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: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

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


Thank you for your reply!

However, I did not find any of those pictures you provided very substantiating.

E's post of this link was very interesting.

I did find this link (below), and I think it gives insight on both sides...

www.airapparent.ca...

Watch the Discovery Channel docu, read the post, and click on the links.

You will come out better rounded, I'm sure.




posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 06:12 AM
link   
Questions to Neferomore:

Your explanation for the video posted at the beginning of this thread (as far as I can tell) is that it was a refueling operation.

How do you explain the 3 contrails?

It appears to me that the tanker was too far away from refueling the jets in the video in this thread. Was the tanker possibly out of range? And is it normal/possible for tankers to refuel 2 planes at once? Can you give us more info on that? Thanks.



posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 06:21 AM
link   
neformore and Essan are doing a great job of explaining this internet hoax, but I thought I would throw this out into the mix as well as I did not see it mentioned yet; quotes from WW2 Bomber Pilots.


Quotes From WW2 Bomber Pilots on Persistent Contrails.
Jay,
Yes, we certainly did. Contrails were so thick that they became clouds. We often said that we created weather over Europe. They would persist for many hours, maybe days. We flew a different route coming back than going in partly to avoid the contrail clouds that we created. There are some pictures of contrails on my web site - none of these are shown to be very heavy but there were time when we were near the end of the bomber stream and the contrails were so dense that it was no dfferent than flying in clouds. A thousand or more
planes (4000 internal combustion engines) can make a lot of contrail at 25000 feet or more.
Hope this helps.
Willard Reese- 457th Bomb Group

My recollection is that the contrails persisted for some time. While I don't recall timing them, I would guess that they could be seen for fifteen minutes or more. At times, Germany appeared to be almost covered by contrails as far as you could see. Essentially creating a cloud layer which could possibly persist for hours I suppose. The bombers' in more or less straight lines, the fighters', usually above us, more random as they criss crossed or circled. A common sight was the escorts dropping their tanks and heading off after the bad guys.

The contrails also tended to create a cloud layer which restricted the visibility of the following aircraft. So, contrails represented a problem to us and were to be avoided if at all possible. The idea of poison clouds is obviously ludicrous to those who have regularly experienced them.
Sincerely,
Ronald D. Spencer
788th Bomb Squadron
467th Bomb Group
96th Bomb Wing
2nd Bomb Division
8th Air Force


These are just snippets, there is much more at the site linked above.

I also wanted to make a comment to the folks who keep bringing up that they see a persistent contrail from one aircraft while another is not creating one. The atmosphere has temperature layers to it, there are also areas where the hot air raises and the cold air drops called thermals. Any change in the temperature can cause a contrail to form, stop, and reform on the other side of the thermal. It is almost impossible to tell if two aircraft are at the same altitude, and thus flying it the same thermal layer, from the ground. So you may see what appears to be two aircraft flying side-by-side, when they are really at 5000 or so feet of separation.

Aircraft also travel on VORS which is what causes them to generate straight crisscrossing lines in the sky. Circles are generated by holding patterns. Commercial aircraft do not have the facilities to spray anything, and this can be confirmed by anyone who has worked at an airport, and can be seen by anyone who watches ramp operations. However, you will frequently see them flying in parallel or crisscrossing lines on the VOR/Jetway system leaving persistent contrails. To anyone who says that it is a fuel additive, I would like to know how they added something like aluminum to the fuel and did not change its temperature density and specific weight?

Here is a neat little java applet which will let you play with the conditions required to create Contrails…
Contrail Simulator


neformore and Essan



posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 07:36 AM
link   
So how do i explain away the planes i've seen, flying in parallel lines at the same time, like the video that was posted in this thread? Or the planes which take the same route for a week or so, coming back at intervals to spray, then rotating to a different route?



posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Hi Shrunkensimon,

Thanks for your post. I asked a similar question and have not had a reply yet......

Another question for people out there, if the atmosphere is such that contrails should be able to hang around for a long time (an hour plus), is this conducive of an atmosphere that should be seeing cloud formations, or evaporation of existing clouds?



posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Colloneh7
Questions to Neferomore:

Your explanation for the video posted at the beginning of this thread (as far as I can tell) is that it was a refueling operation.

How do you explain the 3 contrails?


Well, as I see it theres two possibilities. The first is there is a third smaller jet that isn't on camera by the time the guy zooms in.

The second is, as Essan suggested, the larger jet is at a higher altitude, having past through the layer of denser air. Tanker Aircraft are approached from behind and underneath usually.

My money is on the third jet, because the trail isn't indicative of what I'd expect from a tanker - the condensate stream isn't spread enough for the engine pattern. Its hard to tell.



It appears to me that the tanker was too far away from refueling the jets in the video in this thread. Was the tanker possibly out of range? And is it normal/possible for tankers to refuel 2 planes at once? Can you give us more info on that? Thanks.


OK. I'll try.

Theres two ways of carrying out air-to air refuelling.

The first way is "hose and drogue", whereby the tanker trails two hoses with drogue "baskets" on them.

The aircraft being refuelled approach the baskets and the pilots manouver the refuelling probe on their aircraft into the basket. This type of refuelling is commonplace with NATO airforces and with the US Navy.

The second method is via boom and recepticle. The tanker aircraft has a large fixed boom extending from the rear underside of the plane, and the pilot of the aircraft being refuelled flys under the boom, and the refuelling operator on the tanker sights in and connects the nozzle.

The difference in methods is down to the fact that with the probe/basket, there is a possibility that the basket can damage the refuelling probe, and the pilot has to fly the plane in close proximity to a larger aircraft whilst manouevering to connect to the probe. The boom/recepticle method means the pilot can concentrate on flying, whilst the boom operator places the recepticle.

So, with the hose/drogue method it is possible to refuel two planes at once.

However, this was in the States, so its more likely that it would be a boom type tanker. The Procedure for approach is that one tanks while the wingman stands off, and then they swap position. This affords the tanking jet - and the tanker - some protectionin hostile situations.

More info - in much better detail, here

Aerial Refuelling



posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
So how do i explain away the planes i've seen, flying in parallel lines at the same time, like the video that was posted in this thread? Or the planes which take the same route for a week or so, coming back at intervals to spray, then rotating to a different route?


Holding patterns for approaches to airports, sometimes called stack patterns, more info here

Holding Patterns

Airlanes run in stacks and along designated lanes and landing patterns depend on the wind direction around the airport they are approaching.

Aircraft Stacking System

Air traffic control

Aircraft stacks are long and deep. You can't turn a widebody jet round on a dime, it needs 2/3 miles of sky to do a gradual banked turn.



posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Hmmm plausible, but it doesn't explain the planes i've seen flying in parallel at the same altitude. Nice information anyhow, thanks



posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Unless you are sitting on a radar station you cannot tell a difference of several thousand feet by eyeballing it from the ground. Also the parallel lines are often due to aircraft lining up for parallel approaches on parallel runways. Some of the contrails that look like they were laid down by parallel aircraft are actually flying the same VOR, but in the time between the two aircraft the wind shifts the contrail from the first over, then the second one comes along and makes what appears to be a parallel trail. It’s kind of hard to explain in writing well so see if this makes some sense.

First aircraft on VOR:
|
Wind shifts the contrail over:
>|
Now when the second comes by on the same VOR you get:
| |
Wind shifts those over:
>|>|
Third aircraft
| | |
There are your Parallel contrails.
Now have one or two cross those lines in the opposite direction, and viola… Checkerboard contrails.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 06:00 AM
link   
And if you live in London your under some of the busiest skies in the world.

Even here in the SW Midlands I estimate that at any one time there can be up to a dozen commercial airliners in the skies overhead - most heading north-south or into the west over Wales (the former particularly noticeable in the morning, the latter often providing some good contrails to catch the sun at sunset),

Of course, when no contrails are forming, or they disperse quickly, most of these aircraft remain invisible to the eye.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 06:37 AM
link   
Sorry, but i know what i've seen. I have seen planes flying parallel, at the same altitude, same plane type even (completely white, unmarked), doing the route day in day out, then after a set period, rotating their route.

Again, im talking about planes flying in parallel at the same time, same altitude.

Once i get it on camera again, i will upload it for you all.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 06:54 AM
link   
And this is over London is it?

Sounds very much like commercial airliners to me



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 06:55 AM
link   
Sure. Commercial airliners flying in parallel, no more distance between them than that of those in the original video posted in this thread..

Sorry, i don't buy that.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 07:55 PM
link   
ok. I've had a dig round my hard drive to find the toxicology reports which i was referring to a few days back - i doubt anyone will buy this - but i cant find the bloody things. i have found a report which refers to them tho, i've just lost the hard data



FROM 'CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH DRINKING WATER TEST RESULTS 1984 - 2006'

1) A review of all water tests in the State of California between 1984 and 2006 from results on this CD was conducted over a six-month period. Every water test result over -0- was analyzed and checked to find any unusual water contaminant data. The results of this search yielded some unusual statistics here in Mendocino and several other Northern California Counties.

2) It was discovered that Barium, Magnesium, Lead, Manganese, Aluminum, Iron, Sodium, and Specific Conductance (the ability of water to conduct a charge), were being found under unusual circumstances in our drinking water supplies. Unusual spikes were occurring in almost all drinking water sources in Mendocino County and in other counties throughout the State of California.

3) These specific spikes started in 1991, and have continued in certain specific years through 2006. The interesting part of these water spikes is that these contaminants almost always spike at the same time and in the same year. If, for example, Specific Conductance is high, then all or almost all the other test results are high at the same time.

4) Why do these contaminants only spike as a group and not, in the majority of cases, independently of one another? And why is every single public drinking water source showing some form of this spike pattern?
The California Air Resources Board Statewide Summary for Iron, Aluminum, Iron, Zinc, Manganese and Barium, also show positive air test results between 1989 and 2001. Our water test spikes appear to correlate strongly with California Air Quality test results. Why?

5) What impact do these spikes have on public health, the quality of our water, our air, soil and trees? What is the source of these pollutants? Industry, jet fuel emissions…what is happening in Mendocino County and in other counties throughout California? There are many questions and few answers. Why are the California Air Resources Control Board Air Testing Results correlating in some respects with our positive water test results?


I'm not claiming that this is undeniable proof of contaminents being sprayed in a chemtrail fashion, but is a curious sample of information.



Originally posted by neformore

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



interesting, thanks for clearing that up.


alot of good info thrown around here - i'd be lying if i said it hasn't made me think twice. But there are still some things that i just cant expalin and which simply dont sit right.

1) My parents live out in rural NSW, (5 hours away from major airports) very quiet, no airports. i would assume (correct if wrong) that airliners would be WELL into their highest flight alttitudes by the time they reach my parents area. but they STILL see what i consider chemtrails in their area. Why?

2) Why do the chemtrails increase when the sun is at its hottest? During winter here i saw NO chemtrails at all. a few normal contrails which dissipated within a minute but not a single persisting contrail. As soon as the sun got hotter and brigter, the chemtrails returned.
This works in perfectly to the theory that, on top of other things, they are used as a form of UV protection.

3) How do you explain the reports of increasd illness directly after a mass of spraying? cont...



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Just finally, in addition to my last point, please refer to the link below.

imageevent.com...

It's an interesting page on chemtrails. Look at the first 8 pics and follow the links concering the increase in sickness after mass spraying. Its not uncommon and its this type of info which makes me question all the hard data you guys have presented here (as honestly good as i think it is)


WHY would this happen if there was no such thing as chemtrails?? its just too suspect. i just cant get my head around it any other way than to say its chemtrails.


BTW: i really liked the explanation of checkerboard chemtrails. nice work, seriously
. i have a pic which i'll upload later which i want you to look at tho. but i gotta run now......



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 04:36 AM
link   
srsen,

Thanks for your post, I have seen the same results and will try to dig them up also. These include graphical presentation of these spike levels.

When talking about two separate subjects (commercial planes and those clearly laying out chemtrail patterns) as if they are the same, the conversation about whether they are contrails or chemtrails will never find a common ground. Perhaps we should discount any discussion on commercial craft (I have seen reports of the the commercial flight paths for certain days, and have witnessed other planes flying different routes during this time leaving chemtrails).

That there is something happening that is different than before the 1990's is clear, and I am taking pictures to show the differences between the two (I still haven't seen anyone explain why two planes at the same altitude can have one leave a contrail that disappears quickly, the other leaving trails that last hours).

Also I am still awaiting replies on my previous question regarding cloud formation processes when con/chemtrails are formed. I find it funny that when in-depth questions are asked on this topic, they are not refuted but also not answered.

I would love to be part of a Forum sometime where no-one is trying to be right, but everyone is trying to bring the facts on the table until a reasonable judgement can be made. Judging prematurely seems counterproductive for finding the real answers (how many times has science/history needed to be rewritten because the human ego would not open itself up to other possibilities which stretched the imagination of that culture). This is a rhetorical question and is not as important as the previous alinea, so please answer those first....



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Let's face it we can tell who is denying ignorance when it comes to chemtrails.

Forget Science and all that other stuff a contrail is a contrail and a chemtrail is a chemtrail. Look up and observe, if you don't...... you get what comes at ya!

There is Aluminum particles and Barium Salts (rat poison) amoung other wonderful stuff being dumped on you.

Plenty of samples have been collected and examined but I'm sure with a skeptic this still will not be good enough.

Chemtrails are real the test prove it. Sites have been listed and one other great site is chemtrailtrackingusa

People need to stop denying and learn, or wake up as we say.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Good stuff, I've seen the most blatant and disturbing aerial bombardment out here in Santa Cruz CA. I pass my reportings on to Chemtrail Central...



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 08:55 PM
link   
at work writing this so will get that pic i was talking bout tonight hopefully...

something occured to me this morning concerning the explanation of the checkerboard effect chemtrails.

Ok, if was explaiumed that planes are waiting to land or whatever and creating contrails which moves along due to wind... BUT there is a hole in that theroy i think:

1) What if there is no wind?

2) Whenever i see (what i think are) chemtrails, the planes are normally (bout 80 per cent of the time) at a fairly high alttitude - high enough that you can just make the plane out with the naked eye, but this is not the case when an about-to-land plane is circling, they are lower and i NEVER see these planes leaving contrails.

Once again, i'm looking for some feedback here. i'm liking the vibe of this thread, no ego's talking


EDIT: i'm starting to think that chemtrails do indeed exist, but perhaps every line which us chemtrail-believers see in the sky might not neccesarily be a chemtrail. Maybe some of them ARE persistent contrails as has been demonstrated here. BUT i still do think there chemtrails around also.

[edit on 5-8-2007 by srsen]



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nextstep
Also I am still awaiting replies on my previous question regarding cloud formation processes when con/chemtrails are formed. I find it funny that when in-depth questions are asked on this topic, they are not refuted but also not answered.


Its most likely because we have all answered these questions so many times, that we think we have answered them already in this thread. So what is your in-depth question? Is it this?


Originally posted by Nextstep
(I still haven't seen anyone explain why two planes at the same altitude can have one leave a contrail that disappears quickly, the other leaving trails that last hours).


I believe that this has already been answered, but ill go ahead and answer it again for you. First off, you cannot tell the altitude from the ground. Sorry to tell you this, but it cannot be done, and I don’t care how many aircraft you have watched over the years. I was an aviation person, and had to visually track aircraft on approach and I can not do it, so what makes you think you can as a casual observer?

Secondly how different is the temperature and the wind when you are standing on the top of a 10 story building as opposed to at the bottom? That is temperature difference of only 100 feet, now take that times ten, and you can see how different the temperature is between two aircraft.

Thus these two aircraft which may appear to be at the same altitude may be flying through vastly different weather conditions, making one leave contrails and the other not. To further demonstrate how the slightest change in atmospheric conditions can affect the persistence of contrails, I will again post the URL to the Contrail Simulator.

Contrail Simulator


Originally posted by srsen
something occured to me this morning concerning the explanation of the checkerboard effect chemtrails.

Ok, if was explaiumed that planes are waiting to land or whatever and creating contrails which moves along due to wind... BUT there is a hole in that theroy i think:

1) What if there is no wind?


While there may not be any wind at the surface, there is always wind at higher altitude. If there was no upper level winds then the weather would stall, this might happen but I don’t think it happens very often (This is a better one for Essan to answer BTW). Also there is another factor when it comes to VOR’s that I left out for the sake of simplicity. Planes Fly toward a VOR from slightly different areas and they may not always be dead on the VOR. This can also make parallel lines.


Originally posted by srsen
2) Whenever i see (what i think are) chemtrails, the planes are normally (bout 80 per cent of the time) at a fairly high alttitude - high enough that you can just make the plane out with the naked eye, but this is not the case when an about-to-land plane is circling, they are lower and i NEVER see these planes leaving contrails.


This is because its vastly colder at higher altitudes making the formation of ice that much easier.

My problem with Chemtrails, is that 90% of the sites I see pictures of them on show commercial aircraft dumping them. If that was the case then I would have been one of the guys loading that crap on the aircraft to begin with, so I know that all those sites are fake.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join