plan to help learn and see what you see better which I think will be fun because I am a map junkie. Very interesting. Fascinating really.

Ok, so here is a facepalm. My brother used to tease me on the 'smart enough to get dumb' sometimes...

I did not take in to consideration Ice... ahhh Der... Crystals when I sat and looked at that Cloud Fire Rainbow. I thought Air, Water, Sun, Rainbow... Tried to get a shot (image) and BAM.. You ever point a Binoculars in the Sun. Not fun. I am so used to not fighting a Sun taking Rainbows Images I was floored I just got blinded by it. I knew Rainbows were 22 degrees refracted so I thought wth?... Something else must be in there... and ran down that primrose path.

In my last post I (I, me, Ish. mo).. I actually say a Crystalline may induce the phenomenon. And then right on down the road to, um metals.. salts... It is a bit embarrassing.

AndyMayhem... you must have been shaking your head in disbelief when you typed that... "The point being: if you are seeing atmospheric optics in contrails, it proves they are comprised of ice crystals."

When I red that I was "I know..." The I had a 'hold on, wait, what?' moment. Sometimes I miss the forest for the trees in the way.

So I am pretty happy, nice conversation Lady's and Gentlemen of ATS. My visuals have all a very plausible, and with that last one, definable reason. One I can see.

Cool. Thanks.