It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


My Chemtrail evidence

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 10:33 AM
reply to post by Pilot

Pilot, what in that picture indicates that the jet is climbing? A fairly stable, long-lasting contrail will form sometimes. Sometimes, you will see a very short contrail, behind the may be two or three times longer than the fuselage, but it will evaporate shortly after being formed.

Most times there is no visible trail at ALL!! Here's something you should know. ATC rules say that the controller will point out 'traffic' to other airplanes, when workload permits. We are constantly told of converging traffic, above or below us. Of course, now we have TCAS, so we know there's an airplane there even before ATC calls, but we acknowledge, usually with 'looking', or 'in sight', whichever the case.

A jet forming a contrail is a heck of a lot easier to see than one not. It's that simple. AND, a jet from five miles away is dead hard to spot...gets easier from two to one mile....

posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 11:08 AM
Congratulations weed, you managed to aviod the queston for the 4th time, that's ok man, you take care.


[edit on 21-3-2008 by Pilot]

posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 11:26 AM

Originally posted by Pilot
I have yet to hear a coherent explanation of how a wide, spread out trail occurs alongside a short, disappearing one on the same day within minutes of each other at what appears to be the same altitude...c'mon yall!!!

You pilots and weather experts and skeptics must have a reasonable theory for that, it happens all the time.

Just look.

Pilot, is THIS your original question??? You claim I am avoiding answering, but of course I am just having trouble figuring out WHAT your question actually is!! Is THIS the one???

You ask about two contrails, side by side, at what you say 'appears to be the same altitude...' See, that's the point, where we have answered your question over and over again. We are pointing out that you say 'appears' to be the same altitude, when you, in fact DO NOT KNOW what altitude each trail is actually at. The question is fallacious from the beginning, you should understand that. I cannot ascertain the altitude of contrails when I look at them from the ground! I've been flying airplanes for a long time, and I can't do it, with the naked eye.

Here's an example...I have seen, while in flight, many many airplanes converge and cross my course, as they see us as well. If I'm at 33,000 feet, and I see an airplane, I can tell that it's above or below, but I cannot discern the fine 1000 foot, when I spot the airplane at three or four miles away. As it gets closer, it is then possible to estimate the altitude. By closer, I mean like less than half a mile away.

OF course, as I mentioned before, we now have TCAS onboard, so we know the actual altitude of the airplane, so quessing is a thing of the past. AND, of course, if ATC calls out the traffic, they tell us the altitude as well....when they have time.

posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 11:41 AM

I think if you were seriously trying to debunk or explain chemtrails you would pay attention-I asked the question about the climbing jet and it's consistant trail 3 times, now I don't have the flight info as you know, but that shot was taken with my camers pointed almost straight ahead, I was not pointing it up towards the sky, it looked to me very much like an ascending flight, all the others I had to point the camera up at least a 45 degree angle. If that flight were not ascending, to get that shot I would have had to lay flat on my back which I did not, look at the trees in the foreground... I know you keep saying you can't discern the altitude with the naked eye, I get it. I am not exaggerating or falsifying my impressions of these flights, why can't you give me the benefit of the doubt ??

posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 11:46 AM
The problem is that if you are looking at a plane coming over the horizon it can ALSO appear to be an ascending flight. So it might be a plane that's in level flight at 33,000 feet but since it comes over the horizon the optical illusion makes it appear that it's climbing.

posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 11:50 PM
reply to post by Pilot

Pilot, I am not trying to 'debunk' or explain 'chemtrails'. I don't know if there is a government program at work here...but I can only 'deny ignorance' and nip the idea of commercial jets 'spraying' in the bud, and let the notion die as it should. Regularly scheduled commercial jets simply DO NOT have 'chemical' tanks and spray nozzles.

So, now to the logic...IF it is a government effort, then WHY do it in daylight where it is so obvious? Why do it so high up? Some people allege it is poison chems for a nefarious purpose, but don't the government and military breath the same air that we do?

The other theory is that is somehow an effort to minimize global warming, so hence it is done during the day, and if this is true, then it is beneficial!! SO, why keep it secret?

In summary: dangerous chemicals, sprayed at altitudes around the level of the tropopause, where they would dilute and spread out, and drift with the upper level winds to who knows where? Very unpredictiable, and not logical. OR, an attempt to moderate weather, in a beneficial way, so why the secrecy?? Either way, it is not logical.

Hope this makes sense.

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 01:16 AM
Sometimes these 'chemtrails' are laid at night, which happened to us one night around a full moon and right over our home. These are not as obvious during the daylight since most people are indoors at night and they are unaware of what is going on in their atmosphere. Thankfully, the wind blew these 'persistent' cloud trails away from our neighborhood to somewhere else. I still don't know or understand if and why the government has anything to do with these sprayings.

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 01:21 AM

Originally posted by Pilot
here is the picture in question:

That aircraft is not climbing, it is flying straight and level toward you. The arc of the earth makes it appear to be climbing. Its an optical illusion:

The reason that you can have two aircraft that appear to be flying at similar altitudes, but only one leaving a persistent contrail is because even a difference of 1000 feet can change the persistence of a contrail. It only takes a few degrees of temperature change or points of humidity to make a contrail persist. Here is a contrail persistence calculator so you can play around with this yourself:
Contrail Calculator

Aircraft make big “X’s” and grids because they fly on Jetways, or VORs that cause them to intersect that way:

Breaks in a contrail can happen due to a thermal updraft:

This is a holding pattern:

Hope that helps to clarify things for you.

Originally posted by WEOPPOSEDECEPTION
I spent a lot of time out on the water back in the 70s-90s and never saw any of these "contrails" like I see today. Are they using different jet fuel nowadays?

There is a lot of evidence of this occurring before the 90’s…

Drippy, vortex effected contrails:

Shuttle photos from 80’s to 90’s:

I’ve got lots more of these if need be.
What has changed in the last decade though is the engines, not the fuel. We have gone from using smaller turbofan engines such as on 727’s to larger diameter ones such as on 737’s. These expose a greater amount of air to the heating of the engine, and therefore have a better chance of making contrails. If you recall correctly back in the 70 and 80’s the vast majority of airlines flew 727 as their main workhorse, they have since retired them for the more fuel efficient large diameter turbofan aircraft.


[edit on 3/23/2008 by defcon5]

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 01:35 AM
reply to post by defcon5

defcon, brilliant!! Thanks for bringing the data, doing the research and taking all the time necessary to post! I star for you! You deserve many more.

Hice grab of the Sectional Chart, or was it a WAC?

I've suggested, before, people look up Jeppeson HI 1 and 2 IFR charts and notice where that live, and where the Airways are. Of course, as you know, while we fly the Airways mostly, there are times where ATC will give us a direct to a downline fix, so when looking at contrails over your location, you take into account all of the variables...would be helpful if people would also look up the winds at the various altitudes to help understand what they are seeing.

We can help provide info here, but there is only so much we can do. Some who are truly interested in knowledge can do some research on their own!!

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 02:33 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

It’s a sectional Chart that I found online and modified. You're obviously much more advanced in your understanding of air navigation, as I’ve only dealt with really basic IFR stuff. I was just trying to simplify things a bit. One of these days I have to make some nicer graphics on this topic, especially a nice scale aircraft engine comparison. I wish I still had access to some of the graphics we used to have at the airport when I worked out there. If I had known I would end up arguing about so many aviation topics on ATS, years later, I would have grabbed copies of some of them…

Personally I think that the fan diameter is a big factor in the amount of persistent contrails we see now, coupled with the increase in air traffic. Most people don’t realize that there is a difference in the old 727, 737-100, Dc-9, and 707 engines compared to the newer 737-300+, 757, 767, and airbus engines used today.

[edit on 3/23/2008 by defcon5]

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 02:54 AM
reply to post by defcon5

defcon, you're absolutely correct. The old PW JT-9D, from the DC-9, B727 and B737-100 and -200 was, technically, a 'turbojet'....most of the thrust was produced by the exhaust gases. Of course, it is not as fuel efficient, and it is WAY louder than the modern 'turbofan'. As you know, the majority of the thrust from a turbofan comes from the fan, or as we call it, 'N1'. So, fuel kept getting expensive, and environmental concerns over noise increased, to the turbofan was developed. It follows on the extablished principles of a 'ducted fan', and the increased airflow around the 'core' of the engine, the conpressor and 'hot' sections helps to mute some noise, since it surounds the exhaust to some extent.

So, because of noise, the old JT-9D is banned in the US...though there may be a few seen running around after being heavily modified to comply with the DB standards. Some private 727s...and I think Northwest still flies DC-9s, but as I said, the engines are modified.

Our standard for determining power settings on the JT-9D was EPR, or 'engine pressure ratio'. Of course, we had N1 and N2 and EGT guages as well. Turbofans generally refer to the N1 as primary power setting reference...though, some PW turbofans still use EPR...I've jumpseated on some United B757s, with the Pratts, and they use EPR. We had the Rolls Royce (RB-211) where we saw not only N1 and N2, but N3 too. Our B767s have GE engines. And, of course, the B737s have the SNECMA engines...

Anyway, good job finding all of that, especially the holding patterns!! Never occured to me to try to explain THEM!! But a picture is worth a thousand electrons in a post!

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 05:10 AM
Defcon that is absolutely brilliant. I completely forgot about the earths curvature affecting a visual perception at ground level. I wish I could give you applause for that!!!

Thanks for the updraft explanation to.....something that should have crossed my mind that didnt for some reason, especially considering where I live in the tropics where convection and thunderstorm related weather occurs almost on a daily basis

Good job

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 05:42 AM

Originally posted by amanbuthimself
reply to post by Pilot


You don't need evidence. Chemtrails are fact. The times reported US Planes sprayed Chemicals over Wiltshire in the UK.

FACT: German Airface admitted they did it over germany.

People who don't accept chemtrails are a little too Naive.

[edit on 9-3-2008 by amanbuthimself]

[edit on 9-3-2008 by amanbuthimself]

Naive ? Maybe giving too much credit.

It's called Editorial Intelligence. Organisations undertake to bury, confuse and attempt to dismiss anything that might prove embarrassing, inconvenient etc. for other organisations.

To this ends, Editorial Intelligence organisations pay people to submit to Write to the Editor columns. And they pay them to prowl fora (such as this one) and post. In this way, editorial-intelligence organisations attempt to form and steer opinion.

It's not so much to debate with other posters as to convince browsers and lurkers that this or that is .. or is not .. true.

Editorial Intelligence organisations provide their employees with 'manuals' instructing them in how to ... for example .. 'dismiss' Chemtrails as 'untrue' and to claim they're 'contrails'.

As part of their posting weaponry, these Post for Pay type usually claim expertise in the topic under discussions. So, in a thread about Chemtrails, they'll claim to be meteorologists or pilots or air-traffic control or even aeronautical engineers.

If the topic is about photoshopped images being used to fool the public, the Post for Pay types will claim to be professional photographers, etc. etc.

Just about everyone is aware of the reality of Chemtrails, nowadays. No-one who's managed to get themselves into a conspiracy forum could possibly be so naive they're not aware of them. The information is all there, online .. huge amounts of Chemtrail information.

Yet for some reason, someone out there still imagines the public can still be fooled into accepting these deliberately spread toxins are ' just contrails '. And they're obviously still paying Posters for Pay to shout down Chemtrails, under the guise of their ' expertise'.

It's probably true that in any forum, at least half the posters are Posters for Pay, pushing their employer's agenda and trying to 'steer and form' opinion.

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 06:44 AM

Originally posted by Dock6
As part of their posting weaponry, these Post for Pay type usually claim expertise in the topic under discussions. So, in a thread about Chemtrails, they'll claim to be meteorologists or pilots or air-traffic control or even aeronautical engineers.

Are you saying that I am lying about my proffesion?

Are you saying that I am being payed for posting stuff on ATS?

How do we know Art Bell or Jeff Rense or whoever isn't paying you to spread the word that chemtrails exist?

Sorry, but these are ridiculous claims

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 11:18 AM
reply to post by Dock6

I must second our friend Ozweatherman. Anyone who thinks he or I are getting paid to do this is naive! I should be so lucky....where do I sign up, who do I apply to??

If you haven't figured out that we know a little something about our respective professions that can't simply be Googled or looked up on Wiki, then I would respectively suggest you take a deep breath, step back and seriously read our stuff.

There happens to be another tread (or two) that deal with 'Chemtrails'...I lose track of where I wrote what, sometimes...but, at the risk of repeating myself here...Is there a chance that the Military is 'spraying'?? I have no idea of the truth on that question, but of course the Military is capable of nearly anything under the guise of 'National Security'...a much over-used phrase here in the USA. But I can categorically assure everyone that regularly scheduled commercial jets DO NOT spray anything other than what various unburned hydrocarbons come out the exhaust anyway. By this analogy, if you own an automobile run by an internal combustion engine then you are 'spraying' a chemtrail everywhere you drive...and since you're at a nice, low altitude, it's a lot more 'effective' than from 33,000 feet up!!

Logical thinking should always be employed here, there is a lot of education and experience on ATS to tap into.

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 02:18 PM
Thanks Defcon, weed & others for your posts, it's very helpful to have more info all together in one thread. The pix were great. I am interested in tracking flights from the airports that are in the area along with the weather to get a better idea of what is going on.

What do you make of this plane?:

a study done in Houston:

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 02:23 PM
It's a Gulfstream I modified for atmospheric sampling. Those are sensors, not sprayers. They fly it at various altitudes and take samples of the air in that region to see what's going on with pollution and other things.

It's operated by the DOE from the Brookhaven National Lab. They test samples of everything from ozone, to CO2, to just about everything else you can think of.

Here's some info on it.

[edit on 3/23/2008 by Zaphod58]

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 10:14 PM
I’ll add this to zaphods already correct post as additional information is available on that aircraft and it’s abilities.
Research Aircraft Facility
Right down to showing you what the interior/exterior equipment configuration is for each experiment that it runs:
Cabin Layout
North East Aerosol Study (2002)
They even tell you how to gain access to that aircraft right on the site:
Access RAF
Though I doubt that you can get access without being part of a legitimate atmospheric study, there is nothing to stop you from trying.

As to your report, I don’t have a lot of comment on it other then it appears that the few flights that had persistent contrails were flying higher then the others on those few days, and were military and/or Foreign flights. He should have run that data set when conditions for persistence were greater to be fair. He admits right in the report that normal contrails can last for many hours.

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 11:24 PM
reply to post by Pilot

Pilot....what do I make of that airplane, the one in your YouTube link? First of all it is a turboprop, I am sorry I don't recognize the airplane, maybe a G-1? But, that's just a guess, since the picture wasn't very broad, and I'm not that conversant with all turbo-props. For all I know, from the angle of the picture, it could be a DC-6 conversion....from piston to turbo-prop.

My point is...turbo-props don't fly at altitudes above 30,000 feet, generally. Not only are they not that efficient, in fuel burn, at those altitudes, they often don't have the PSID....that's the PSI Differential...and that means, they are not designed to maintain a Cabin pressure below 10,000 feet when at altitudes above, oh, say, 24,000 or 26, 000.

But, if it's a MilitaryOp, then the pilots will use Supplemental O2, and do their spraying....BUT, they likely won't be at 33,000 feet.

BTW, that YOUTube video looked terribly photoshopped, at least to me. WHY would all of those nozzles be mounted on the side of the fuselage??? It doesn't ring true with what the 'chemtrail' advocates claim....if there are nozzles, they would be at the trailing edge of the wings. Anything 'sprayed' from the side of the fuselage would be disrupted as it passed through the wake generated by the horizontal stabilizer! I would think the Military is smarter than that!

ps...well, we've all seen what happened in Iraq...maybe the Military ain't so smart after all!? There goes my idea!!

posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 03:02 AM
the old curvature of the earth trick, eh?

So basically none of you are concerned? About the trails? OK. In spite of everything, I still don't like the looks of them...and will continue to watch and be wary if you don't mind, and OZ, if you are concerned about the spread of dis-info as you say, well, why not go bother FOX or something really dangerous

BTW Weed, how many miles does a regular old commercial jet have to travel before it reaches it's cruising altitude?

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in