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.

 

Are 'Persistent Contrails' / 'Chemtrails' Gone?

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2018 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: Fallingdown

Massive human destruction by either chemicals,toxins or
any bio-hazard their evil brains can come up with.


It’s so refreshing to hear well-placed sarcasm .

Thanks !!!




posted on Nov, 5 2018 @ 01:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof
I pointed them out to a family member that laughed them off as "normal contrails". I went through about 40 years of photo's from mid 60's to 2000, many thousands of outdoor photos with the sky and not one "contrail" like that until about 2003-4 and the were prevelant in TV shows and movies as well as they were suddenly everywhere. None of the old TV/movies had them either.


Odd that you didn't find any photos. Luckily for you others have been able to find lots of old photos etc showing that the trails are nothing new.

www.metabunk.org...



posted on Nov, 5 2018 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: tommyjo
a reply to: KKLOCO

Well here is a chemtrail believer in Mesa, Arizona. He films on a regular basis.

You Tube Channel Link

Chemtrail activist living in Scottsdale, Arizona.



From

Matt Landman You Tube Channel

Phoenix, Arizona December 2017



Tucson, Arizona

A die hard chemtrailer who was arrested and is currently under investigation. Tell him that "chemtrails" don't exist!

Chris Haskell You Tube Channel



Interesting, I live in Scottsdale as well. I should change the thread title. They are definitely not gone. However, IMO it does appear there are far less of them though.

Thanks for posting the link to his YouTube channel. This was the first video of persistent contrails that I saw on his channel.

m.youtube.com...

In the video, it shows a plane flying with no contrails. Then like a switch, all the sudden they are on. Can someone explain this? I’ve seen many videos like this one: no contrails then all the sudden — mega contrails.



posted on Nov, 5 2018 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: tommyjo



Tell him that "chemtrails" don't exist!

Hey Chris,

What you call "chemtrails" are persistant contrails. Ice crystals, no different from natural cirrus clouds except that their formation is triggered by the cooling of supersaturated air. That supersaturation being the result of air being heated by jet or internal combustion engines. Persistent contrails have been observed ever since aircraft were capable of flying high enough to produce them.


Do you think he heard me?
 

Re: The OP,
I have seen neither an increase or decrease in the frequency of persistent contrails. They have always been quite rare here. For two reasons.
1) In the tropics, the conditions which are conducive to the formation of persistent contrails don't occur as often as they do in higher latitudes.

2) Hawaii doesn't get a lot of high altitude, flyover, air traffic. Polar routes tend to avoid us. Planes are either landing or taking off for the most part, except for the military. They sometimes do stuff which produces contrails visible over the islands, but not often.


Thanks for sharing your observations Phage.



posted on Nov, 5 2018 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof
I pointed them out to a family member that laughed them off as "normal contrails". I went through about 40 years of photo's from mid 60's to 2000, many thousands of outdoor photos with the sky and not one "contrail" like that until about 2003-4 and the were prevelant in TV shows and movies as well as they were suddenly everywhere. None of the old TV/movies had them either.

I live below a heavy flight path from most of NYC, PHL to the west coast and haven't seen them in a couple years.

This has nothing to do with changes in fuel or engines, that is the most ridiculous assertion yet and totally disprovable. It is due to a stopping of whatever program they were doing, or a change in the composition of the materials.

I think it had something to do with trying to stem global warming, by reflecting more heat, kind of trying to buy time - or at least that would be the plausible cover story if it had a more nefarious intention.

I know I had really bad skin problems for about 6-8 years when they were heavy, it came out of no where and doctors couldnt' explain it, but the last 2 years it seems to have cleared up about 90% and I think it is related in some manner.

The fact that they aren't being seen is proof that there was an adulterant being sprayed or else they would have continued. You are correct in seeing this correlation and I noticed this as well but since this board is so full of shills posting about this gets drowned in negative attacks and people using double speak and non-logic/reverse logic - basically insanity.

It's not you, there is a difference and we need to find out what was being sprayed for all those years.


Yes, I knew I would get some ridicule by posting this thread. I guess I don’t care. After all, we have a whole forum dedicated to it.

Thank you for giving such a detailed response. I can tell you that if they were designed to cool the earth down, we sure as hell needed it here in AZ this last summer — it was brutal!

Very interesting statements regarding your skin. My ex had serious skin problems that started in 2004 as well. She had them, as far as I know, all the way up to 2015. I don’t know how it’s been since then. Because that would mean: I would have to ask her how she was doing, fu*# that!!!

If we keep getting similar responses, I guess the point of this thread could evolve into WHAT CHANGED? After all, so much time was spent over the years debating the topic. Now, if the phenomenon is changing, it would be nice to understand what exactly changed.



posted on Nov, 5 2018 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof
This has nothing to do with changes in fuel or engines, that is the most ridiculous assertion yet and totally disprovable. It is due to a stopping of whatever program they were doing, or a change in the composition of the materials.


Then perhaps you can explain the study that was done using an A340 with new high bypass turbofan engines and a 707 using low bypass turbofan engines flying side by side, and how the A340 was leaving a nice contrail behind it, and the 707 wasn't. Are you seriously going to claim that they were blatantly spraying in the middle of a study that was being performed?



Thanks for posting Zaphod. Those look like normal contrails to me. Not persistent contrails. IMO there is a big difference.

ETA: oops, Phage and Zaphod already addressed this.

edit on 5-11-2018 by KKLOCO because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2018 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: KKLOCO
In the video, it shows a plane flying with no contrails. Then like a switch, all the sudden they are on. Can someone explain this? I’ve seen many videos like this one: no contrails then all the sudden — mega contrails.


Contrails require pretty specific conditions to form, and even more specific conditions to persist. An aircraft going from no contrails to contrails like you're talking about has flown from an area where the conditions weren't right, into an area where they are. Either they changed altitude up into an area where there was more moisture, or the atmospheric conditions changed and more moisture was added to the mix.

As for ridicule, what ridicule? This has actually been a pretty civil thread compared to most that try to talk about contrails.
edit on 11/5/2018 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2018 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: KKLOCO

I'm outside 7 days a week, and I look up a lot more than the average person. I go from Texas to California and back multiple times a week and have seen very little if any change to the number of contrails, beyond what I see when the seasons change normally.



posted on Nov, 5 2018 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: KKLOCO

You can't tell a persistent contrail from a non-persistent contrail just by looking at them. Without knowing the atmospheric conditions, there's no way to no tell if it will persist or not.



posted on Nov, 5 2018 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yes. But the topic is persistent contrails.


If the OP has observed fewer persistent contrails I would posit that it is because in the OP's location the conditions conducive to the production of persistent contrails have been less favorable. Fortunately there is data available which can be used to determine this aspect of the theory.

Unfortunately, all we have to go by is anecdotal evidence of the recent prevalence (or lack thereof) of persistent contrails over Phoenix as provided by the OP.




Absolutely agreed. I have no evidence, just general observations by people around me and myself. Unfortunately, I didn’t notice the phenomenon decrease myself. Even if I did, what could I show as proof? Taking pics of a blue sky every day with no persistent contrails I guess.

I know everyone on here loves proof — as they should. I guess this thread is more about getting a consensus from everyone, have others noticed the same thing as well.



posted on Nov, 5 2018 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58

originally posted by: KKLOCO
In the video, it shows a plane flying with no contrails. Then like a switch, all the sudden they are on. Can someone explain this? I’ve seen many videos like this one: no contrails then all the sudden — mega contrails.


Contrails require pretty specific conditions to form, and even more specific conditions to persist. An aircraft going from no contrails to contrails like you're talking about has flown from an area where the conditions weren't right, into an area where they are. Either they changed altitude up into an area where there was more moisture, or the atmospheric conditions changed and more moisture was added to the mix.

As for ridicule, what ridicule? This has actually been a pretty civil thread compared to most that try to talk about contrails.


I agree, it has been more civil than I anticipated. There have been some sarcastic comments — but that’s okay.

I’ll put my foot in my mouth now; and be thankful it’s been as pleasant as it has.



posted on Nov, 5 2018 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: KKLOCO

I'm outside 7 days a week, and I look up a lot more than the average person. I go from Texas to California and back multiple times a week and have seen very little if any change to the number of contrails, beyond what I see when the seasons change normally.


Thank you for your observations. That’s the point of this thread, see if their is a consensus, or not.

So far it appears to be a mixed bag.

I actually expected more replies like yours. Basically, that I just haven’t looked up to the sky enough. However, it appears others have noticed the same: less persistent contrails in recent years.

I’m a dummy though, and wouldn’t even know where to look and what to look for on the reasonings as to why. There appears to be many variables to the atmospheric conditions. That’s why I presented the topic to all you fine people.



posted on Nov, 5 2018 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: KKLOCO

I've noticed that different areas see some fluctuations as the seasons change. They don't totally disappear, but sometimes there are fewer. Other days there are a lot more. On average there's not a significant difference, but taken on a daily basis there would appear to be.



posted on Nov, 5 2018 @ 10:12 AM
link   
On another note, I should have included this in the OP. More anecdotal evidence.... I lived in Oregon until 2011. I first started noticing an increase in persistent contrails in 2008.

My closest friend is a doctor (smartest person I know). He owns a plane and has been flying for 32 years. He is also commercially rated as a pilot. When I first noticed the persistent contrails, I brought it to his attention (in 2008). I remember walking down the street in downtown Portland that day for hours. He was awe struck at the insane amount of them.

He was adamant that this phenomenon is not normal and that at the time, was fairly new. This guy lives for flying. Here we are 11 years later, his opinion hasn’t changed.

Take it for what you will, just thought I’d share.



posted on Nov, 5 2018 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof
I pointed them out to a family member that laughed them off as "normal contrails". I went through about 40 years of photo's from mid 60's to 2000, many thousands of outdoor photos with the sky and not one "contrail" like that until about 2003-4 and the were prevelant in TV shows and movies as well as they were suddenly everywhere. None of the old TV/movies had them either.


Odd that you didn't find any photos. Luckily for you others have been able to find lots of old photos etc showing that the trails are nothing new.

www.metabunk.org...


Thanks for the link. Good photos. This does prove that persistent contrails were in fact there pre 1995. How prevalent was it back then, is a good question.

So if this is such an easy topic to debunk, why did ATS create a forum specifically for it? Next question would be, if the topic has been 100% debunked — why haven’t they removed this forum?



posted on Nov, 5 2018 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: KKLOCO

There's a forum for it because of how popular chemtrail threads were for awhile. With a lot of people you'll never be able to prove they're not real, no matter how much evidence you have.



posted on Nov, 5 2018 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: KKLOCO

This isn't meant to be rude, but how much does he know about the engines used on long range aircraft? Being a commercial pilot doesn't always mean that someone has a firm grasp on everything related to commercial aircraft. Most pilots I've known have an outstanding grasp of the type of aircraft they fly, but not so much other types.



posted on Nov, 5 2018 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

No rudeness taken. I’ll have to ask him. I’ll let you know what his response is.



posted on Nov, 5 2018 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: KKLOCO

There's a forum for it because of how popular chemtrail threads were for awhile. With a lot of people you'll never be able to prove they're not real, no matter how much evidence you have.


I hear ya. I’m not one of those people. Obviously, if they were spraying us with some crap, it would affect the people perpetrating it as well. This has always been my biggest argument against it. However, there are sooo many things TPTB do — that seems to defy logical or moral reasoning.

A good question would be: has the FAA ever addressed the fact that most the long range commercial craft litter / pollute our skies with this crap?

I mean, who wants a perfectly sunny day to turn into a cloudy one because of planes? I would think that they would have to help us understand why they aren’t focusing on creating new tech to not make our skies cloudy.

We are constantly getting new requirements for our cars regarding pollution emissions. Why aren’t commercial airliners held to the same standard?



posted on Nov, 5 2018 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: KKLOCO

They actually are. They're testing biofuels that will have cleaner emissions, and the new engines release fewer pollutants than ever before. The problem is that the most efficient altitude for them to operate at happens to be right where contrail conditions are. They've gone a long way with reducing emissions and are getting better with every new engine developed.




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join