A real chemtrail discussion

originally posted by: FightingBuddha
a reply to: payt69

Sections 3.1 through 3.2 of that paper refer to their own personal use of the research craft to not only measue and analyze the trails, but to form them(explained in greater detail in 4.1). As I replied before, it is not a reasonable assumption that all contrails are as represented in the studies, and in particular the study you posted.

Of course you can't sample every single contrail. However we CAN conclude from studies like these that the behaviour of the trails corresponds with contrail behaviour.

If you think that there's still something added to those trails, then we need evidence for that something, and as far as I'm aware, there isn't any. If you think there is, then please feel free to provide it.

Unfortunately, as I do not own a plane, or spectrometer or hygrometer or lidar, I won't be able to analyze persistent contrails anytime soon. But from personal observations of patterned persistent contrails over roughly the same area of land, at roughly the same time, (central Florida, USA, in between 5 and 7 am, I'll happily provide pictures at the next occurance) I can infer that SOME form of intentional contrail formation is occuring.

What do you find strange about patterns? You are aware that there are some 100.000 flights a day flying all over the world, and that those flights are regulated in air routes? I'd be surprised if there wouldn't be patterns showing up, frankly.

Also, it seems thay your steadfast resolve to mantain your question of "can contrails persist, and why or why not?" has somewhat deteriorated to you questioning whether or not I (or others) have proof of pervasive chemicals being present in such conditions. I might suggest posting another thread so as not to detract from the main point of this one, less it get to convoluted.

Well I tried but not a single chemtrail believer seems willing/capable of answering the question. Instead they think I'm baiting them by asking the most fundamental question.

But of course YOU are free to answer it any time you see fit. Even if you do believe that contrails can and do persist, it's interesting to see why you think so

originally posted by: alienscot1
a reply to: waynos

I have piloted small aircraft and was a member of the Air Force in my younger days, yes I do know what happens at airports. I also know what can happen surreptitiously if you think it couldn't happen, believe me you are mistaken. I am not saying that it has, I have no need to know as it were.

I know that weather and solar radiation was trying to be controlled and various methods were being tried and tested.

So all you're saying is that something COULD be happening, but that essentially you have no evidence?

Yu seem to acknowledge that contrails can and do persist given the right condtions, right? That was the main question of this topic.

So the next question is: can Aviation in combination with weather patters explain the trails we see in the sky, and if not, why not?

originally posted by: payt69

originally posted by: FightingBuddha
a reply to: payt69

Sections 3.1 through 3.2 of that paper refer to their own personal use of the research craft to not only measue and analyze the trails, but to form them(explained in greater detail in 4.1). As I replied before, it is not a reasonable assumption that all contrails are as represented in the studies, and in particular the study you posted.

Of course you can't sample every single contrail. However we CAN conclude from studies like these that the behaviour of the trails corresponds with contrail behaviour.

If you think that there's still something added to those trails, then we need evidence for that something, and as far as I'm aware, there isn't any. If you think there is, then please feel free to provide it.

Unfortunately, as I do not own a plane, or spectrometer or hygrometer or lidar, I won't be able to analyze persistent contrails anytime soon. But from personal observations of patterned persistent contrails over roughly the same area of land, at roughly the same time, (central Florida, USA, in between 5 and 7 am, I'll happily provide pictures at the next occurance) I can infer that SOME form of intentional contrail formation is occuring.

What do you find strange about patterns? You are aware that there are some 100.000 flights a day flying all over the world, and that those flights are regulated in air routes? I'd be surprised if there wouldn't be patterns showing up, frankly.

Also, it seems thay your steadfast resolve to mantain your question of "can contrails persist, and why or why not?" has somewhat deteriorated to you questioning whether or not I (or others) have proof of pervasive chemicals being present in such conditions. I might suggest posting another thread so as not to detract from the main point of this one, less it get to convoluted.

Well I tried but not a single chemtrail believer seems willing/capable of answering the question. Instead they think I'm baiting them by asking the most fundamental question.

But of course YOU are free to answer it any time you see fit. Even if you do believe that contrails can and do persist, it's interesting to see why you think so

Yeah six pages and we've had:

Some vague waffle about vapours and gaseous state
Thinking conditions on the ground are the same as those higher than the top of Everest

and

A pilot who thinks ice will warm up at -30C


And believers wonder why they have a hard time convincing others

a reply to: alienscot1

Surreptitiously suggests few involved and maybe once or twice. That doesn't apply to a global operation spanning three decades. That was my point.

a reply to: payt69

This is correct, a plane flying in clear, cold, humid air will make a contrail. It forms upon condensation of the water vapour produced by the combustion of fuel in the airplane engines. When the ambient relative humidity is high, the resulting ice-crystal plume may last for several hours. The trail may be distorted by the winds, and sometimes it spreads outwards to form a layer of cirrus cloud.

The size of jet engines influences the size of the contrail (producing bigger contrails), engine technology (burning fuel more efficiently in high bypass jet engines creates cooler exhaust which is more likely to condense before it mixes with the surrounding air) and the amount of air traffic (producing more contrails). Spreading contrails have been mentioned consistently through the history of aviation.

Often, when persistent contrails exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet.

So, aviation can in combination produce the trails we see in the sky. However this may not be the only explanation.
I have to go to Drs now ( got shingles) will be back on later if this is not the info you need.

a reply to: alienscot1

you posted the exact information regarding contrails. Knowing all that is true, the only thing left for "chemtrails" is the fantasy part. You surely can't just look at a trail and say it's anything other than a contrail. And the chemtrail theory is based on the misconception that contrails can't persist, which they can and do, so there really is nothing left of the theory.

a reply to: network dude

So, is what we're being told now about chemtrail theory "yes, the guys who invented this theory did so by getting contrails completely and utterly wrong, but they might still be right"

If that's the case, there simply is no argument when faced with a complete absence of logic. It's like "no officer, the man I reported murdered has just walked in, he'd been to the shop, but there might still be a murderer in the house"

a reply to: waynos

Exactly. I mean, sure it's possible that someone will start an SRM program without public knowledge, but then, from what we have all learned, it would be really hard to tell, since it wouldn't look like white lines in the sky or any other noticeable visible thing. I wish we could move past the lunacy of "just look up" and start having real conversations about geo-engineering, what it entails and what it might look like, but as you have seen, when a thread like that is started, ....crickets. It's like you have to dumb down the conversation to chemtrail levels.

Oh well, just look up man.

originally posted by: Abinkadoo
a reply to: mrthumpy

I did Google them. But where's the factual data than can definitely deny the claims that they exist? Comparing a cloud to something that's just unknown speculation, you can't really do in my eyes.

Trust me, I don't want to believe in this situation at all. Knowing how much is hidden from public eye, what would cause a person to not have a doubt?

What I'd really like to know is when the trails first popped up compared to when cirrus clouds were discovered. I don't really recall seeing these pre-2000. Now the sky is littered.

the first known pics of persistent contrails is WW2 1943

just google "World War II contrail picture"

a reply to: payt69

I've got to hand it to you, you are very logical and seem to have all your ducks in a row.

As for the first part of your response, I concede that most likely in my lifetime I will not be able to provide evidence of anything being up there that isn't supposed to be. But, my theorizing is hinged on eccentric flight patterns that you question in the second part of your reply.

I live in a special part of Florida, right on the coast, dead center. Think Cape Canaveral. Persistent contrails are formed in relatively percise conditions, as pointed out in the study you cited. My main issue is that, where I am located in Florida, I see series of parallel contrails that originate from the interior of the state and terminate mysteriously off shore. You would imagine that if the conditions for these contrails to be formed have been met, they would not suddenly terminate, in series, over the ocean. My other issue is placements of airports relative to the patterns I observe. There is OIA. Then two in Texas that could possibly contribute to what I observe. Then two in Mexico, possibly three that are latitudaly correlated to the patterns I ovserve. These patterns include a series of at least 6 parallel contrails persisting in relatively the same form (state of contrail deterioration based on conditions and/or wond shear) for roughly the same amount of time headed due East, from the West. To me that entails 6 airplanes launching from at least 4 airports to synchronously join and fly through roughly the same altitude for approximate amounts of times at parallel headings. That's considering they are all the type of planes that actually form those trails at those altitudes, as it has been demonstrated that new Airbuses are able to form them, while older 707's - 757's do not, as an example.

Shoot maybe I am crazy amd just see patterns, but I find it hard to believe that all thise things can fall into place to produce what I see.

I promise I will personally PM you an image next time this occurs, so you can judge for yourself whether or not to believe my observations instead relying solely on my standpoint.

As for the do they and how question, it's textbook and I am not one to argue with science.

And OP,

a reply to: FightingBuddha
Where I live we get some flights passing over which are either starting their descent to Glasgow or Edinburgh or finishing their climb away from those airports.
On a few occasions I have seen several short strips of trails all seeming to start and stop at roughly the same place. This is because the flights are passing through a humid layers on their climb/descent and creating trails as they do. Try using flightradar24 or planefinder to track flights in your area and see if this could be the cause in your case

For example; this flight leaving Orlando crossed the coast at 18000ft and continued climbing to 33000ft

a reply to: mrthumpy

Found an old photo of mine showing what I mean

If I was deploying chemicals, I would want the chemicals to disperse as quick as possible. Not persist in a trail. Get those chemicals working.

Wouldn't you want a finer spray and wider pattern to get better chemical action and hide the trail / evidence? Unless it was cloud seeding, then wouldn't clouds grow from the trails?


Wondered about skywriting. Just burnt oil from the exhaust manifold. There is also skytyping for longer lasting letters which takes place above 10,000 feet.

originally posted by: FightingBuddha
a reply to: payt69

I've got to hand it to you, you are very logical and seem to have all your ducks in a row.

As for the first part of your response, I concede that most likely in my lifetime I will not be able to provide evidence of anything being up there that isn't supposed to be. But, my theorizing is hinged on eccentric flight patterns that you question in the second part of your reply.

I live in a special part of Florida, right on the coast, dead center. Think Cape Canaveral. Persistent contrails are formed in relatively percise conditions, as pointed out in the study you cited. My main issue is that, where I am located in Florida, I see series of parallel contrails that originate from the interior of the state and terminate mysteriously off shore. You would imagine that if the conditions for these contrails to be formed have been met, they would not suddenly terminate, in series, over the ocean.

Sorry for the late response.. I've been a bit sick lately, but feeling better now

As for contrails terminating: That depends on the conditions up there at cruise level. If there's an area supporting contrails bordering on another area that doesn't support them, you're going to see contrails being terminated. If jets flying parallel to eachother enter such an area, you're going to see their trails terminated as they enter the no-trails area.

You can have a look at this rather handy map to see what's going on in your area:

earth.nullschool.net.../wind/isobaric/250hPa/overlay=relative_humidity/orthographic=-79.93,30.48,3000

Set the heigth to 250 hPa and set the overay it to RH to see relative humidity at cruise level (about 30.000 ft). The blue patches are areas where contrails are more likely to persist.

My other issue is placements of airports relative to the patterns I observe. There is OIA. Then two in Texas that could possibly contribute to what I observe. Then two in Mexico, possibly three that are latitudaly correlated to the patterns I ovserve. These patterns include a series of at least 6 parallel contrails persisting in relatively the same form (state of contrail deterioration based on conditions and/or wond shear) for roughly the same amount of time headed due East, from the West. To me that entails 6 airplanes launching from at least 4 airports to synchronously join and fly through roughly the same altitude for approximate amounts of times at parallel headings. That's considering they are all the type of planes that actually form those trails at those altitudes, as it has been demonstrated that new Airbuses are able to form them, while older 707's - 757's do not, as an example.

The planes you see don't have to originate from nearby airports though. In fact most of them are overflights over florida, and have nothing to do with any of the airports nearby or even in Florida.

But of course you can chaeck that for yourself too. There's flightradar24 for (for smartphonestoo, so you can take it with you outside) which can help you identify planes you see flying overhead, as well as their origin and destination, and the route they follow,m altitude, speed, type of jet, etc.

www.flightradar24.com...

Shoot maybe I am crazy amd just see patterns, but I find it hard to believe that all thise things can fall into place to produce what I see.

I promise I will personally PM you an image next time this occurs, so you can judge for yourself whether or not to believe my observations instead relying solely on my standpoint.

As for the do they and how question, it's textbook and I am not one to argue with science.

And OP,

Well feel free to post the pictures here for everyone to see

Thanks for the reply, hopefully we can all learn something

How could a jetliner hold any chemical in volume to amount to having any effect on anything? Or carry any amount of chemical not in the fuel tanks?

Let's put it this way. A 747 holds 60,000 gallons. If the fuel was 20 percent chemical, that's about 12,000 gallons. At take off, about 80,000 pounds extra dead wieght in water down fuel.

Give the benefit of doubt. Say the range is 7000 miles. Bottom line, the yield equals about 2 gallon deployed per mile. A 3000 mile trip is going to deploy 6000 gallons. To put it in perspective, farmers use 100 to 50 gallons of roundup per 100 acres.

Or about 0.0003787879 Gallon per foot.

a reply to: neutronflux

To look at the same argument another way. Using the same methods used for calculating how much a cloud weighs, calculate the weight of a contrail 100ft wide and 100 miles long (both conservative figures) and compare that with the capacity of any aircraft you like. It's a fun game, but chemmies don't like to play it.

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: neutronflux

To look at the same argument another way. Using the same methods used for calculating how much a cloud weighs, calculate the weight of a contrail 100ft wide and 100 miles long (both conservative figures) and compare that with the capacity of any aircraft you like. It's a fun game, but chemmies don't like to play it.

I am talking in terms of chemical concentration, or lack of, that would invoke a desired result in a three demential space. Then throw in wind conditions and jet routes to consistently deploy chemicals to get a desired result in a desired area. Two gallons per mile is not going to do much. Then the loss of performance and added maintenance to the airline companies running diluted fuel. In addition to any chemical that can maintain its properties after being ran through a jet engine.

a reply to: neutronflux

Yes, I know. Sorry if you thought I was disagreeing with you. I was just pointing out that whichever way you approach the proposition mathematically, it just doesn't fit and the idea that planes are carrying and spraying chemtrails only works if you ignore all practical considerations.

a reply to: waynos

I apologize too, I am a little to defensive. Not really getting the hang of ATS. Too much time with the hard core flat Earth, no man has been to space, the only possible cause of Mandela Effect is time jumping, and love children are proof of alien visitations threads. ATS seems more about pushing narratives than scientifically getting to the truth. Tired of eyewitnesses accounts not backed by physical evidence, YouTube, my comments are long therefore true, I will use a long comment to push your opinion to the back, and innuendo cited as proof.

And this comes from a person that believes you have to have faith to see the beauty and sole of the universe.

But, you don't get to the truth wasting time on pushing fantasy as absolute truth.....

a reply to: payt69

Is that a trail?