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.

 

Chem-trail Plane Photographed on the ground?

page: 8
28
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2008 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


The simple version is that in different locations the conditions are going to be different. Even directly above you. The weather conditions at FL430 may be able to allow a contrail to persist while the drier, warmer conditions at FL400 may not.
Your car exhaust also has warm water vapor -- it produces a similar condition in cold weather. If it were extremely cold, your car in theory could produce a (smaller) persisting condensation trail.

This video shows how warm water vapor reacts with extremely cold weather. Note that the local conditions are not as cold (and may not be as humid) as conditions necessary for a contrail to persist, but show the process fairly well.
youtube.com...




posted on May, 12 2008 @ 09:34 PM
link   
I keep seeing the argument against chemtrails that there are easier ways.
All of which are much more dangerous for the perpetrator.
Water is tested by individuals, as well as counties and cities,etc...so, if there were deaths it would become a quick 'smoking gun'.
The same with food.

To round up people and shoot them would leave very few friends, as even the most evil types have workers with families!
It HAS to be covert.

If these contrails are being blown 1,000 of kilometers away, how can they remain in the sky, intact, for so long???
Perhaps heavy metals fall faster than light aluminum?
Maybe zyclon B is potent enough to eventually affect life everywhere?
If a plane can spray one thing, it can spray another.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 09:37 PM
link   


If a plane can spray one thing, it can spray another.


What do Tankers ever spray?



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 09:42 PM
link   


If these contrails are being blown 1,000 of kilometers away, how can they remain in the sky, intact, for so long???


That is what cirrus clouds do. Thats what the condensed water that freezes, in effect makes. Artificial cirrus and thats that it does. It can be -40 and easily colder up here, will you state for the record that water should not freeze there?

Some of you who make claims of chemtrails with no evidence, and then get all butt hurt over being ridiculed, well what do you expect when you put up pictures of KC-135s or engines, and claim its chemplanes, or that small king airs and lear jets can leave some vast trail across the sky or other such silly claims like airplanes are up there spraying AIDS on people.

Chemtrail believers are the ones claiming there is some murderous conspiracy by pilots and meteorologists , military and airlines to murder people or make them ill, then you whine about being made fun of for it. Well, kinda goes with the territory



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 


I don't suppose you noticed that big fat question mark at the end of this threads title? If I saw a car leaving the kind of pollution behind it as do these planes I would want it off the road. Whether man made exhaust mixing with water vapor or metal oxides it's a bad pollution problem that blocks out the sun and drags along with it people that ridicule those that are concerned with what they see. I'm sick of seeing the sky I live under looking like this dbarkertv.com...



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


Witness, I sat through that 'yewtoobe' video you conveniently provided.

The poster's assertions are incorrect, of course...mistaking normal cirrus clouds with contrails. The time-lapse is brilliant, however, since it conclusively shows how none of that frozen H2O falls down on the cameraman, it just blows along in the upper level winds.

Spraying something in aerosol format in order to do damage to a person usually requires an enclosed space. There are thousands of cubic kilometers of air above your head, and is almost always in constant motion.

Mean Sea Level Pressure provides a weight of atmosphere, from above you, of 10.2 tonnes per square meter. One 'tonnne' (metric ton) equals 1000Kg.

On a smaller scale, a column of air one inch square will 'weigh' 14.7 pounds. 'Standard Atmosphere', at MSL.

Point is, there is a lot of air, there...and, with out a wall or other barrier to confine it, any alleged 'chemicals' would become very rapidly diluted.

Get one of those bathroom air freshener sprays, and spray indoors, then take it outside, and spray again. Do you have a swimming pool? Go adjust the ph of your 20,000 gallon pool with a gallon of muriatic acid, then go find a small lake (DON'T REALLY DO THIS! ... just an analogy) and say, you put a gallon of acid in it, and then measure its ph.

Finally, with your logical, reasoning thinking caps on....ask yourself HOW any alleged chemicals are stored, in passenger airplanes where every weight is accounted for. Then, the next usual response is 'the military'...maybe we're not really spending $12B a month in Iraq, it's all being spent here in the USA!


ps...almost forgot...I queried the yewtoobe guy to ask if he lives near an Air Force base, or any base...because, when I lived in LA, we would often see rocket launches from Vandenburg AFB, nearby, and those rocket trails usually had a 'curli-cue' look as they transitted the various altitudes and wind shear conditions....

Or, it was just a case of a really bad sky-writer....I think he was trying to write "Surrender Dorothy"....

WW



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


Here in Alaska when it gets 40-50 below you can take a cup of hot boiling water, toss it in the air, and nearly none of it will hit the ground. it all instantaneously turns to vapor when it contacts the extremely cold extremely dry environment we have herein winter.. Same concept I guess.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


What? Mistaking normal cirrus clouds with contrails? He was making a comparrison of contrail and chemtrail. I saw no signs of time lapse.

I would not think that any frozen H2O would fall on the cameraman given the altitude and the short time he was filming.

Most pollutants have an accumulative effect so your anology should have greater measurments of muriatic acid lets say 20 gallons a day for a week... it would be proportional to this www.greatdreams.com...



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


Maybe we didn't see the same video...he even mentions at one point it's at 20X speed...

What i am trying to get people to see is, from the video, you see jets flying, with a contrail forming, and then dissipating. The other stuff in the is something we commonly refer to as 'clouds'.

The video cred is lost, since...though it has an alleged date of filming, there is no mention as to location. For all we know it was edited together from different times and locations....standards on yewtoobe to measure to ATS standards, so I keep a shaker of salt handy...

WW



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by firepilot
 


I don't suppose you noticed that big fat question mark at the end of this threads title? If I saw a car leaving the kind of pollution behind it as do these planes I would want it off the road. Whether man made exhaust mixing with water vapor or metal oxides it's a bad pollution problem that blocks out the sun and drags along with it people that ridicule those that are concerned with what they see. I'm sick of seeing the sky I live under looking like this dbarkertv.com...


What is it about natural and aviation cirrus clouds that scare you?

Hey I get tired of chemmies claiming pilots are out to murder off their own country, and spraying every known virus and disease known to man too.

I love all these claims that airliners are up there dumping metal out, thats so comical as to be ridiculous. Chemmies cant decide whether it is somehow sprayed out, or that the engines are turned into giant cuisinarts and metals and chemicals are somehow dumped into them.

Lets not forget, there is ZERO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of any of these claims of metal and chemicals being dumped out of airliners and refueling tankers.

Chemtrails is basically a bit catch all term for people that get scared by aircraft. There is not a single coherent idea, and I have seen chemmies get into arguments on chemtrail boards over whose idea was more correct. Heck some thing it is reptilians flying UFOs, or planes dumping out oil, or AIDS and SARS, or military fighters, or small general aviation planes.

And every time they put up their vaunted proof of a photography of a plane on the ground, its NEVER what they claim it is.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Hey, I hope everyone is doing well. Enjoyed the read here so far, but I did want to comment on this one thing:


Originally posted by firepilot
I saw a chemtrail webpage other day, that claimed they analyzed samples under a contrail (never mind that anything released from 6 miles overhead is not coming down anywhere near you), and say AIDs was found it with other virus, several other diseases, poisons, metals, etc. Now of course there was no such examinination, no lab report, but that person thinks there is those things in an aircraft contrail, so to them its essentially true, even if it is made up.


I would like to know where this came from because it cracks me up. So, they found a syndrome in their testing samples, did they?
You would think that maybe a credible scientist would know that AIDS is a syndrome (only exists in a body), and it is caused by the HIV virus. If they had in fact found HIV in their samples, you would think that the reporting agency that ran the test would have labeled it as HIV not AIDS.

Now considering that these supposed chemtrails stay aloft for hours on end, what would be the purpose of putting HIV in them, since it can only survive a very short time outside the human body?


Scientists and medical authorities agree that HIV does not survive well outside the body, making the possibility of environmental transmission remote. HIV is found in varying concentrations or amounts in blood, semen, vaginal fluid, breast milk, saliva, and tears. To obtain data on the survival of HIV, laboratory studies have required the use of artificially high concentrations of laboratory-grown virus. Although these unnatural concentrations of HIV can be kept alive for days or even weeks under precisely controlled and limited laboratory conditions, CDC studies have shown that drying of even these high concentrations of HIV reduces the amount of infectious virus by 90 to 99 percent within several hours. Since the HIV concentrations used in laboratory studies are much higher than those actually found in blood or other specimens, drying of HIV-infected human blood or other body fluids reduces the theoretical risk of environmental transmission to that which has been observed – essentially zero.


The reason why groups like carnicom make such fantastic claims is that fear is a powerful motivator in their cause, and thus the sales they generate. It should also go to show how bad their science is, and how questionable their research.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 03:11 AM
link   
Ah, but have you thought about those who make money off of blatant lies, based on scientific expert testimonies? And we know testimonies should not and is not evidence in and by itself or reasonably admissible, depending on the case.

My point is that while 'experts' offer some credibility by hiding behind their white, lab coats, for example, the differences with charts, graphs, etc. could never be worked out if something else looks eye catching, say something shiny (i.e. sundog rings), would mostly certain turn heads.

Nothing is too fantastic a claim, if given a chance. And people go to whatever and wherever appeals to their senses. If the photos look like chemtrail planes on the ground and there is some effort to correlate diseases caused by 'chemtrails', so be it.

If not, the debate continues unresolved. Now where’s my shark oil! We need to take my nice medicine and some dose of reality! It’ll make you think better and feel good. Believe in us, this or that! Y'all get the picture: I don’t know what to believe anymore.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Dimensional detective, as the OP what do you think of the explanations put forward that specifically address the Rense article that you opened the thread with?

By which I mean the purpose of the pod on the KC-135? or the function of the tiny nozzle on the back of the engine which I addressed myself but no-one has bothered to reply to?

As you are the one who posed the original question do you still think that Ted Twietmeyer knows what he is talking about?

Do you think he is a paranoid nutjob who is best ignored, or do you think he is deliberately scaremongering?

Or do you think he has uncovered the truth and that mine, zaphod and others explanations are wrong?

As the OP I am curious about what you think of all this because your view seems to have gotten sidelined with the other arguments.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by me
 


since posting my last reply I see that the page linked to has now been changed with Ted himself admitting it is just a tanker.

Is this because the transparency of his claim has just been made so obvious that he needed to backtrack to avoid losing all credibility?

he writes;



It has always been my policy to research subjects I write about before writing about them


Really? How much research went into NOT knowing what the equipment on a KC-135 looks like? a google search takes seconds.



Many subjects have little information available


But aerial tanking is not one of those subjects.



The person who sent me the images is a pilot and does not want his name divulged


I bet he doesn't.


Since access to all airports and tarmacs since 2001 is now highly restricted, no one can simply walk up to a plane and take photos.


More bollocks and smokescreen, just look at the many new extremely high quality images that appear on Airliners.net EVERY day.




The pilot had to have clearance to be on the tarmac at ground level to take these photos


Did he? Then why are they so poor? the site I just mentioned has 'HD' quality images of every plane you can think of, just look at the links I provided in earlier posts. if you click on those photos you get an ever higher res version of the picture to analyse in tiny detail.




The fact that the plane has a Bretagne tail emblem from France and was photographed in Quebec, Canada is strange in itself. Why would a tiny principality inFrance go to the trouble of flying a tanker plane to North America? Fuel to operate one of these planes is extremely expensive. And the Canadian government has its own tankers.


No stranger than RAF tankers in Nevada or USAF tankers in the UK. Its called 'interoperability'. Again creating suspicion without foundation.




It is still unknown why a propeller would be mounted on the front of the pod to generate electricity or power a hydraulic pump.


No its not. even the old RAF Victor tankers from 40 years ago had this arrangement. It has always been the standard design for pods because the windmilling effect provides free energy, like a cycle dynamo.




Finally, there is the funnel-shaped cone ("B" in Fig. 4) which terminates with a rear-ward protruding tube visible in the center of the engine exhaust.


So what. The rest of this passage then mentions what it 'might' be. Pure speculative bollocks. If he DID actually do a bit of research he would find its true purpose in less than five minutes, he might even want to read my post on it



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


The planes in that video will have at least a mile seperation in horizontal distance, and may have the same seperation in height.

A mile is enough - especially height wise - in order for one to leave a persistent contrail and the other not to.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


Yes, good to see Twietmeyer quickly retract most of his comments.

Incidently, it's not a "Bretagne tail emblem" from a "tiny principality in France" - it's the tail emblem of the Groupe de Ravitaillement en Vol 00.093 "Bretagne": a French Air Force squadron!

Did take me a good 10 minutes to check that out though.

[edit on 13-5-2008 by Essan]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


Could you please explain to me the
minimum temperature, humidity levels
required to support contrail formation?

And what chart do you use, to come up
with your numbers?



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


great as always



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by cutbothways
 


Not sure the relevance to your question in this particular thread
But in any case, I know you;ve already seen the Appleman Chart and know that whether a contrail forms depends on temperature and RH. The lower the temp, the lower the RH needs to be. But at -35c RH needs to be around 100% so it's unlikely contrails will form above that temperature.

Of course, one also need to know the altitude at which a given aircraft is flying and then, from radiosonde data, the temperature and RH at that altitude in order to determine whether a contrail will occur and/or persist.

Since pockets of air at different temperature and humidity occur 6 miles high just as they do at sea level, one should really release a weather balloon at your specific location in order to obtain the exact data to determine whether a contrail will form overhead. And do so every hour to take into accounting any air movement.

But, of course, that's not normally practical, so one can only usually make a rough estimate for the likelihood of contrail formation, especially when in borderline situations. This is something which even computer model simulation struggle to do well at - simply because it's so difficult to model such changes in atmospheric conditions. Though I understand the military are keen to improvement such modelling for obvious reasons!



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by pikypiky
 





testimonies should not and is not evidence in and by itself or reasonably admissible, depending on the case.



Ok, i see where you're coming from and in your words..."depending on the case" well if they were trying to sell a product for $$ then yes I would agree but a lot of the scientific evidence provided by some of the posters in this thread trying to disprove chemtrails is good science. Im starting to think that it wouldn't matter what credible scientific evidence is provided to disprove chemtrails, theres a few that would only see what they want to see.




Nothing is too fantastic a claim, if given a chance. And people go to whatever and wherever appeals to their senses. If the photos look like chemtrail planes on the ground and there is some effort to correlate diseases caused by 'chemtrails', so be it.


Yes, I could say that I am an alien from planet zubar but in order for me to be taken seriously I would HAVE to provide credible evidence scientific or not, proving my claim. All I ever see here at ATS when someone posts anything is "PROOF...SHOW US IRREFUTABLE PROOF" which, in my opinion, so far the prochemtrails camp has not provided.

"Diseases caused by chemtrails" ???? what diseases? wheres the science that proves this? or is it just a claim with no basis on truth/fact?

This is in no way a personal attack. Your posts are just as valued to me as they are to everyone else. Im just playing devils advocate.



[edit on 13-5-2008 by QBSneak000]



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join