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: 7
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 11:25 PM
link   
andyzero1234,
here's a very good site.


Chemtrail properties




posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by thesaint
I agree 100% i think there is something with chemtrails. The point of my first post was basically "I have seen evidence of such things and i dare not think about the stuff i wasnt told" What i didnt expect was to be asked all sorts of personal information about my former career like i had to explain myself. I was just saying what i saw, Nothing else!!!


Crikey. Don't get your knickers in a twist.

Every day - or if not that every other day - some looney tune comes on here claiming to be something or other. I asked for some very basic information, thats all, the same as happens on every other forum and subject on ATS when someone makes a claim - as I'm sure you well know. Christ its not like I asked for your address is it?

Fair enough, if you say thats what you saw. Fine.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by thesaint

Fact is i watched a short film of a RAF Tristar loaded with liquid tanks. It showed take off, Flying, Spraying and landing and in between there were diagrams showing the flight path and wind directions etc etc and describing how the winds would carry the cargo downwind.


Was it a just simulation though? ie - this is what we might be able to do ....

Anyway, did the spraying operation result in the appearance of persistent contrails, or did the spayed material just disperse to the ground without ice crystals forming around them - ie so no-one on the ground would even notice?

(incidently, another point about peristent conytrails - the fact that they persist is proof that whatever causes them is not a substance falling to the ground. If you're concerned about viruses being sprayed, then worry about the aircraft that only produce short lived contrails!)



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
andyzero1234,
here's a very good site.


And here's a quote from that site



"Eventually the bug was isolated by an independent lab, which confirmed that it carried clear chemical markers of being lab created or manipulated. Because the US media is so well controlled, the epidemic of "Flu-Like" quickly became a non-event. In the UK, however, everyone was aware of the crisis because the UK test really got out of hand. Over 10,000 people died there, and health authorities were parking rented refrigerator trucks behind the hospitals to use as temporary morgues.


Well, what can I say. I must have missed that one, and I'm one of "everyone" in the UK.

Complete, total and utter rubbish. Nothing like that has happened here. The NHS would have collapsed had it been the case.

So much for "very good" huh?



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Every Day???????

I been on here for like 3 years as a registered member its not like i just joined yesterday to start spouting crap. Do you think after 3 years i would risk losing my account for a fabrication

I dont think so!!!!!!!

And it is very close to asking for an address believe me its where i was based so yeah that was my address

[edit on 8-8-2007 by thesaint]



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by thesaint

Fact is i watched a short film of a RAF Tristar loaded with liquid tanks. It showed take off, Flying, Spraying and landing and in between there were diagrams showing the flight path and wind directions etc etc and describing how the winds would carry the cargo downwind.


Was it a just simulation though? ie - this is what we might be able to do ....



Hi Essan, Yes it could have been a sim but the film showed the event as actually happening. I dont know i just saying what i saw sim or real the possibilities could be awful



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Saint, Spare your breath, there are enough people out there that respect your comments.

Even the theory of relativity, once the greatest law of the universe has holes in it. This doesn't make the theory any less true today....

Thank you for posting what you did. People should investigate this further before negating it.

Without exposing yourself or your identity/rank, can you give any indication at which base this was, what year, things that don't implicate but provide further clues....

Thanks again



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Heres some pic's I lifted from This site
(sorry mods if i'm hogging B/width or something!)





Hmmmm.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   
OK. So on a site thats supposed to be about denying ignorance, questioning a story that isn't backed up is - apparently - a no no???

And the same site I posted about above - you know the one where 10,000 people died of some mysterious disease and the British Healthcare system collapsed and we had refrigerator trucks outside the morgues - gets dragged up again as a "credible" source, and four pictures, one that looks awfully like a stack pattern, one of a high altitude research plane with extra pitot tubes and analytic equipment fitted to it, a 757 producing a normal contrail and what appears to be an aerial emitter on the back of a plane (I'm still working on the ID of it) is proof huh?

Riiight....well. We've come along way with this ignorance denial thing haven't we?

[edit on 8/0807/07 by neformore]

[edit on 8/0807/07 by neformore]



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by acegotflows
up until a few weeks ago, we had daily chemshows over Los Angeles. It's interesting to me, but a lot of ppl out here don't even pay it much attention...


so last night I looked up and what did I see over Los Angeles? You betcha, 2 planes WAY up there dorpping this crap. I just haven't been outside to see it...



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   
i agree with Nefermore when he says that we must deny ignorance here - that doesnt neccessarily mean believing everything we see on a website that fits our beliefs.

There is a good chance that those pics posted are stack patterns and research planes BUT there is just as good a chance they are chemtrails and evidence of planes being fitted with spraying apparatus.

The thing is that its very hard to prove either way.

Nerformore, with your knowledge of all things aerial, are you able to ID that plane or its questionable additions? Would go a long way to helping this debate is all.

The thing that keeps getting me is this - we ALL know here that this control system which is currently ruling our planet is more than capable of using such weapons as chemtrails against us. It is in no way outside the realms of possibility, so we should all keep our minds open to whatever evidence is presented and really try to analyse it.

My 2 cents, the satellite image above is great, but there does appear to be a whole bunch of chemtrails towards the bottom which all go togther at the end - is there an airport at this location? if there is then i doubt they are chemtrails, if not, then wow, thats a scary picture indeed!

[edit on 8-8-2007 by srsen]



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by srsen
Neformore (I changed the spelling to correct that!), with your knowledge of all things aerial, are you able to ID that plane or its questionable additions? Would go a long way to helping this debate is all.


Sure. The clue was in the web address on the photo. The plane belongs to the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and the data sheet on it is here;

Gulfstream G-1

Where they tell you that....



The aircraft is configured for versatile research applications. It accommodates a variety of external probes for aerosol, radiation, and turbulence measurements and internal sampling systems for a wide range of measurements.


In other words, what you see are sampling tubes to pick up the air from outside the plane. In fact, its almost laughable that this thing is presented as evidence of chemtrails when its the type of plane that would be deployed in the event of a serious incident in order to detect pathogens in the air. But hey - lets not let the facts of the actual aircraft get in the way of a whole load of BS huh? This is what I'm talking about when I say that people post what they think they know, without even looking at the website thats plastered all over the image!



My 2 cents, the satellite image above is great, but there does appear to be a whole bunch of chemtrails towards the bottom which all go togther at the end - is there an airport at this location? if there is then i doubt they are chemtrails, if not, then wow, thats a scary picture indeed!


The really big clue in that picture is the City of Geneva, which is the second largest city in Switzerland and it has....ta-da....an airport, with, and I quote from their website;



- Annual traffic of more than 9.9 million passengers (year 2006).
- More than 170'000 aircraft movements(year 2006).


Imagine there being contrails there then? Who'd a thunk it?

Another case of people seeing a picture, slapping it on a website, not doing any research on it and making some spurious crappy claims about what it means in order to present it as "evidence" when a look at the pic, 5 mins on Google and hey presto....the answer is as plain as the nose on anyones face.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Hi Neformore, I like your arguments and debating style. I have a few questions for you though, just to help me become more open to your suggestions:

1) No-one had actually made any statements about the pictures posted above, they were just posted without comments. You then write a thread wherein you comment as if all/some are convinced this is evidence of chemtrails. This is therefore a false statement, and presumtuous. I hope the rest of your arguments are not. Can you explain why you took this angle? Personally I find it reduces the quality of the thread.

2) You mention that the aerial shot shows stacking converging close to Geneva airport. This is incorrect. There is one line moving away from Geneva, and this converges with others to the southwest. can you explain this?

3) I want to believe you, so perhaps you can qualify your background knowledge the same way you expected from thesaint. Where do you get your information from, only the internet, or have you been part of a course/program or employed somewhere where this knowledge is required reading?

These three things make me doubt somewhat what you have to say on this subject, and I wish they didn't, so I would appreciate your comments on this.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nextstep
1) No-one had actually made any statements about the pictures posted above, they were just posted without comments. You then write a thread wherein you comment as if all/some are convinced this is evidence of chemtrails. This is therefore a false statement, and presumtuous. I hope the rest of your arguments are not. Can you explain why you took this angle? Personally I find it reduces the quality of the thread.


Yeah, ok. I took the angle because I visited the site the photo's came from, and whoever put them there clearly knows absolutely nothing about what they are, but instead sees fit to make out they are something else entirely, which kind of annoys me. So I was typing when I was annoyed. Sorry if it put you off.



2) You mention that the aerial shot shows stacking converging close to Geneva airport. This is incorrect. There is one line moving away from Geneva, and this converges with others to the southwest. can you explain this?


Yes. With two points. The first thing is that aircraft climbing from/descending to the airport itself would - if you check Essans excellent posts above - more than likely not experience the correct conditions for contrail production due to air temperature at lower altitude being considerably higher, so the contrails themselves would form at a distance away, given that large jet planes don't take off vertically. The second point is that, as you can easliy see from watching the sky - the atmosphere isn't static, so contrails that do form will move in the direction of the prevailing wind at their altitude.



3) I want to believe you, so perhaps you can qualify your background knowledge the same way you expected from thesaint. Where do you get your information from, only the internet, or have you been part of a course/program or employed somewhere where this knowledge is required reading?


Sure - or at least I'll try. I hold a HNC in Civil Engineering, plus supplementary subjects in Water Supply Engineering, Hydraulics and Hydrology, gained at Stockport College of Art and Technology in the UK between 1998 and 1992 - the water supply courses covered extensive research into the hydrological cycle and aspects of meteorology, cloud formation, precipitation and wind and weather cycles. As an Engineer working on live sites that are weather sensitive such as bridge deck renovations and high-speed road resurfacing I have to keep an extensive overview of local weather conditions.

I'm an aviation enthusiast of some 30 years standing, with a particular fondness for military aviation although anything that flies fascinates me. Sadly I couldn't get into the RAF on eyesight grounds, otherwise thats probably where I would be today. I would like to believe I can identify most aircraft I see in the sky instantly (single engine prop planes I'm not so good at). There are two things in my whole life I've seen in the sky that I can't explain.

I have been interested in, and involved with Paranormal and Unusual subjects for almost the same amount of time as I have been interested in aviation, spurred on by one of those things I couldn't identify, which I saw as a child.

My interest in such subjects led to me being part of the staff of the AOL Channel for the Parascope website during its heyday, being - I was led to believe - the only UK host on that forum that passed AOL US's full moderator exams including the empowerment sections on chat and account bans. I hosted three, sometimes four two hour slots on a weekly basis covering a whole range of paranormal subjects under the screen name PSCP Void between late 1998 and 2001. In actual fact, Neformore was my AOL "off duty" screen name.

My interest in "unusual" subjects has, over the years , taken me on a journey of learning that has provided some answers, but usually more questions.

And currently I am on NICAP's Current Encounters mailing list, where UFO cases across the years are discussed, re-assessed, and catalogued - although that list uses an email address I prefer to keep personal.



These three things make me doubt somewhat what you have to say on this subject, and I wish they didn't, so I would appreciate your comments on this.


Well maybe what I've written above will help, or maybe it won't. Thats your decision.

[edit on 9/0807/07 by neformore]

[edit on 9/0807/07 by neformore]



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 05:28 AM
link   
Here's my own experience with chemtrails. I'd first read about them about two years ago and fence-sat. Yes, spraying was going on, but on the scale claimed? and for evil purposes? That I didn't believe.

I was in Paris this past fall and one early evening I was out walking and looked up and had to stop in my tracks. It was a clear day and the sun was low and the sky was literally a checkerboard of chemtrails, some recent and thick, some old and diffuse, but this was on a scale from horizon to horizon, at least forty distinct trails, and I was flabbergasted. These were definitely not your grandma's jet contrails.

I looked around me but no one even bothered to look up. So you can hide this stuff in plain sight.

I know they exist, I saw a spectacularly dense display, But their purpose? I think they are weather modification/protection for urban areas, judged necessary because of advancing environmental degradation. And I think recent increases in freshwater fish and forestry die-off are aggravated by the chemicals. So I wonder just how beneficial they are in the end.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Hi Neformore,

Thank you for your reply and much appreciated, I respect your comments.

With regards to point 1, so be it, it happens sometime, even to the best of us.

With regard to point 2, I agree with your ascend/descend part of the explanation (although I have seen numerous airports where there are plenty of overflights that show 'chemtrail' signs, these being different from the approach and departure routes). Looking at this photo however, and having some knwoledge of the regional climate, and geographical effects on cloud formations, I can conclude 2 things from this picture:

a) This region seldom witnesses winds from the northeast, it would be coincidental if this happened to be the case when the photo was taken (although it still could be so).

b) Looking at the cloud formation, this would appear to represent a front coming in from the southwest, although this is no definite proof of the wind current at higher altitudes.

With regards to your last comments, you appear to have some knowledge built up over the years, and I do not dispute the quantity or quality of this knwoledge, as only you know the extent of this. You, me and most others in this thread are however not qualified experts in this area so we need to be careful when making conclusions, wouldn't you agree?

I know my eyes and memory do not deceive me, and what I see happening the last few years is very different than normal contrails. I will go into this further in the thread.

As I can not make any definite conclusion however, due to lack of undeniable evidence, perhaps we can try to focus on one point at a time to see if we can move forward, wherever that may bring us.

The question I then have, is, does anyone have any photos from say 30 years ago where chemtrails are present in the sky portion of such a photo (although there of course would not be as many due to there being less planes in the skies then)? Even 1 chem/contrail would be enough for me for now.

Thanks for your post, much appreciated.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nextstep

The question I then have, is, does anyone have any photos from say 30 years ago where chemtrails are present in the sky portion of such a photo (although there of course would not be as many due to there being less planes in the skies then)? Even 1 chem/contrail would be enough for me for now.



A few pages back Nerformore posted a few WW2 era pics that showed military planes leaving what certainly appeared to be chemtrails. i'm not quite ready to believe they discount chemtrails, I think more research into them would need to be done, but nevertheless they are interesting.

Nerformore,

Im really keen to hear your opinion on the following:

If chemtrails dont exist and are simply persisting contrails, then woud it not stand to reason that they would appear much more regularly and consistently than they do and also in basically the same spots everytime?

I mean in my opinion, if chemtrails were merely related to airport activity then they would likey be concentrated in those areas only - and i can say categorically that this isnt the case.

I know we are also talking bout atmospheric conditions and the like, so would we also not be able to study weather conditions and temperatures on days when chemtrails are prevelant and collate the info to get a pattern? i mean in theory we should be able to come to conclusions that state on this type of day and at this temperature range we are likely to see chemtrails form?

If we did this, and no pattern was found, then wouldnt this mean chemtrails are very likely a sinister spraying program?



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 01:42 AM
link   
Hi srsen,

Thanks for your post and comments. I have read this whole thread and am fully aware of the WWII bomber plane aspect, but I see a big difference in a fleet of bombers 60 years ago and a single plane being responsible for a trail today (or 30 years ago for that matter).

I still challenge anyone to provide a photo with contrails in the sky from about 30 years ago.



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by srsen

If chemtrails dont exist and are simply persisting contrails, then woud it not stand to reason that they would appear much more regularly and consistently than they do and also in basically the same spots everytime?

I mean in my opinion, if chemtrails were merely related to airport activity then they would likey be concentrated in those areas only - and i can say categorically that this isnt the case.


They always appear in exactly the same places here in the UK
Primarily N-S overhead and to the east of me, and in an E-W direction to the west of me. I see the same frequency of aircraft at the same altitudes every day - only when atmospheric conditions are right do they leave persistent contrails (like yesterday, due to proximity of a frontal system to the west) Heaviest air traffic is early morning and evening, when persistent contrails are also most common.

And they're in association with heavy commercial air traffic - you don't need to be close to an airport, just under a major flightpath or 2 (which most of the UK and indeed the USA is)



Originally posted by Nextstep

I still challenge anyone to provide a photo with contrails in the sky from about 30 years ago.


Will 1971 do?

ams.allenpress.com...

[edit on 11-8-2007 by Essan]



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by gottago
I was in Paris this past fall and one early evening I was out walking and looked up and had to stop in my tracks. It was a clear day and the sun was low and the sky was literally a checkerboard of chemtrails, some recent and thick, some old and diffuse, but this was on a scale from horizon to horizon, at least forty distinct trails, and I was flabbergasted. These were definitely not your grandma's jet contrails.


Paris Charles De Gaulle is the second busiest airport in Europe,



In 2006, Charles de Gaulle Airport ranked second in Europe in terms of passenger traffic with 56,849,567 passengers [1], behind London Heathrow Airport (67,530,197), and above Frankfurt International Airport (52,810,683). In terms of plane movements, Charles de Gaulle Airport was number one in Europe with 541,566 landings and take offs


Taken from Wikipedia - Charles de Gaulle International Airport

Divide 541,566 by 365 and thats 1483 landings/takeoffs a day.

Also from the same article;



The three other international airports serving Paris are Orly Airport, the most important after CDG, Paris-Beauvais-Tillé Airport, which mainly serves low-cost airlines, and Paris - Le Bourget Airport for General aviation (business jets).


Its not suprising then, when you look at the above, that you are going to see some serious contrails in Paris.

[edit on 11/0807/07 by neformore]




top topics



 
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join