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.

 

My Chemtrail Pictures !

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


McGrath, maybe?


289.6 9144 -51.8 -54.6 72

Basically the same, 2% higher RH.

Can't get very close to my hometown
Steamboat Springs, CO either.

Think you frighten me?




posted on May, 9 2008 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Here's another contrail report from the US Airforce


US Airforce Document on contrails/Chemtrails

Another science one

contrail study

Another one from a NASA guy (don't know if it will help either of you but...

Contrails to Cirrus—Morphology, Microphysics, and Radiative Properties



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Heres a great site all about the science of contrails

Contrail Science



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Here's a picture I took on a mild day about three weeks ago;



It looked like a six-sided star or something.
I see them a LOT.
Notice how hazy it looks at the mountain level.(N.E. Georgia mountains.)
It was pretty dry at that time.
I'm going to try and take some on top of the mountains......




[edit on 9-5-2008 by Clearskies]



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


visit some of the links myself and others have previously posted in this thread and you may come up with a few answers "for or against" contrails/chemtrails.

Nice picture by the way.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

Unless you can take an air sample of the trail way up there, there is no proof that there are chemicals up there.


And unless you can take an air sample of the trail way up there,

There is NO PROOF that there aren't!!!



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


Pretty pictures you posted. How do they compare with what IvanZana posted? Did you notice the varied directions of the chemtrails, your photos show possible contrails laid in one direction.

I am amused at how people come along when this subject comes up and do not bother to see the evidence that is gathered. Do you work for HAARP or Naval Intelligence as a disinformation agent?



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


Thanks for another Chemtrail thread. Starred and flagged. This is a subject that needs continuous coverage. I am amazed at the denial and rediculous arguments. St. Louis gets plowed almost daily and I continue to call airport operations that admit it is a military operation that they can not comment on.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 07:06 PM
link   
As a guy I work with from the southern US told me. Do you think any member of any aircrew is gonna spray anything on their family?? He had to deal with TWA 800.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 




72440 SGF Springfield Observations at 12Z 09 May 2008
307.3 9144 -38.5 -76.3 1

weather.uwyo.edu...

-38c at 30,000 ft. Need 100% humidity to even form a contrail, let alone
persistence. Springfield has 1% humidity at that level.

No way a contrail could form.



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by cutbothways
Here's the chart.




Ok, this chart bothers me on so many levels its not even funny. What, pray tell, are we actually looking at here?

Things are not this simple in the atmosphere. There is a chart we in meteorology use to determine whether something like a contrail (among other types of clouds) would be likely to form, it is called a Skew-T Log-P Diagram here are some links to it:

Wikipedia (Brief Page) on Skew-T Log-P Diagrams

First Law of Thermodynamics in Action(stuffintheair.com)

Weatherpredicition.com

So anyway, the long and short of it, is that this chart is meaningless without some frame of reference; for example we need to know more about the stability of the local atmosphere (the mesoscale) and the large scale (the synoptic scale). If either of these two scales has even small, but non-zero vertical velocities in the upward direction and/or the humidty at flight level (not ground level, not 2000 feet above or below flight level (which in fact would be another flight zone) and if the adiabtic lapse rate locally is conducive to it, then maybe some planes may or may not produce contrails!


Originally posted by IvanZana
This is my Fav.


This one closely resembles what my eyes saw. Notice the corona?


This, however, is a promising image if one wishes to studies "chemtrails". This effect is actually called a "halo" (in particular the 22 degree halo) or "icebow" and always appears at angles of 22 degrees from the center of the sun. This is based on simple physical principles that are the result of how ice crystals form in the upper atmosphere. Thus, if one were to hypothesize that these were not ice crystals in the "chemtrails" then (assuming the chemical structure was fundamentally not a waterborne agent), one would expect the halo to have an angular divergence of something more or less than 20 degrees from the center of the sun. Thus, this image in particular gives someone a good means of measuring just that parameter in order to find out they answer the that question. Granted, this is not a perfect halo (for some very nice photos of halos take a look at the Wikipedia Page on Halos).

Of course, to do this correctly, one would need all of the EXIF data from the original image file (showing among other things the focal length, etc.) for the most precise measurement. That is probably worth doing.

Cheers,

Woody

Edit: for spelling errors

[edit on 10-5May-08 by WoodyAcres]



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
Keep up the good work, just try to be as impartial in this investigation as possible. Maybe you should see how feasible it would be to try to get samples of these contrails - maybe with assistance from a local school/university. Only with hard data will we learn anything, and unfortunately photos are not hard evidence.


I agree wholeheartedly - keep up the good work.

Where I do disagree though is that, as I have outlined above, if the seed material is not water-based (as some hypotheses I've heard proclaim) then with enough low angle, or otherwise good shots with 22 degree halos in them, we can at least determine that water is or not the crystallizing material, which would perhaps at very least be a "poor mans study" and at best would actually get a school or university involved.

The key is for the photos to have the EXIF data (for focal length of the lens, so that the angle can be accurately measured), which for some camera aficionados might mean shooting in aperture or shutter priority mode and/or full manual mode.

Woody



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by interestedalways

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

Unless you can take an air sample of the trail way up there, there is no proof that there are chemicals up there.


And unless you can take an air sample of the trail way up there,

There is NO PROOF that there aren't!!!


There's also no proof that they are not the blood of Chukwa the Hindu turtle holding up the earth, but that doesn't mean it's likely.



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


How did I know that you and Essan would find your way here... now if only Ozweatherman would enter stage right....

One area that you and I disagree, and even though I ate a piece of humble pie served by Essan, I will continue to digress from your opinions... Chemtrails...

With all due respect, I know that our gov't is more than capable of spreading chemicals over us. I also know that the best way to do this would be to do it in plain sight. Cover it up with something that already happens. Like when they spray for skeeters in Alabama...

I only believe that there is little in the way of proving that chemtrails exist in the sense that I have no way of going up in the sky and grabbing an air sample.

But too much information exists to substantiate the fact that this has happened before, as in chemical testing on civilians, and too much proof of weather manipulation, just see the olympics, for me to believe that this theory is not only a possibility, but maybe even a cover for a much larger conspiracy. (HAARP, Shock and Awe, 2nd Coming, alien coverup, poisoning of undesirables... take your pick)
It just seems that there are as many people careless with their science as there are dis-info agents....

Not you two though. I know for a fact that both of you are civilians. Essan, you might be a grade school science teacher. Greeny, you might just be a retired supermodel. It's a closer guess for one of you...

[edit on 10-5-2008 by jasonjnelson]



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_

Originally posted by interestedalways

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

Unless you can take an air sample of the trail way up there, there is no proof that there are chemicals up there.


And unless you can take an air sample of the trail way up there,

There is NO PROOF that there aren't!!!


There's also no proof that they are not the blood of Chukwa the Hindu turtle holding up the earth, but that doesn't mean it's likely.


Is that the best off topic post you could come up with??? Not impressed.

If you don't believe we are seeing and posting pics of anything except contrails you are entitled to your non belief, no one cares to convince you of anything.

Why don't you find a topic that interests you instead of spending so much time coming around messing in these threads? It really gets old the same old la te da from the same people thread after thread.

Some of us want to discuss what we are concerned about and people aren't necessarily saying that we are "being sprayed with chemicals" we are brainstorming and sharing information to try to understand what may be occuring. Why is that so bothersome to you???

Your little funnies aren't really funny at all.

[edit on 10-5-2008 by interestedalways]



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 01:50 AM
link   
It was a jest, but one with a point. There is a logical explanation for the contrail provided. It's impossible to prove a negative "Prove it's not a chemtrail". Why should we jump to the conclusion that it is a chemtrail?



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


They are referred to as Chemtrails for lack of a better word.

Many of us don't think they are regular contrails and when you see what we see, some planes leaving this nice sky covering mess while another plane flys nearby the lingering cover leaving a regular contrail it just doesn't add up.

Even if some planes are using a different kind of jet fuel or there is too much jet fuel we still have a serious problem and it needs to be explored without all the diversions and games.

And the very comman occurance of these trails creating rainbow type of images that some want to simply call "sundogs" is another aspect of this phenomena that we see way too often.





[edit on 10-5-2008 by interestedalways]



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by jasonjnelson
 


I agree with this guy, those 3 or 4 always jump and try to discredit chemtrails. It's becoming a pattern.

watchZEITGEISTnow



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by interestedalways
 


Maybe I don't see what makes the chemtrail unique from a contrail. Several studies have shown contrails persist and spread. Some have even measured the rates they typically expand. I call the contrails contrails because that is what they give every indication of being. The same for the sun dogs. I've truly never tried to ruffle your feathers. As for the same people popping in the threads, with a little imagination, I'm sure you can see my point of view about "the same 4-5 people keep popping in with stories about chemtrails..."
I assure you I don't simply read the chemtrail threads. I give a look to pretty much anything that looks interesting (and my interests are pretty ecclectic). I do post more often in the areas I'm educated in and have something substantial (in my consideration, not necessarily yours) to offer.
I also harbour my own pet conspiracies; chemtrails simply aren't one of them. At anyrate, I'm sorry if we get our lines crossed sometimes, but my intent truly wasn't to belittle. I'm often guilty of the use of sarcasm, but it's almost always to good natured-ly make a point not to wound. Such is my peace offering. I'll try not to rein in the sarcasm headed your way, but can't promise not to talk about contrails. Fair?



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


More than fair. I haven't meant to "call you out" I just responded as I saw fit. I have seen your post history and you do seem to be an intellegent man.

You are also diverse in your posts and have some interesting things to say.

I don't want to come off like I believe that everyone who doesn't agree with what we are taking a look at here has an agenda.

Thank you for being civil.

So back to the topic at hand!



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join