howard said: Actually it is both and neither. Depending on how you look at it, EM energy can exhibit properties of waves or properties of particles (photons).

At any rate, how come you are making this big deal over that, yet you are ignoring Mikromarius’s contention that radio waves are just high frequency sound waves?

billybob says, "it's all light. you're brain is the only thing seperating the frequency bands of the reality matrix. sound is just low frequency, dense light. in the beginning was the word. and the word was god".

i'm imagining you're too worried about your own belief structure(scientist/atheist) to understand this. what did you call it? willful ignorance?
the wisdom of the ancients is resurfacing. if we, the general population, are getting it now, then the think tanks and secret societies have had it for hundreds of years. your arguments are all simplistic in this , ummm, ....light.
reality matrix. sound(resonance) creates form(energy 'freezing'(actually standing wave patterns) into crystalline shapes of the platonic solids). that's it. there is nothing else. nun.
sacred geometry is another of the topics that will be ridiculed by the brainwashed masses of institutionalised re-education. you know, princeton, MIT, harvard, the vatican, etc.

[edit on 20-10-2004 by antipigopolist]

Originally posted by antipigopolist

"OK Mr. Applied Physics, lets see the math. Assume you are heating up an area the size of a cube that is 30 km per side. How much energy will it take to heat up this area 0.1 degree K? or even better, what percentage of the entire ionosphere is the volume of this cube?" -HR


Can't get much more childish than this. Ooh...a dreaded math challenge!! Sorry Howie, but you asked for it!

Your challenge regarding percentage of total volume is completely invalid because the ionosphere cannot be measured accurately. The actual size of the ionosphere depends upon the number of ultraviolet rays and x-rays given off by the sun on a particular day.
(Thank you for reinforcing my point. Even with a solar minimum, the total solar energy absorbed by the ionosphere is exponentially greater than the maximum that could ever be put out by HAARP. . The size and temperature of the ionosphere is a function of the solar radiation, the amount of energy put out by HAARP compared to the amount of solar energy striking the Earth per second is like pissing over the Niagara Falls. -HR)
Heck...the D Layer vanishes entirely at sun set. Shucks Jethro...errr...Howie...I thought you KNEW that?
(This is true, dopey, errr AP, but as you are well aware, the sun doesn’t turn off at night, it is just on the other side of the planet. Therefore, globally: What difference does it make? Don’t try to sidestep the point. -HR)
And the energy requirement for an increase of 0.1K? YOU TRULY ARE IN THE DARK! Another invalid problem. Physics 101: Different materials absorb and loose heat at different rates. SHC!! Heard of it? What is the composition of the area we are heating?
(OK, just assume that you are heating the free electrons -HR)
You neglected to mention? Let's assume you meant the ionosphere, which would keep it on topic and not some wild pissing contest, the variables required would be:
1: Which layer (D, E, F1, or F2) is the target area to be heated because the density of each layer is unique.
2: What frequency is to be used? I assume this is the energy you implied? You forgot to mention that, too?
(Feel free to make whatever assumptions that you want. -HR)

3: I believe what you really should have posed was a conical volume as this relates to the HF beam path.
(Again, you sidestep the point. The fact is, the amount of energy put out by HAARP is inconsequential to the total make up, temperature etc. of the ionosphere. -HR)


You wear your "Holier than thou" garb well!

Anyway...for those others interested, here is some info and data straight from the HAARP homepage pertaining to heating the ionosphere. Guess I was fabricating that too eh, Howard?

What Effects Are Produced By HAARP?

A portion of the energy contained in the HF signal transmitted by HAARP can be transferred to existing electrons or ions making up the ionospheric plasma through a process called absorption, thus raising the local effective temperature. As an example, the electron temperature at a height of 275 km (the peak of the F2 region) is over 1400°K. [2]. Work at other active ionospheric research facilities has shown that it is possible to raise this temperature by as much as 30% within a small, localized region during an experiment. The affected region would then temporarily display electrical characteristics different from neighboring regions of the layer. Sensitive scientific instruments on the ground can then be used to study the dynamic physical properties of this region in great detail.

(Which proves what? Don’t forget that they are talking about the electron temperature here. Even if you assume that the gas molecules in this region are raised b the same temperature, you are still talking about a tiny fraction of the ionosphere as a whole and an even smaller fraction of the atmosphere as a whole. I am willing to bet that a typical 1 megawatt power plant causes far more thermal heating of the atmosphere as a whole in a single day, then HAARP does in a year. -HR)

"Are you sure that it wasn’t because they wanted to study the aurora? I would also expect that they wanted to avoid interference from other radio sources also.

Certainly it wouldn’t be a good idea to go strolling through the arrays when they are in operation, but I wouldn’t recommend climbing the local radio station transmitter tower either. What is your point?" -HR


I already made my point. Your becoming borderline ridiculous.


"There you go with the ad hominum attacks again. You really shouldn’t be that hard on Bangin, Theneo, Billybob and Mikromanus. I think that their protests are so strong, because they can not admit to themselves that they have been chasing a hoax for the past few years." -HR


You expose yourself abit much there, Howie! Sounds like you're screaming "Truth".

Anyway, I attacked noone. But you, Howie...your self-righteousness made you such an easy target, I had to.
(At least I am not as self righteous as you are -HR)
I didn't tell people what to believe.
(Neither do I. I have merely pointed out that many if not all of the chemtrail claims do not hold up to scientific scrutiny. As for other beliefs that are commonly expressed in these forums, like Atlantis, UFOs, the Bermuda Triangle. Planet X and the “Philadelphia Experiment,” when I hold these to the same standard of proof, I generally find them flawed also. -HR)
I just made a common sense comment that a person would have to be an idjiot to scream "Truth!" without proof.
(Which is exactly what the Chemmies do in regard to chemtrails.-HR)
I simply found chemtrails to be an interesting topic regardless of my own opinion. It is possible! Hey...anyone remember the Philadelphia Experiment?
(Hell, anything is possible, As Stuart pointed out, just because something is possible, doesn’t mean that it is a reality. -HR)
Good luck on your quest guys. And don't let the nay sayers get ya down.

Since AP has stated that he is dropping this topic, then so be it. Frankly since this thread has degenerated to name calling and personal attacks, I find it is growing stale myself.

One interesting side note, research indicates that conditions in the ionosphere change measurably prior to large earthquakes. This is a growing field of scientific inquiry. Is it possible that one day the data collected by HAARP research will be used to predict large earthquakes? Who knows, but it is an interesting thought, none the less. Not everything has an evil purpose behind it.



.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

One interesting side note, research indicates that conditions in the ionosphere change measurably prior to large earthquakes. This is a growing field of scientific inquiry. Is it possible that one day the data collected by HAARP research will be used to predict large earthquakes? Who knows, but it is an interesting thought, none the less. Not everything has an evil purpose behind it.

i love you howard. is that better?
some things do have an evil purpose behind them. especially military things.
AP sure made some great points, there. i especially like the one about the constant repetition of the word 'PROOF'. nothing has been proven, except that contrails exist, which nobody ever argued against.
also proven:
1. there was a bill draughted which clearly mentions chemtrails.(poopoo and obfuscate away, it is a fact)
2. there is a patent for building aluminum sprayers(poopoo and obfuscate away, it is a fact)
3. the government has done illegal biological weapons testing on people in the past(fact, too)
4. jet exhaust can affect the weather(you guys even had to begrudgingly admit this one)
5. howard and stuart and AR worked very, VERY hard at demeaning people with the gall to think for themselves.

i'd also like to point out that all of the pictures taken from the ground recently of 'chemtrails', are just that. recent.
much the same as the contrail (reeducation)pages at NASA. recent.
much the same as the contrail research at NASA. recent.
the picture of world war two jets with contrails behind them is just that. i would need to see a movie of those contrails persisting for four hours and turning into those peculiar cotton candy clouds, before i could draw a parallel to the alleged chemtrails.
so let's see some old footage of grids of wispy clouds being laid down, and i will believe there is signifigant evidence that in fact 'chemtrails' are just contrails. still no proof(they could have been doing these experiments since the inception of jet powered flight, and in fact, that was AP's point which was obfuscated so nicely by the deft howard, ...EXPERIMENTAL jets in the seventies), but better evidence than people repeatedly telling me i'm ignorant and unscientific. it is unscientific to repeatedly claim proof when there is none.

all my love, disinfo pros. i can be civil. can you?


[Edited on 2-1-2004 by billybob]

Originally posted by billybob

1. there was a bill draughted which clearly mentions chemtrails.(poopoo and obfuscate away, it is a fact)
[color=green]I’ve never tried to deny that. I will, however, also point out that the author of that piece of legislation later removed said reference to chemtrails and claimed "I’m not into that."[/color] (d@mned tags )

2. there is a patent for building aluminum sprayers(poopoo and obfuscate away, it is a fact)
I’ve seen copies of this patent (it is for titanium dioxide, BTW) and I won’t deny that the patent exists. Wheather the divice was ever constructed, on the otherhand has not been proven. In addition, according to the patent, it is a rather bulky device that would be clearly visible on the outside of an airplane, yet no one has ever produced a picture of one in use.

3. the government has done illegal biological weapons testing on people in the past(fact, too)
And we used to burn people at the stake for being witches.
4. jet exhaust can affect the weather(you guys even had to begrudgingly admit this one)
Not at all begrudgingly, I accept it as a fact because the researchers making this claim have backed it up with the appropriate data.

5. howard and stuart and AR worked very, VERY hard at demeaning people with the gall to think for themselves.

Excuse me, I have never put down anyone who has not taken a cheap shot at me first. I am all to aware of how easy it is to fall into the personal attack mode, and I take pains to avoid that.

i'd also like to point out that all of the pictures taken from the ground recently of 'chemtrails', are just that. recent.
much the same as the contrail (reeducation)pages at NASA. recent.
much the same as the contrail research at NASA. recent.
the picture of world war two jets with contrails behind them is just that. i would need to see a movie of those contrails persisting for four hours and turning into those peculiar cotton candy clouds, before i could draw a parallel to the alleged chemtrails. It is actually possible that such clips exist, but in lieu of that, There are a number of first person accounts from pilots and airmen from that era that support the persistent contrails theory.
so let's see some old footage of grids of wispy clouds being laid down, and i will believe there is signifigant evidence that in fact 'chemtrails' are just contrails. still no proof(they could have been doing these experiments since the inception of jet powered flight, and in fact, that was AP's point which was obfuscated so nicely by the deft howard, ...EXPERIMENTAL jets in the seventies), but better evidence than people repeatedly telling me i'm ignorant and unscientific. it is unscientific to repeatedly claim proof when there is none.

I always try to be civil. I will, however respond in kind when insulted or attacked, I would expect nothing less from anyone else either.

But back to the subject.

I am not sure I follow you with the reference to the experimental jets in the seventies.

"it is unscientific to repeatedly claim proof when there is none" I agree. But so far as I have been able to determine, the only proof given for the existence of chemtrails is that somehow the contrails don’t look the same.


Oh, and one other thing, there is a classic book written by a French aviator in the ‘30s that perfectly describes the process of persistent contrail formation.




[Edited on 2-1-2004 by HowardRoark]

[Edited on 2-1-2004 by HowardRoark]

[Edited on 2-1-2004 by HowardRoark]

[Edited on 2-1-2004 by HowardRoark]

[Edited on 2-1-2004 by HowardRoark]

[Edited on 2-1-2004 by HowardRoark]

thanks for being civil, howard. very nice.

Noone is saying that this chemtrail theory is impossible. The fact remains however that there is nothing to suggest that these chemtrails exist.

The burden of proof lies fairly and squarely on the 'chemtrail' proponents. So far noone has found any proof for the chemtrail theory that stands up to scientific analysis. Its as simple as that.

[Edited on 3-1-2004 by Kano]

Well said, Kano, thank you.

not denying any type of conspiracy, just adding my thoughts. maybe the spraying over large industrial and metro areas is some type of chemical to break down pollution from automobiles and companies to make it less harmful to the atmosphere. just a thought to help you find your truth.

Hmmm, now see, there's a logical explanation to consider. Not just. It ain't so.

Thanks for the input

Originally posted by jonathesis
not denying any type of conspiracy, just adding my thoughts. maybe the spraying over large industrial and metro areas is some type of chemical to break down pollution from automobiles and companies to make it less harmful to the atmosphere. just a thought to help you find your truth.

Maybe. But, if that is the case, then one should be able to detect a pattern in the amount and locations of spray activity in correlation to the existing weather patterns and locations of industrial and metro areas. To my knowledge, no one has come up with anything like that. In fact, there would appear to be several contraindications for this theory.

If you want to counteract the effects of pollution, wouldn’t you want to get as close to the source as possible? Why spray at 35,000 feet, when cars and factories are all located at ground level?

Why spray over the eastern seaboard, when the weather patterns will push the "chems" over the Atlantic?

Why spray over New Mexico and other rural areas far from major industrial and metro centers?

CTTUSA over at Yahoo groups, has compiled a database of "Chemtrail Reports" over the past few years.

Perhaps someone can take that data, and correlate the reports to the location and the existing weather conditions at the time of the report.


One other problem with the idea that the spraying is intended to combat pollution from cars and factories is this:

Just what form of pollution from the cars and factories are you trying to combat? What specific chemical? The most prevalent emissions from these sources are CO2, NOX, and H2O. What chemical can you be adding to the air that would "break down" these compounds. To what, less harmfull, chemical would you break them down to? Wouldn’t it be cheaper (and profitable) to just sell the technology to the factories and auto manufactures and require them to add the "chemtrail" chemicals directly to the exhaust stream?

[Edited on 4-1-2004 by HowardRoark]

The pictures from the very beginning of this thread are of an optical phenomena called "sun dogs." There are usually two sun dogs; when cirrus clouds are perpendicular (or at 180 degrees) to the sun. This phenomena is very common, and contrails have nothing to do with it.

Originally posted by Gnomon
I've seen people comment that the 'stuff' being sprayed stays up all day and fills the whole sky: Spraying 'stuff' that stays up all day isn't isn't exactly effective, is it. You would want the stuff to come DOWN.

I think the primary purpose would require the 'stuff' to cloud the sky for weather modification purposes or to address 'global warming' which was recently discussed in another thread. I don't see how 'stuff' coming down would serve any purpose at all.

The second page of this thread has more pictures of trails...if you're interested.

::steps out mumbling 'die, thread, die'::

Of course there is chemical spraying of the near AND upper atmosphere for whatever reasons (Probably 3 or 4). Since I was made aware of this a couple of years ago, I've been witness to it a few times, in different parts of the country and also over fairly populated areas. All you have to do is look up and pay attention and you would probably notice something a little strange on occasion. A couple of times I've even felt the effect of the chemicals in my nose and throat afterwards, and seen similar effects on the people in the area. For some reason, I was born with an extreme sensitivity or (reaction)? to certain irritants and man-made compounds, (can't even use bug spray unless i'm upwind, and I still feel numbed in my nose, mouth, lips and throat), and after watching these trails make their way across the sky while ALSO descending, I was able to taste , smell and feel in my throat and lungs a persistent agent or compound of some type. Whatever makes up the oily clouds are not good for you. Funny thing was, people effected during and afterword thought they were catching a cold flu, or just a persistent cough. FOR THE NEXT TWO DAYS ONLY.....You probably could not of convinced them of chemicals unless they had watched the sky an hour or so like I was able to. Trust me and a lot of other people, when you see it happen, you know something isn't right. I saw this twice in K.C. MO. and once in the Dallas TX. area.
On other occasions I have been witness to the higher altitude persistent trail creations that have led to so much cloud cover, outside temprature drops some 4-5 degrees. And oh yes, I know what contrails look like, weather patterns ect. Trust me, you don't have to be P.H.D. or Nobel Prize winner to notice something like this, just pay attention anfd look up occasionally.
Those of you who think or say nothing is happening as far as this kind of thing goes are; not experienced enough to notice, don't have time to notice, are in an area I guess there's no need to spray, or are getting paid to convince people on this board (and probably other forums) this kind of thing doesn't happen. OR you're getting a big kick out of convincing people you ARE some kind of government disinfo spook. Now THAT would be pathetic.
This thing does happen. I don't have to lie about what I've seen in just a couple of years.
I don't know why it's being done, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know more than a few questionable , unsavory and completely illegal things have happened and continue to happen in this country AND world . Especially when people are easily convinced (coerced?) to close their eyes and look the other way because it's not their problem, Im afraid to know, ect. Please pay a little more attention to things going on lately, for all our sakes. You might be as surprised as I was......

Originally posted by Kano
Noone is saying that this chemtrail theory is impossible. The fact remains however that there is nothing to suggest that these chemtrails exist.

The burden of proof lies fairly and squarely on the 'chemtrail' proponents. So far noone has found any proof for the chemtrail theory that stands up to scientific analysis. Its as simple as that.

[Edited on 3-1-2004 by Kano]

I find it interesting that "proof" and "evidence" are the exclusive factor for many. Just because a human has no "proof" or "evidence" of the existance of something, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This thread wasn't started (IMHO) to present conclusion, but to present the idea that a question might need to be asked. The subject does need to be explored and hypothesis' need to be presented. But, those of you who have drawn a conclusion using "proof" and "evidence" seem to be unsatisfied that many others are still willing to explore the question beyond the "proof" and "evidence" that has been presented. If Columbus had not questioned the "proof" and "evidence" of his contemporaries he would never have discovered North America. To come to a place that obviously caters to conspiracy theorists and expect to change minds using only "proof" and "evidence" is almost as silly as some of the theories surrounding Chemtrails. I do appreciate the input from all sides, though. It is a necessary aspect of the dialogue in order to make discovery. IMHO I feel as though many of us are still willing to watch the skies because the subject seems irregular. Factors other than "proof" and "evidence" inspire us to investigate further. What is wrong with that?

Now, setting aside all the science and technology, there are a few aspects that are curious to me. For instance, the increased frequency of these trails, which is usually explained by increased air traffic. Which is logical. The problem I have is that since the 9/11 tragedies I keep hearing about how the airlines are cutting back flights due to the decrease in ticket sales. So despite the fact that there are less commercial flights (which accounts for a majority of air traffic) these trails stilll proliferate. I have personally noted an increase in these trails since around 1998. I have found no "proof" or "evidence" to explain why there would be such an increase in air traffic at that time. Especially any kind of increase that would be so considerable that I was able to note it and remember it a few years later, but yet the decrease in traffic during a period of cut backs seems to leave no impact on the frequency of these trails.
Another factor that I find curious, is that the government has come to the rescue of these financially distraught airlines. Why? Yes, some of it is to protect an industry that provides a lot of jobs. But I see no reason to think that the whole industry would collapse from a few of airlines going bankrupt. Look at the collapse of Enron. That industry thrives without that major player. The government wasn't there when the company I worked for went bankrupt. Could the government have a vested interest in keeping these flights going? Possibly so, and possibly not. These are things that are anomolous or irregular enough for me to keep paying attention. The only conclusion I present is that these trails are curious enough to me to make me watch them more.

Originally posted by Kano
Noone is saying that this chemtrail theory is impossible. The fact remains however that there is nothing to suggest that these chemtrails exist.

Actually there is plenty to suggest that they exist. Just nothing that confirms their existance.

Originally posted by Nicodemus

Originally posted by Kano
Noone is saying that this chemtrail theory is impossible. The fact remains however that there is nothing to suggest that these chemtrails exist.

Actually there is plenty to suggest that they exist. Just nothing that confirms their existance.

thank you for this observation which escapes those who can tell you the exact point, in kelvin, at which bullshovik freezes into truth.

[Edited on 25-1-2004 by billybob]