Chemtrails Thread, My Photos :)

LoL, I just noticed that I labeled the 737 wrong o the first picture... [smack]
It should read 737-100/200 not 300.

Hi, I live in the UK so thought I’d chime in here since it’s a subject dear to my lungs.

YouAreDreaming’s comment regarding the chemtrail issue (“It's very real, we are being sprayed”) was countered by defcon5, who wrote: “Its not real, we are not being sprayed, and it has been explained many times over on this site why this is occurring, by both aviation, and meteorological experts/enthusiasts. It’s one of the most frequently and easily debunked Internet myths that exists...”

Well, since you think chemtrails are so easy to debunk, defcon5, would it please be possible to explain why I’m finding it so difficult, as I have read the ‘debunker’ explanations again and again, yet not a single one of them has convinced me that chemtrails are contrails.

Defcon5 wrote: “The whole chemtrail theory is based on the belief that there were not persistent contrails in the old days.”

Not only do I disagree, I’m also disappointed to see such a sweeping and dismissive generalization of people’s concerns go unchallenged. While it is true that I have never seen a persistent contrail in my entire life, whether they existed or didn’t exist “in the old days” is not what the chemtrail theory is based upon at all. It is, in fact, irrelevant.

You see, NASA states in their Contrail Education publication that contrails “...only form at very high altitudes (usually above 8km – about 26,000 ft) where the air is extremely cold (less than -40 degrees Celcius)” and that they can “persist and grow (if the humidity is high)”.

So, for argument’s sake we’ll take NASA’s words as true and accept persistent contrails as fact. Are we on the same page so far?

OK, we can see from NASA’s quote that contrails require specific atmospheric conditions to occur (high altitude and f-f-freezing temperatures, to turn the water vapour into ice crystals).

This specificity is emphasized by author and weather consultant Philip Eden, who wrote in correspondence that: “condensation trails cannot form in the upper troposphere if there is insufficient moisture there, which is the case 80-85% of the time over the British Isles”.

Mr. Eden was saying that the conditions for contrail formation only occur about 15-20% of the time over the UK. We can see from NASA that PERSISTENT contrails require even more specific conditions than that; higher humidity; and the Meteorological Office in the UK says temperatures “MUST be below -57 degrees” for PERSISTENT contrails to form. [My capitals.]

In other words, contrails are quite rare; persistent contrails even rarer still, due to the specificity of the atmospheric conditions required.

Chemtrails, on the other hand, occur in any and EVERY condition (365 days-a-year where I live!!!), even below clouds of 6000 ft in hot, non-humid summer weather!

How does the ‘chemtrails are contrails’ explanation account for trails persisting every day of the year in conditions not conducive to contrail formation?

That is only the tip of an iceberg unaffected by global warming; there are of course many other distinguishing factors between contrails and chemtrails. Let’s take one at a time.

Speaking of which, thank you for yours.

Most of these just seem to be normal anomalies...I wish I had a picture of it but I used to live in West Phoenix Az, and on more than one occasion saw not only parallel lines that were "unique" but saw what from different angles were crossing parallel lines that created a tic tack toe formation..at the 20k to 40k altitude. This was not huge but just a few miles across, I was at the White tank mountains to the west side of the valley, and could easily see the whole valley....very strange as this was fairly close to restricted air space above Luke AFB. Just thought I would share...

I posted this yesterday but it still hasn't shown up, so I'll try again...

Hi, I live in the UK so thought I’d chime in here since it’s a subject dear to my lungs.

YouAreDreaming’s comment regarding the chemtrail issue (“It's very real, we are being sprayed”) was countered by defcon5, who wrote: “Its not real, we are not being sprayed, and it has been explained many times over on this site why this is occurring, by both aviation, and meteorological experts/enthusiasts. It’s one of the most frequently and easily debunked Internet myths that exists...”

Well, since you think chemtrails are so easy to debunk, defcon5, would it please be possible to explain why I’m finding it so difficult, as I have read the ‘debunker’ explanations again and again, yet not a single one of them has convinced me that chemtrails are contrails.

Defcon5 wrote: “The whole chemtrail theory is based on the belief that there were not persistent contrails in the old days.”

Not only do I disagree, I’m disappointed to see such a sweeping and dismissive generalization of people’s concerns go unchallenged. While it is true that I have never seen a persistent contrail in my entire life, whether they existed or didn’t exist “in the old days” is not what the chemtrail theory is based upon at all. That is, in fact, irrelevant.

You see, NASA states in their Contrail Education publication that contrails “only form at very high altitudes (usually above 8km – about 26,000 ft) where the air is extremely cold (less than -40 degrees Celcius)” and that they can “persist and grow (if the humidity is high)”.

So, for argument’s sake we’ll take NASA’s words as true and accept persistent contrails as fact. Are we on the same page so far?

OK, we can see from NASA’s quote that contrails require specific atmospheric conditions to occur (high altitude and f-f-freezing temperatures, to turn the water vapour into ice crystals).

This specificity is emphasized by author and weather consultant Philip Eden, who wrote that: “condensation trails cannot form in the upper troposphere if there is insufficient moisture there, which is the case 80-85% of the time over the British Isles”.

Mr. Eden was saying that the conditions for contrail formation only occur about 15-20% of the time over the UK. We can see from NASA that PERSISTENT contrails require even more specific conditions than that; higher humidity; and the Meteorological Office in the UK says temperatures “MUST be below -57 degrees” for PERSISTENT contrails to form. [My capitals.]

In other words, contrails are quite rare; persistent contrails even rarer still.

Chemtrails, on the other hand, occur in any and EVERY condition (365 days-a-year where I live!!!), even below clouds of 6000 ft in hot, non-humid summer weather!

How does the ‘chemtrails are contrails’ explanation account for trails persisting every day of the year in conditions not conducive to contrail formation?

The sky where I live has been WHITE for over two years, solely due to the emissions of unmarked planes (commercial planes' trails dissipate as normal).

That is only the tip of an iceberg unaffected by global warming; there are many other distinguishing factors between contrails and chemtrails. Let’s take one at a time.

Speaking of which, thank you for yours.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
I wish I had a picture of it but I used to live in West Phoenix Az, and on more than one occasion saw not only parallel lines that were "unique" but saw what from different angles were crossing parallel lines that created a tic tack toe formation..at the 20k to 40k altitude.

The reason why there are big X’s and checkerboards is due to the way that aircraft navigate. Aircraft fly on things that are similar to roads in the sky, they have several different names, but the concept is the same. They are called Jeyways, Airways, Victor Airways, VOR’s, or VHF Omnidirectional Radio (Here is what one looks like). These function by sending out a radio signals 360 degrees in a straight line from the station, which the pilot tunes in on a special radio stack in the cockpit. These invisible radio roads in the sky have to cross each other somewhere, and where they do you end up with hash marks, crosses, and X’s.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Not only do I disagree, I’m disappointed to see such a sweeping and dismissive generalization of people’s concerns go unchallenged. While it is true that I have never seen a persistent contrail in my entire life, whether they existed or didn’t exist “in the old days” is not what the chemtrail theory is based upon at all. That is, in fact, irrelevant.

It’s absolutely relevant, and it’s not a wide sweeping dismissive, but rather it comes from the actual “supposed” experts such as Carnicom. The claim of chemtrailers is that they are not persistent contrails because no one saw persistent contrails before the 90’s, and thus are a new phenomena created either as part of SDI or weather control. In reality there were fewer contrails back in the 80’s because there was less traffic, and the engines were smaller in diameter.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
You see, NASA states in their Contrail Education publication that contrails “only form at very high altitudes (usually above 8km – about 26,000 ft) where the air is extremely cold (less than -40 degrees Celcius)” and that they can “persist and grow (if the humidity is high)”.

If NASA actually said this, its obviously wrong or misquoted, because if the conditions are correct contrails can form at any altitude. I would have to assume that what they actually stated was something more along the lines of “contrails normally form at this altitude”. It takes a combination of cold air and the right amount of humidity to form persistent contrails, and its very obvious here in Florida as we start seeing them as soon as it starts getting colder outside.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
This specificity is emphasized by author and weather consultant Philip Eden, who wrote that: “condensation trails cannot form in the upper troposphere if there is insufficient moisture there, which is the case 80-85% of the time over the British Isles”.

So what this guy is saying is that there is not any clouds, precipitation, or fog over England 80-85% of the time? If the conditions exist to sustain cloud formation, then the conditions exist to sustain contrails, as they are exactly the same thing.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Mr. Eden was saying that the conditions for contrail formation only occur about 15-20% of the time over the UK. We can see from NASA that PERSISTENT contrails require even more specific conditions than that; higher humidity; and the Meteorological Office in the UK says temperatures “MUST be below -57 degrees” for PERSISTENT contrails to form.

I am not sure what the exact numbers on humidity level vs temperature are, but you can check them yourself with this:
Contrail Simulator
This will show the prediction for persistent contrail formation over the US at any given time:
Contrail Prediction Map

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
The sky where I live has been WHITE for over two years, solely due to the emissions of unmarked planes

Almost all aircraft are either white, light gray, or silver on the bottom, so when seen from the ground they all look unmarked.

Please feel free to go on about this subject though, and I’ll be happy to try to answer each point you bring up. The only thing is that I am not a meteorologist, simply a person who worked professionally in aviation, and an aviation enthusiast, so someone like OZ or Essan would be more effective at answering specific weather related questions. I believe that Essan is over in the UK where you are, which might be very helpful to you.

[edit on 9/29/2008 by defcon5]

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
the Meteorological Office in the UK says temperatures “MUST be below -57 degrees” for PERSISTENT contrails to form. [My capitals.]

Can you tell me where you saw that because it's not true. Contrail formation and persistence is determined primarily by temperature and humidity. The lower the humidity, the lower temperature needs to be.

As a general rule, contrails only form at temps of below -35c (more usually below -40c) and rel humidity above 60% and such conditions may be found in the air above us every single day of the year, regardless of ground temperature. However, such conditions may not occur at the usual cruising altitude of commercial aircraft (typically 28,000 to 35,000ft). It's when such conditions occur at the same altitude at which the aircraft are flying that we see contrails.


Of course, for at least half the year there are low level clouds obscuring our view, so it's only on clear days we tend to notice them. However, based on Philip's estimation (and he knows far more than I ever will) we ought to see contrails - given suitably clear conditions - at least 1 or 2 days per week throughout the year. Obviously there will be weeks when we see none and others when they occur on several consecutive days.