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.

 

The Chemtrail Myth

page: 23
24
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2008 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brapman
Oh yeah...I forgot to mention that I observed U-shaped trails yesterday. This would be fairly unremarkable in the normal scheme of things if the opening of the 'U' didn't point completely away from the direction of the airports (i.e., San Jose and San Francisco/Oakland). The 'U' openings (2 of them, at least) faced south, where you have to travel quite a ways to find a major airport.

Once again, I wish I'd had a camera. (We were out 'hoarding' a little, not chasing trails.)

Peace.


That actually makes perfect sense that a major airport is not close. How many planes have you seen drop from crusisng altitude to the ground within a few miles?

It take a hundred kilometeres for them to descend, they dont just drop out of the sky




posted on May, 12 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Well, today is ‘chem-soup’ day. I’ve seen in the far distance lots of trail-like cloud formations, which originated from a south direction, turned slightly in an east direction to form a ‘U’ pattern and terminated in the north around noontime.

I noticed overhead an incoming passenger airplane with it headlights on and it didn’t leave any visible ‘contrails’ where it came in from a south direction, amidst those ‘contrails’ at a higher altitude that were still sticking in the skies for a couple of hours later on.

I believe it's colder 'up there' than at ground level, which could scientifically explain why I didn't see the aircraft (that was landing) produce any 'contrails'. I am still wondering why all those trails formed obviously today, though.

Below is the current weather for that area.

San Jose Weather

70° (High: 82°; Low: 55°)

Cloudy
Feels Like:67°
Barometer:29.92 in and falling
Humidity:31%
Visibility:10 mi
Dewpoint:38°
Wind:NNW 15 mph
Sunrise:6:01 am
Sunset:8:08 pm

Addendum: The data should have reflected 'Current conditions as of 2:53pm PDT.

[edit on 2008-5-12 by pikypiky]



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by pikypiky
 


You wouldnt happen to have the latest skew-T diagram or upper air observations woud you?

Those are the things you need to go on to determine what the upper atmosphere is doing



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


I'll get back to you on the latest skew-T because I don't know what is a 'skew-T' or how to research that data. I'm a slow learner and that will take some time.

But in the meantime, you may view some recent 'paintings' of what I saw overhead today under another ATS thread here. They're pretty and colorful, too! [My inner child is jumping up and down, now.]



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


Actually here are the 3 latest skew-T diagrams from California

www.rap.ucar.edu...

www.rap.ucar.edu...

www.rap.ucar.edu...

The first two from the northern and central parts of California are very moist at cruising altitude. From approx 26,000ft to 40,000ft the potential for persistent contrails is pretty good. There is adequate moisture for supersaturation and the temperature is cold enough. Looks like anything up there is going to be caught in a northerly wind and head south. The winds are pretty high too.

The more southerly observation is dry aloft and contrail persistence is a low possibility, however at that height at that upper air station the wind is a westerly so all the moisture may have been pushed east.

Also bear in mind that these were taken at 1200Z which was appox 11 and a half hours at the time of writing this post. I just luanched a weather balloon here at my station so the next ones in California should be almost up and ready to go.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by pikypiky
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


I'll get back to you on the latest skew-T because I don't know what is a 'skew-T' or how to research that data. I'm a slow learner and that will take some time.

But in the meantime, you may view some recent 'paintings' of what I saw overhead today under another ATS thread here. They're pretty and colorful, too! [My inner child is jumping up and down, now.]


Ah ok

A skew T diagram is data sent back from a radiosonde attached to a weather balloon to show what the temperature, humidity and wind are doing in the atmosphere. They give a good picture of what the weather is going to do in the next 2 or so hours. The two lines represent dewpoint and temperature. To simplify it, the closer the lines are together, the more moist the air is at that level. For instance, if you pass through a layer of Nimbostratus (rain bearing cloud) the lines will be almost together until the balloon emerges from the cloud



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 06:56 PM
link   
OzWeatherman, I just wanted to thank you for posting your facts about "chemtrails." I don't know much about them but have always figured the people who believed in them were misinformed and more than likely had no meteorological training. It's nice to see you line up the myths and knock them down. Thanks again.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by JmanFIVEk
OzWeatherman, I just wanted to thank you for posting your facts about "chemtrails." I don't know much about them but have always figured the people who believed in them were misinformed and more than likely had no meteorological training. It's nice to see you line up the myths and knock them down. Thanks again.


Thankyou


Yeah I havent had any chemtrailers say that they have meteorological training as of yet. This is apparent with their lack of knowledge of clouds, weather phenomenen and upper air observations. Yet many claim that I am lying about my proffesion or am deliberately posting disinfo, lol.

Still waiting for someone to take up my offer for a debate in the debate forum



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 



www.rap.ucar.edu...


I knew this first link you provided is for Oakland, CA (per the 'oak.gif') but had to be sure I was looking at my local data by entering the latitude and longitude coordinates of a point via iTouchMap.com.


Looks like anything up there is going to be caught in a northerly wind and head south. The winds are pretty high too.


Prior to this ongoing research, the 'contrails' formed earlier around noontime did appear to make its way southward. The winds are still blowing well into the afternoon.


The more southerly observation is dry aloft and contrail persistence is a low possibility, however at that height at that upper air station the wind is a westerly so all the moisture may have been pushed east.


I was on the road at that time and couldn't 'stand still' to get a visual of any movement of these 'contrails' going eastward.


Also bear in mind that these were taken at 1200Z which was appox 11 and a half hours at the time of writing this post.


Yes, I see the footer as 1200 UCT with today's date of 05/12/2008, followed by KVBG (or Vandenberg Air Force Base).

Thanks for the information, OZ. Overall, it looks like there are lots of 'proof' to support at least one of my observation today.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by pikypiky
 


Thankyou pikypiky

I hope this shows to you why I am so against the chemtrail stuff. I work with skew-T diagrams on every shift at work and work with weather balloons every shift too.

If everyone just learnt how to read skew-T diagrams and stopped gathering information from biased websites, it may solve the chemtrail thing once and for all. But for the time being I guess I will keep fighting it


If you want any more observations interpreted just let me know



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 



But for the time being I guess I will keep fighting it...


Yeah, let’s continue to fight against tyranny and oppressive thinking that may ‘cloud’ (pun intended) our better judgment and deny ignorance with sound scientific methodology.


Yeah I havent had any chemtrailers say that they have meteorological training as of yet. This is apparent with their lack of knowledge of clouds, weather phenomenen and upper air observations. Yet many claim that I am lying about my proffesion or am deliberately posting disinfo, lol.


Going forward, I would refrain from labeling those believers in ‘non-science’ as 'chemtrailers'. I find this word usage quite offensive regardless of how much of an expertise you, my dear OZ, have in your field of meteorology.

Let’s put it this way, I’m sure you’d be offended if I labeled the other side to this debate as ‘con-trailers’. And for those who play word games, ‘con’ means against and ‘trailers’ means, well, either living down by the river or leaving something stinky.

There is no reason why anyone opposite to the 'contrailers' should claim you are liar and dis-info 'agent' (per se). I find your comparisons between 'contrails' and 'chemtrails' both educational and informative. Noone could take away your knowledge.

With that respect, noone should take away any nonsense behind 'chemtrails', which is fair game. Or could they? Maybe it's not my place to find out just yet.

[edit on 2008-5-12 by pikypiky]



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


oz, so let me get this striaght...within minutes of looking through google, i came upon dozens of studies by qualified scientists who have done due diligence on what the chemical properties of the substances consist of, that are coming out of the planes. also the dramatic rise in sickness in the general population, after one of these sprayings takes place. but for some reason, you casually dismiss these tests and studies as being from conspirecy nuts. when something like this is put through labratory testing with quality controls present, how can you continue to say that there is "no proof". by the very nature of the testing and the results being brought forth, there is reason for serious questions to be answered on a much more grander and open scale. i find your rebuttle flippant and patronizing. being in the position that you hold, it would seem you would naturally be curious about the results being shown. and the fact that your not, tends to suspiciously point to a different agenda on your part.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by pikypiky
Going forward, I would refrain from labeling those believers in ‘non-science’ as 'chemtrailers'. I find this word usage quite offensive regardless of how much of an expertise you, my dear OZ, have in your field of meteorology.


Sorry bout that, will refrain from using that term from now on, just for you




There is no reason why anyone opposite to the 'contrailers' should claim you are liar and dis-info 'agent' (per se). I find your comparisons between 'contrails' and 'chemtrails' both educational and informative. Noone could take away your knowledge.


Thanks, I appreciate that, I wish others would too. I have also beeen called a bully and moron, although I dont know what I did to deserve those




[edit on 12/5/2008 by OzWeatherman]



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


oz, so let me get this striaght...within minutes of looking through google, i came upon dozens of studies by qualified scientists who have done due diligence on what the chemical properties of the substances consist of, that are coming out of the planes. also the dramatic rise in sickness in the general population, after one of these sprayings takes place. but for some reason, you casually dismiss these tests and studies as being from conspirecy nuts. when something like this is put through labratory testing with quality controls present, how can you continue to say that there is "no proof". by the very nature of the testing and the results being brought forth, there is reason for serious questions to be answered on a much more grander and open scale. i find your rebuttle flippant and patronizing. being in the position that you hold, it would seem you would naturally be curious about the results being shown. and the fact that your not, tends to suspiciously point to a different agenda on your part.


I dont dismiss anything. Post some links so I can check it out.

I have never attempted to debunk anything without providing proof, and I work for the Australian Bureau of Meteorology so I dont know why you said I dismiss things.

Any lab tests I have seen have never been proven to have come from chemtrails. The people that collect them claim they have fallen, while neglecting the strength of upper air winds like those shown in the ones provided in the skew-t diagrams I provided above for pikypiky, which would blow them away (or disperse them) before they dropped the 30,000ft to the ground. And again, there is no correlation between respiratory illness' (or any sickness for that matter) and chemtrail spraying. You have more chance of expiring from ground level pollution (ie smog) than anything up there



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Ok so why will a plane make checkerboards in the sky all day. Day after Day. Sometimes a single plane, sometimes several planes, back and forth, forth and back. Turning off the contrails at the end of each line, till they get where they start another line? Back and forth, forth and back?

Way up in the sky, where there are no crops at all.

Why?
How come they turn off the contrails?
How can you turn off a contrail?



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman

Sorry bout that, will refrain from using that term from now on, just for you...


Thank you, Oz.


I have also beeen called a bully and moron, although I dont know what I did to deserve those...


How sad! Name-calling is quite infantile. I guess you (and other experts) are thorns to the other side of the playing field. But this is not a game but rather something that the debunkers of contrails take seriously as the debate continues due to concerns raised by what people are witnessing in the skies. Perhaps, the debunkers of contrails are in its infancy stage because there is so much more that the science community should look into for further study to assure public health and safety.

I’d be but a small defender of you against those who rail against your efforts to teach us what you know about our atmosphere and climate. It’s interesting stuff that I recall reading from the weather page (without colors) of a newspaper during my childhood.

[edit on 2008-5-12 by pikypiky]



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman

Originally posted by jimmyx
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


I dont dismiss anything. Post some links so I can check it out.


ok...here's a valid link with our government actually doing the talking
www.proliberty.com...



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cyberbian
Ok so why will a plane make checkerboards in the sky all day.


There is no good reason other than perhaps there is more air traffic, if we at least try to compare the flight schedules against with whatever is going on overhead.


How come they turn off the contrails?

You mean like this photo shows? It's was taken over my home, by the way. Simply, I believe they just want to get our attention. It looks like a harmless contrail of mostly water vapor, really.




How can you turn off a contrail?


I don't know if there is a way to turn off a contrail. But there is a free energy device called a 'cloudbuster' that should help disperse 'chemtrails' in general. The only to find out if this technology works is to experiment by building one yourself or have one of many 'orgone' vendors make one for you.

[edit on 2008-5-12 by pikypiky]



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman

And again, there is no correlation between respiratory illness' (or any sickness for that matter) and chemtrail spraying. You have more chance of expiring from ground level pollution (ie smog) than anything up there


My thoughts suddenly came to me about if it's not us being entirely affected by these alleged 'chemtrails', then maybe the possibility of sentient beings, which are invisible to our naked eyes', are living in our upper atmosphere and are being harmed by the 'chemtrails'.

I am thinking about the vast ocean and all its inhabitants and how pollution affected them too. But I digress about atmospheric inhabitants since my thoughts are going far into 'junk science'.

[edit on 2008-5-12 by pikypiky]



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


here's another one....lengthy but the conclusion is interesting at the bottom. what he is trying to establish is the difference between con..trails and chem...trails. if fact you are probably better qualified to understand the numerous graphs shown

www.chemtrailcentral.com...



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join