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.

 

Contrails ? You Decide ATS Member Video

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by JacKatMtn

As far as cirrus clouds, there were none, what I filmed is what happened to a beautiful blue sky, the cirrus looking clouds are actually dispersed contrails that accumulated throughout the day.


That's the point - contrails these days form into cirrus clouds. The more contrails you have, the more common and more extensive such clouds are. Never used to happen much 50 odd years ago


It's inadvertent weather/climate modification - creation of high level clouds that would not otherwise have formed. aka Anthropogenic Global Warming.


Edit: Stale Cracker - you know much about chemtrail conspiracies, but little about meteorology, cloud formation and climate change - try reading some science as well as Chemtrail Central


[edit on 20-2-2007 by Essan]




posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by JacKatMtn

Thanks RedGolem, that is one Powerful documentary, It appears that unless we as a world do not return to a pre-industrial revolution way of life, this global dimming/warming is inevitable. "damned if we do, damned if we don't"



Jack,
yes damned if do or dint I am afraid is an accurate way to describe things. The video also talks about removing the particles from the air. To date I dint think that is happening to any great degree. But the multi level problem with climate change, I just don't see how its going to be fixed.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 10:52 AM
link   
In the BBC documentary "Global Dimming", that Red Golem pointed out, it was declaring a 2 front attack on the atmosphere, one the CO2 gases creating the warming element and the particle pollution causing the dimming. While efforts have been made in the reduction of particles, the dilemma they concluded is that with further reduction of particles, the REAL potential effects of warming would be much worse than predictions which did not factor in the dimming.

After watching the video, I started to think about the world-wide situation and decided to put on my conspiracy hat and see where this could fit in. I'll just be throwing thoughts out there for you to ponder.

First if you consider the NWO, elitists etc, one of their supposed goals is a significant reduction in world population. While it isn't happening on a huge scale there are wars and rumors of wars, along with some terrible things happening like Darfur (with minimal UN effort to end it.) If the BBC video is correct, a catastrophic global event is going to happen and this would definitely reduce the world population. After this happening, will the earth's surface be habitable, I am not so sure.

Now with that in mind, we've heard of the underground bases etc which have been going on (if true) since the 50's (I believe), worldwide, If the surface is incompatible for existence then you have 2 choices, another planet or inner earth, is the technology there to sustain life underground? I wonder, One thing I saw on the news yesterday was the pumping of CO2 into deep earth to both keep it underground and help with pumping oil from underground.

If you were to try and grow oxygen producing plants under ground, wouldn't you need some CO2? I may be wrong but I thought that plant uses CO2 as part of it's oxygen producing photosynthesis. So what could be happening here?

I am sure some of you out there can expand on these ideas, if anything, it sounds like the basis of a cool SciFI flick....



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Real Science?... Oh, like the "personally collecting data over several years and comparing/contrasting contrails VS chemtrails" kind of science? Sorry, I'll try to stick to the "insult others intelligence and ignore alternative data" type of science.


Did you even look at the site I provided the link to?... Or did you judge it by it's URL?


Tear apart the data all you want (if you can),.. personal attacks however are the hallmark of a simpleton.

[edit on 20-2-2007 by Stale Cracker]



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stale Cracker
Real Science?... Oh, like the "personally collecting data over several years and comparing/contrasting contrails VS chemtrails" kind of science? Sorry, I'll try to stick to the "insult others intelligence and ignore alternative data" type of science.


No, I mean atmospheric science - do you even know how and why contrails form? Do you even know just how much air traffic has increased in the past decade?

If you want to introduce an esoteric explanation, you must first eliminate the mundane. So, can you prove that persistent contrails cannot be formed in the manner in which atmospheric scientists (many of whom are working at ways in reducing their formation) say that they form?

(btw I was banned a couple of years back - without any warning or reason being given - from the Chemtrail Central forum. I don't think they liked the idea of someone who knew what they were talking about posting there
)



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 05:51 AM
link   
Having taken little notice of contrails in the past as I just thought....yeah, whatever, I took a look at the videos here and am intrigued.

I thought (read it somewhere iirc) that aircraft had to be at a certain altitude for a trail to be created, so just assumed that where one plane creates a trail and another doesn't is simply due to altitude differences.

Having said all that....I live in the UK. When an aircraft flies over, I can't say I have ever seen a trail like those in the vid. The ones I remember seeing are generally much thinner and fade away some distance behind the aircraft itself. I'll look more closely in future, but I don't ever recall seeing a trail widen so much or stay in the sky for any considerable time.

Interesting. Thanks for the post.

Grey



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grey_Pilgrim
Having taken little notice of contrails in the past as I just thought....yeah, whatever, I took a look at the videos here and am intrigued.
Grey


I was in the same boat, something doesn't seem right, whether it is a deliberate act or unintentional there is no doubt that it is happening and is having an effect on our skies.

Discovery channel is going to air a show on FEB 22, here's the show synopsis from the Discovery channel site:


Best Evidence
Chemical Contrails
Across the planet, millions of people have seen them — jet aircraft vapor trails lingering in the sky. Are these just regular "contrails" — the carbon and water vapor exhaust from commercial planes — or are they potentially toxic "chemical trails" emitted intentionally as part of secret geo-engineering experiments or weather-weaponization tests? Experts and passionate observers on both sides present their best evidence — from video and photographs, satellite imagery, soil samples and military evidence. We shed light on a subject that has many people looking up for answers to disturbing questions. A team of technicians at an independent laboratory will examine the samples to finally get to the heart of the question: What is in those fuel emissions and what causes them to linger for hours and link up with one another like a ghostly blanket that seems to affect the weather and perhaps our health?
Premiere: Feb. 22, 2007


I also highly recommend the BBC docmentary that RedGolem pointed out called Global Dimming, it is very informative: BBC Documentary



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Thank you for the link to the Google video. I've just watched the Global Dimming documentary. Very scary!!

If the contrails are alleged to be deliberate attempts at weather control, what is their purpose? As the documentary said, by continuing with atmospheric pollutants, we are causing more damage and masking the effects of global warming. So why do this deliberately? I can't quite fathom that one.

Grey



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 08:28 AM
link   
I found a synopsis on the BBC documentary Global Dimming and wanted to post it here so the folks who don't have an hour to watch the video can get the jist of what the documentary is about.


Global Dimming threat equal to Global Warming

We are all seeing rather less of the Sun. Scientists looking at five decades of sunlight measurements have reached the disturbing conclusion that the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth's surface has been gradually falling. Paradoxically, the decline in sunlight may mean that global warming is a far greater threat to society than previously thought. The effect was first spotted by Gerry Stanhill, an English scientist working in Israel. Comparing Israeli sunlight records from the 1950s with current ones, Stanhill was astonished to find a large fall in solar radiation. "There was a staggering 22% drop in the sunlight, and that really amazed me," he says.

Intrigued, he searched out records from all around the world, and found the same story almost everywhere he looked, with sunlight falling by 10% over the USA, nearly 30% in parts of the former Soviet Union, and even by 16% in parts of the British Isles. Although the effect varied greatly from place to place, overall the decline amounted to 1-2% globally per decade between the 1950s and the 1990s.


Here's a recent article challenging the validity of the global warming models which did not take into consideration the effects of "dimming/brightening"

Global Dimming and Brightening

Reporting that "the cause of these large changes in Eg↓, is not known," but that they totally dwarf the change in longwave radiative forcing claimed to be responsible for 20th-century global warming, Stanhill goes on to further report that "no reference to these findings has appeared in the three massive IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] assessment reports published during the past 15 years," which glaring omission, in his words, "is surprising in view of the important practical consequences of changes in Eg↓, in addition to their theoretical significance for climate change."


If this is true then the forecast is flawed and the effects of global warming would actually be greater than what was reported. In essence, the fact that while we have significantly reduced particle pollution, CO2 emmissions continue to be of great concern.

Anyway, it appears that it is a lose-lose situation, just wanted to make this available for your perusal.

ED:Spelling



[edit on 2007/2/21 by JacKatMtn]



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Yup, while I don't have a degree in atmospheric science, I do have a working laymans knowledge of the topic. I don't have a problem with meteorology and think it's theories work well in explaining most atmospheric phenomena we observe.

I personally believe, based on my observations over time, as well as data taken by others, that there is a high probability the atmosphere is being modified. By whom, and for what purpose is up for debate, but I do have one suspect:

Weather as a Force Multiplier:
Owning the Weather in 2025


Chapter 4
Concept of Operations

The essential ingredient of the weather-modification system is the set of intervention techniques used to modify the weather. The number of specific intervention methodologies is limited only by the imagination, but with few exceptions they involve infusing either energy or chemicals into the meteorological process in the right way, at the right place and time. The intervention could be designed to modify the weather in a number of ways, such as influencing clouds and precipitation, storm intensity, climate, space, or fog.

www.fas.org...

My country, atleast seems intent on weather modification by the 2020's...

I don't find it far fetched that they are perhaps ALREADY conducting tests.
The above article, and the (unexpected) evidence found on the www.chemtrailcentral.com... site, ("The process of collection of data about contrails, such as altitude for use in atmospheric analysis, revealed that the highly persistent trails were being produced by flights that did not appear on Flight Explorer" and "...Military flights are filtered from the datastream by the FAA for security reasons") is enough circumstantial evidence in my opinion to lend credence to the chemtrail hypothesis.

Why would we dismiss the possibility of such a program out-of-hand when there's plenty of data to analyze?... Such narrow-mindedness smacks of scientific dogmatism, and should be discouraged.


edit to remove broken pic link

[edit on 21-2-2007 by Stale Cracker]



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grey_Pilgrim

If the contrails are alleged to be deliberate attempts at weather control, what is their purpose? As the documentary said, by continuing with atmospheric pollutants, we are causing more damage and masking the effects of global warming. So why do this deliberately? I can't quite fathom that one.

Grey


Contrails themselves cause global warming. If you believe that 'chemtrails' are deliberate attempts at weather control, one has to ask who wants to cause more global warming, and why?

news.nationalgeographic.com...



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stale Cracker
I don't find it far fetched that they are perhaps ALREADY conducting tests.


Okay, lets say for the moment that you're right.

Why would the US Govt want to increase global warming?



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by Grey_Pilgrim

If the contrails are alleged to be deliberate attempts at weather control, what is their purpose? As the documentary said, by continuing with atmospheric pollutants, we are causing more damage and masking the effects of global warming. So why do this deliberately? I can't quite fathom that one.

Grey


Contrails themselves cause global warming. If you believe that 'chemtrails' are deliberate attempts at weather control, one has to ask who wants to cause more global warming, and why?

news.nationalgeographic.com...



That statement assumes you know what is being introduced into the atmosphere via chemtrails. Something like aluminum oxide in a chemtrail would help reflect more incoming solar radiation than a "normal" contrail, helping to mitigate it's greenhouse inducing effects.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Who says they're increasing global warming?... At this point all we can do is try and prove they exist as seperate entites from "normal" contrails. As for their purpose, all we can do at this point is speculate.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stale Cracker

That statement assumes you know what is being introduced into the atmosphere via chemtrails. Something like aluminum oxide in a chemtrail would help reflect more incoming solar radiation than a "normal" contrail, helping to mitigate it's greenhouse inducing effects.



That statement assumes that something is being introduced into the atmosphere via commercial air traffic on a massive scale and that studies have shown said substance to have a great effect in reflecting solar radiation away from the earth than in retaining radiation. This in turn implies that all current research into aircraft contrails and plans to reduce their effect is seriously flawed and/or a complete waste of time. Someone better tell NASA!



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 09:00 AM
link   
hi there folks

as well as Discovery airing a documentary, Ch 4 tv here in the UK are also in production of a docu on this subject to be aired around june of this year. also i have heard rumors that BBC2 will be poss considering a new docu on this subject.

the CH4 docu will be covering pretty much the same info as the Discovery docu ,but i have been told that they also have a few so called whistleblowers .


it shall be interesting to see what they come out with....something needs to be done as the skys are a mess:
img185.imageshack.us...


image is of 4th feb 2007
cheers

snoopyuk

[edit on 21-2-2007 by snoopyuk]



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Ahh, I've been missing something here. I didn't realise there was a differece between contrail and chemtrail and assumed the words were used interchangeably. Obviously, I was wrong. My apologies.

So, bearing in mind my very limited exposure to these theories...the debate is in two parts?

1. That contrails are normal side effects of aircraft flight, but are contributing hugely to the climate problems and masking global warming. As illustrated by the sudden increase in temp ranges over the US on and just after 9/11 when all commercial flights were grounded.

2. Chemtrails are contrails with added ingredients to cause/alter weather patterns, drop chemicals on specific regions etc.

Am I getting closer or still miles away?

Grey



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grey_Pilgrim
Ahh, I've been missing something here. I didn't realise there was a differece between contrail and chemtrail and assumed the words were used interchangeably. Obviously, I was wrong. My apologies.

So, bearing in mind my very limited exposure to these theories...the debate is in two parts?

1. That contrails are normal side effects of aircraft flight, but are contributing hugely to the climate problems and masking global warming. As illustrated by the sudden increase in temp ranges over the US on and just after 9/11 when all commercial flights were grounded.

2. Chemtrails are contrails with added ingredients to cause/alter weather patterns, drop chemicals on specific regions etc.

Am I getting closer or still miles away?

Grey


Contrails is short for condensation trails, this subjects just reaches to other thought processes ie. govt program to produce "chem trails", etc etc.

I am very interested in finding out what the heck is going on and right now basicly I am a sponge absorbing information.

IMO: contrails/chemtrails are the same it's just what side of a multisided debate you fall under as to whether it is called contrails/chemtrails.

It is good to know that there are investigations being conducted so we all can get closer to the truth of this issue.

Thanks to all posters for your contribution to this subject I appreciate it immensely.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 09:11 AM
link   
yes grey pilgrim you are correct in your assesment of the two definitions.

however this is much debate as to the `chemtrail` definition.

snoopyuk



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 10:38 AM
link   
I've really started to take a look at the sky more often. I live in Colorado and right before we started to get major snowstorms every week, I noticed that the sky was litterally covered with these trails. It was a very low hanging chemtrail that was up there in litterally rows of them as far as the eye can see. The patterns of the trails, lead me to believe that it was not an ordinary Contrail that a regular airplane would leave behind!!! I left work and was truly amazed at all of them in the sky. A couple of days later the city was hit with the biggest snow storm in years!!! I truly think that these trails are used for weather modification. There is technology out there that allows ski resorts to "seed" clouds in order to produce more snow!! I don't think it would be very difficult to seed the entire sky using airplanes!! If they can produce major snowstorms, then I'm sure they can produce things such as Hurricane Katrina, or other related storms.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join