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.

 

Proof of chemtrails?

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 04:06 AM
link   
Umm, sorry if someone pointed this out already....But......What in the world is that orb in the middle tethered to 2 things spraying that white vapor? What is going on here? I don't get it!!!!

Where is the aircraft???????



[edit on 1-8-2007 by IMAdamnALIEN]




posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 06:27 AM
link   
It definatly has wings, you can see them momentarily in the first video posted in this thread, as it comes through the clouds a bit.



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by IMAdamnALIEN
Umm, sorry if someone pointed this out already....But......What in the world is that orb in the middle tethered to 2 things spraying that white vapor? What is going on here? I don't get it!!!!

Where is the aircraft???????


It never ceases to amaze me how people just jump into a thread without bothering to have read all the stuff put forward in it.

This is a video of two smaller jets, maybe F-16's or F-18's trailing a tanker (which you have decided is an "orb"). That or possibly fighters escorting a transport on a ferry mission for practice.

USAF Tankers - and most other combat aircraft these days - are painted in low-visibility grey which means, unsuprisingly, that they are fairly hard to spot against a sky blue background (harder to see, harder to track visually and shoot down), which is why the tanker image is blurred and seems to merge into the background. The video compression doesn't help clarity either. Watch the video and you can clearly make out the plane shape and the sun glingting off it.

I can't understand how people who claim to be "experts" in chemtrails, or even post on the subject can spend so little time actually looking at the sky, or finding out about things that actually fly there, or about the conditions and weather.



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 09:10 AM
link   
so where did the third trail come from if its not from the plane in the middle?



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by scarystuff
so where did the third trail come from if its not from the plane in the middle?


Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner.

Where is the "persistant contrail" from the plane in the middle if the other 2 planes to either side have a "persitant contrail"?


Notice that at the beginning of the video there are 3 "persistant contrails", and then the middle plane's "persistant contrail" stops emmitting, and then the plane on the left has its "persistant contrail" stop emitting, while the other's "persistant contrail" continues to emit.

Can meteorology science explain this?

I don't think so.

[edit on 1-8-2007 by Colloneh7]



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
Sorry but I have to laugh

ALL of those pictures are contrails.

The one showing "barium in the atmosphere" - please, tell me how you figure that out? Did you undertake a full chemical analysis at the exact place in the sky where you claim it to be?

All I see is light refraction through water vapour. Ever heard of sundogs?

All this nonsense about "persistant contrails" - study some meteorology.

Learn about temperatures and condensation. Then study some thermodynamics, and find out the average temperature of the exhaust of a jet engine that can form condensates and then ice crystals. From it you can figure out that in some cases even a one or two degree warming of the air can cause a persistent cloud.

People seem to think the atmosphere is one stable layer. Its not. Its fluidic, it splits into many differing layers of temperature and windpseed, and despite what you may think its very very cold at altitude.


why are you so sure of your info neformore? who says that just becase you read something on wikipedia it makes it undeniably true?

the mere fact that you are on ATS tells me that your smart and you know that not all official info can be trusted - stuff is covered up, denied and hidden. The fact that textbooks have apparent reasons for the chemtrail phenomena does mean chemtrails dont exist. I like to look beyond the propaganda and brain washing and go behind the so called truth. IF you read the article ive been telling everyone to read you might get an interesting perspective on the topic.

now, the sundog? to start with, in my opinion my pic is not a sundog. to give you an idea, as you look at the pic, the sun would have been to the mid/upper right of the photo, mostly where the blue part can be seen - this goes exaclty against sundog theory which says that the area closest to the sun should be red, furthest away should be blue. this is NOT the case in my pic. ALso, this cloud was moving independently to all others - it was really bizzare. Barium in the atmosphere is known to cause these rainbow effects.

If you still think its a sundog, then cool, but i doubt that you yourself will be conducting a "full chemical analysis", as you suggested, on the next 'sundog' you see so i guess we'll never know huh.

ALso what do you think of the fact that before the mid 80's there are NO pictures of contrails that persist for as long as they do now. chemtrail pics started popping up at the EXACT same time those in the know about them said the program was started. that has always been an interesting fact to me.

you are obviously as determined as i am in your opinion on the subject and thats fine, but you should be at least consider that these things are real - have a read of some pro-chemtrail data, such as the article i mentioned. At least dont just rely on the 'official data' which everyone on here knows is often fabricated

[edit on 1-8-2007 by srsen]



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 02:59 AM
link   
As far as the video, I can see both points ... but, if you are claiming those two jets are refueling, then shouldn't they have identical contrail signatures? I can even excuse the 'tanker' in front ... obviously it will be slightly higher (but not that much really) and isn't too far ahead? Just a couple thoughts.

This may sound a bit conflicting but, I have always noticed lingering 'contrails' my whole life in Florida ... BUT, there were also dissipating contrails nearby or with them.

I know that a couple years ago, I attributed an allergy attack (I have never had one before) to a strange thick yellow pollen that persisted for a week or so covering everything worse than following someone down a dirt road ... everyday, since I washed my car after work everyday and the next day it was back just as thick.

I cannot make a claim I know for sure what is going on, but I will link to a site I have read that helped me understand better, if you don't read it and look at the pictures, then I really won't pay attention to your arguments too much until you explain what is obviously shown.

Reading and looking at the pictures in general is preferred, but a statement ... and two pictures in particular are what I would like the people who believe it to be a hoax or a conspiracy out of nothing to explain to me ... the statement ... mass, does the jet exhaust have enough mass to make a cloud cover as large as the ones shown on the NASA images and in the pictures that cover huge areas of land. Why do some contrails dissipate within seconds (example given on page) and others make huge clouds if it is the same amount exhaust at similar heights (remember, I am in FL, I have several major airports just for Florida (Miami, Orlando, Tampa, Daytona, etc.), plus the southern vacation islands).

Now the two MAJOR pictures I want you to explain are ... the 4 engine jet that has 5 trails, one coming from the tail and the spread is from wingtip to wingtip; and, the picture of the Navy cargo plane that has a nozzle on the tail end of it.

Here is the link: Chemtrails over California

Please explain this to me the best you can, for I am now a believer, instead of just finding it an interesting debate after looking at those ... that site has more pages as well you can get to easier by clicking here: Chemtrails Main Page

I found just that first page to be overwhelming evidence for me ... because even looking at the first few pictures I thought to myself, oh, those are the vapor trails I have always noticed my whole life ... then by the end of it ... it made a whole lot of sense. Please take the time to review the page before judging.

Thank you.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by srsen
why are you so sure of your info neformore? who says that just becase you read something on wikipedia it makes it undeniably true?


30 years of skywatching, qualifications in chemistry, physics, hydrology and meterological science, a fascination with everything that flies and/or capable of getting airborne, an understanding of how aerial refuelling takes place and an understanding of concepts such as laminar flow, thermal inversions, air currents and weather conditions.

And you?

I'm working with accepted science and scientific principles.
Whats your basis?

Strikes me that the burden of proof here is on the people making the claims, which is why I'm asking for it, because what I see here is either contrails or, possibly - and I do say possibly - the dumping of residue from fuel tanks prior to hitting a tanker.

You throw "barium" in to the thread - if we're being sprayed with Barium, or Aluminium, wheres the toxicology reports from dead people with massive traces of it in their system? Wheres the food standard reports showing elevated levels of the compounds? How, exactly, do you mask such traces to an extent where various independant testers, public health laboratories and doctors have missed it?

How do you spray a municipal area from 25-30000ft? How far off do you have to stand with the aircraft? How do you plan for the movement of a weather front in your spraying pattern? What about the thermal effects of updrafts over metropolitan areas caused by dense building stock and radiant heating?

Lets have some answers please?

[edit on 2/0807/07 by neformore]



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist

Now the two MAJOR pictures I want you to explain are ... the 4 engine jet that has 5 trails, one coming from the tail and the spread is from wingtip to wingtip; and, the picture of the Navy cargo plane that has a nozzle on the tail end of it.


The first picture is I believe - and I stand to be corrected on the type, a Boeing C-17 cargo plane, passing through a condensation layer. The slowing of air over the wings, coupled with the winglets on the tips of the wings is producing the effect of a full span contrail, similar to what can be seen here

Mig-29 Vortices


The second plane is a US navy Boeing E6 Mercury Airborne command post aircraft. The "Nozzle" is a trailing drogue antenna used for high-frequency communications with Ballistic Missile Submarines. The plane has two such antennas, one of which is trailed from the tail, the other from the underside of the aircraft.

E6 Mercury

See...its easy for anyone to publish anything on the net and make claims about it, but lets deny some ignorance here! These things are NOT what the people who wrote that site made them out to be.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Colloneh7

Notice that at the beginning of the video there are 3 "persistant contrails", and then the middle plane's "persistant contrail" stops emmitting, and then the plane on the left has its "persistant contrail" stop emitting, while the other's "persistant contrail" continues to emit.

Can meteorology science explain this?

I don't think so.


Yes, it can. The aircraft moved to different altitudes
Okay, that might not be what happened, but it's a perfectly feasible explanation for what the film shows.


Originally posted by srsen

now, the sundog? to start with, in my opinion my pic is not a sundog.


I think you;re right. I think it's iridescence. When you know where and when to look it's actually quite common (best seen when wearing sunglasses btw).


Also what do you think of the fact that before the mid 80's there are NO pictures of contrails that persist for as long as they do now. chemtrail pics started popping up at the EXACT same time those in the know about them said the program was started. that has always been an interesting fact to me.


Actually, there are many pictures from WWII showing persistent contrails.



However, until the chemtrail conspiracy was invented, no-one saw much reason to photograph and publish pictures of contrails ..... It was only when the conspiracy was invented that the conspiracists started publishing pictures of contrails, claiming they were something else - and, with the advent of the internet, the idea quickly spread amongst those who had never really given the skies above them much thought before.

The big increase in commercial air travel during the 90s and current decade means that not only are there many times more aircraft flying over populated areas, but there is much greater chance of people on the ground noticing contrails.


At least dont just rely on the 'official data' which everyone on here knows is often fabricated


So what you're saying is don't believe anything the experts tell you, but do believe what the non-experts tell you? I shouldn't believe my friends who are professional meteorologists because they just fabricate disinformation?

Do you think that the scientists who study the effects of persistent contrails and how and why they form, are involved in the conspiracy or are they just stupid? People like these scientists at ECMWF, for example

www.ecmwf.int...

Or these from NCAR:

www.stormingmedia.us...



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 06:54 AM
link   
ok, thanks you two, you got me back on the other side again.

The rainbow effect, I could see as just being a property of water.

As a child, honestly, I always thought that the vapor trails were from the wings piercing the air at great speeds causing condensation. I didn't think much about the jet engine itself as a child.

The last time I watched morning news they showed an amazing amount of flights even at the early morning hours; I think hitting the quad digits.

I still can see where the chemtrail ideas come from ... but now I will need new information that wasn't so easily de-bunked in such a very intelligent, informative way as neformore did. Though I am a sucker for a the cute girls, even if it is only a picture


I couldn't have expected a better set of answers ...

I am still not sure if the picture with the 5 trails is fully explained to me, but enough for now.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
Though I am a sucker for a the cute girls, even if it is only a picture



I have about 10 avatars of her, all in various guises, which I'm intending to rotate monthly
Sad I know, but we all have our little quirks



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Don't just take someones word for it, do your own research and hunt your own trails! Seriously, in the end it does not matter if your right or wrong, just so long as you did it yourself.

@Essan: That picture from WW2. How can you claim them to be persistent trails when you can not even see that far behind the planes! Seriously..



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by shrunkensimon

@Essan: That picture from WW2. How can you claim them to be persistent trails when you can not even see that far behind the planes! Seriously..


There are reports from WWII of pilots returning from bombing missions having problems with navigation because they were flying back through their own contrails (remember some of these raids involved hundreds of aircraft flying together at the same altitude).

Then there's thise paper from 1970 which refers to contrails spreading out into sheets of cirrus clouds

ams.allenpress.com...

Whilst this good website: contrailscience.com... contains a facsimile of a newspaper from 1944 in which it's mentioned that


Contrails frequently have a tendency to cause a complete overcast and cause rain. In Idaho I have seen contrails formed in a perfectly clear sky and four hours later a complete overcast resulted“


So I guess we can conclude that 'chemtrails' have been around a long, long time


[edit on 2-8-2007 by Essan]



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Ok, thanks for the posts Essan and Nefermore.

Maybe I am starting to see the light.


The pre-1980s info is very convincing. Got anymore stuff like that? More pictures?

I must admit that the video at the beginning of this thread was also convincing as is alot of other info. There are still some things I am leary about concerning the Military's plan to control the weather by 2025 as well as other things, so I will still keep an open mind.

Oh, and sorry if I was snippy before, E.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Meh. All i can say is i've witnessed the spraying with my own two eyes. I also had some of it on camera, but it got wiped by my parents


Once you've seen planes flying in parallel at the same time.. seen some planes flying through the same airspace, but not leaving trails.. etc. Once you've seen it for yourself, it is undeniable.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Colloneh7
Ok, thanks for the posts Essan and Nefermore.


You're welcome




The pre-1980s info is very convincing. Got anymore stuff like that? More pictures?


Escort fighters creating Contrails as they fly round a bomber formation

B17 Bomber stream

You can't stop and start a trail like that (ok, its done with diesel injection but it makes the point)

P51 Mustang Contrail

I'm sure theres many more



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 11:13 PM
link   
ok, im at work and very busy, so this will have to be quick...

you guys certainly have presented some great info here and i tip my hat to you both for knowing your stuff.

i do have some data which i will try to find a way to get up here (excerts from toxology type reports) which i would be keen to get your inputs on.

Also, i looked at those pictures of the B17's and P51s and they certainly appear to be making persistant contrails. but i wonder if the same kind of physics can be applied to those aircraft and also to modern commercial airliners? if not, then can they be used as a true comparison?
Also, would these old war fighters be travelling at faster speeds than commercial airliners? IF so could the contrails be resulting form this?
Just a quick couple of thougths...

Anyway more to come from me probably tomorrow.

Once again tho, good responses guys - much respect

EDIT: any help on how i could best get a 98pg, 402kb PDF file to you guys to read? i finally found it on my computer and need to get it up here, would ad volumes to this discussion - please help.


[edit on 2-8-2007 by srsen]



posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Some interesting posts here from both sides of the camp. There is spraying happening around my place the last few weeks, it has been in the media and questions are being asked to govt about it. So far only denial. I am taking some pictures to show the difference between contrails and chemtrails (I would love to see someone describe how two planes flying at the same altitude close together can have one leaving a trail that lasts about half an hour, and the other's trail disappears within a minute). I see this frequently and will try to capture this also to provide some new material to investigate.

For me there is no sufficient evidence supporting either side (although I have been studying this for years), and find people make conclusions very easily.

Does someone know why a plane would want to head first in one direction, then turn around and come back and do this for some time. Doesn't sound like a passenger or cargo plane to me.....perhaps forgot his lunch?

Thanks for all your posts, Ive enjoyed reading them



posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by srsen
ok, im at work and very busy, so this will have to be quick...

you guys certainly have presented some great info here and i tip my hat to you both for knowing your stuff.


Thankyou!



Also, i looked at those pictures of the B17's and P51s and they certainly appear to be making persistant contrails. but i wonder if the same kind of physics can be applied to those aircraft and also to modern commercial airliners?


Yes, because they are airfoils moving through the atmosphere. The only major difference is the heat from the jet engine exhausts, which would probably be higher that the exhausts from the piston engines. More heat = more condensate = larger contrail.



Also, would these old war fighters be travelling at faster speeds than commercial airliners? IF so could the contrails be resulting form this?
Just a quick couple of thougths...


The bombers are way slower than any commerically operated jet. The B-17 had a top speed around 220mph.

As far as I know at present there is only one military prop driven plane that can mach modern commerical jet speed and its the Russian TU-95 Bear Bomber, with a top speed of about 570mph

The Mustangs and Spitfires were pretty fast, but a modern 767 cruises at about 530mph, and a Mustang cruised at 362mph, and topped out around 437mph, whilst the Spit could hit about 378mph. The fastest WW2 prop driven British Fighter I am aware of was the Hawker Tempest introduced towards the end of the war that could hit 435mph.


[edit on 3/0807/07 by neformore]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join