Debunking Chemtrails, page 7

privacy

Pages: << 4 5 6 7 8 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times

reply posted on 20-10-2008 @ 11:16 AM by eaganthorn

reply to post by defcon5

The very first time I heard something about Chemtrails was back in 1980 on a radio talk show in Kansas City. The discussion was initiated by a pilot who said that the aviation fuel being used now (in 1980) had some new chemical additives that made the exhaust fumes persistently visible at various altitudes and he came to believe it a potential health risk.

He claimed that the fuel smelled different and that the fuel he could get in Kansas City was different from the fuel in Alaska. He made the claim that a persistent trail could lead to an unforeseen consequences and that he hadn’t received any justifiable reason or consistent explanation as to the purpose or identity of the additives. While his interest was more of a concern about the lack of action by the FAA in regards to implementing and regulating some sort of emissions control standards for aircraft, he did raise the questions about the chemical additives in the fuel and the nature of their intended purpose and their uncalculated outcome.

Since that time he and others who wish to speak out about the FAA’s lack of action on emissions control standards have been subjected to ridicule. Disinformation has taken hold of the topic and the notion of Chemtrails has been lost to senseless claims and debate by people like you who are focused on the inconsequential and trivial aspects of the problem and issue.

I have attempted to approach the issue of Chemtrails in this debate by highlighting the logical and sensible aspects in a step by step scientific and analytic fashion, but I see you aren’t interested in the facts. It is your desire that I follow your lead and argue on behalf of the points you are outlining so you can have the opportunity to continue your practiced debate, which is one you feel confident to support. When I stepped outside your preconceived ideas, you appear lost and confused. If you take the time to review what I have said, you might learn something, if you are at all interested in learning something new. If not, you’ll stay safely on your current path with your cronies.

The idea that Chemtrails must follow the path that you’ve outlined is a conceited supposition with no true foundation in fact or procedure and something I consider to be "disinformation". To suggest that I cannot debate my points on this topic, simply because it isn’t what you’ve come to expect or that it is a different category altogether, is naive, deceitful, or perhaps an indication that you may have some other problems.

Am I smug, no, I am a humble man but I am one who does not get distracted easily while on this topic nor am I easily intimidated and I have been very consistent with my points. Are there any intelligent persons who see and understand the outlined points of the Chemtrail debate that I’ve suggested? Yes there are, but you have just called anyone who doesn’t think like you, unintelligent, so who is being smug?

Defcon5, I have made my points, supported by facts, some of these facts where actually introduced by you and other debunkers of Chemtrail. You can either choose to accept them or not. If you have something that contradicts what I have proposed, by all means, bring it, otherwise your rants are nothing more than the failing ego of a child looking into the adult world. (Ok, that last line was me being smug, see the difference?)

reply posted on 20-10-2008 @ 01:11 PM by eaganthorn

Originally posted by SuperSecretSquirrel
I must admit that I am shocked to see that this thread is still active. I attribute this to the persistent ignorance and stubbornness of those that CANNOT prove that additives are being put in jet fuel.

Actually, the debunkers have said that there ARE additives in the fuel and supplied links to prove it. It is one of the points we have agreed upon and I have explained some basics of chemical reactions, how heat and pressure can be catalysts, etc. I know it has become convoluted at this point as to who said what, but please try to be more accurate in your ascertains. I wouldn't want you to face the embarrassment that another member has endured by being corrected so frequently.

Originally posted by SuperSecretSquirrel
Myself, Defcon, and others can use logic until we are blue in face trying to point out how illogical it is to think that somehow, somebody is putting a secret ingredient into jet fuel that can only be activated at high altitude without pilots, crewchiefs, flight engineers, fuel crews, and air traffic controllers who "guide" the pilots to fly in specific pattern to maximize exposure to these chemicals knowing anything about it.

And I have pointed out that the people you have mentioned would not ever need to know, most of which lack the education required to discern such a thing and there has been a complete lack of any logic in opposition on the topic points I have raised. Only a continued rhetorical attempt to return to the spraying and formations aspect, of which I neither confirm nor deny as it is not applicable to my points in this debate.

The facts are that the points I have raised cannot be disproven, not by you, 5, or anyone else, please review the posts/threads to understand this fact and lets move on.

Sorry that you've missed out on the fun and I am equally sorry about your face turning blue. That must be awful to live with, do you require special make-up or are your co-workers supportive of your condition? (ok, cheap shot, I know, but I could not resist, consider it retribution for the presumptuous allegation that all who oppose you are ignorant)

Originally posted by SuperSecretSquirrelI received a couple U2U messages warning me...

Pack hunting, huh, I suspected as much. So you guys do this routinely do you, sort of a debate tag team?

That’s ok, just try to read through my threads and points, you may be surprised to learn that there is actually some substance to my argument. You don't even need to be "open minded", just logical.

If it is not possible for you or your "posse" to accept the position I have taken without any factual opposition, just say so. Simply come out with it and say that regardless of facts or reason, you cannot accept my position and I will probably make a final statement and move on.

Or if you can finally comprehend my position, accept the facts as they are and the feasibility of what I have proposed, I will make a final summery and move on.

If someone has a viable refute or opposition to my argument, I would like to hear it, or read it.

In any case, I agree that the banter has gone on long enough with out any additional or sensible debate. It’s your call Secret, you’re the OP, what will it be?

reply posted on 20-10-2008 @ 01:40 PM by SuperSecretSquirrel

I have come to realize that this topic can neither be proven or disproven. From what I can remember, you are not saying that you are absolutely positive that "chemtrails" are true, only that you want to stress that it is possible. Sorry if I am wrong on this but I don't want to go read the whole thread again.

To me, you are correct about chemical reactions due to heat and pressure. Of course this happens with any engine, turbine or not. However, altitude would not play a role in this equation because although there are fewer molecules, IE: O2 and N2 at high altitudes, they are still there. There is not something else that reacts high altitudes except O3 (ozone) but normal planes do not fly that high so I would argue that the chemical reaction that happens on the ground is the same as what happens in the sky.

Temperature plays a role in efficiency with engines. Cold=better. That is why on a cold day your car will feel more responsive and powerful than on a hot day. This is the same reason why jets trying to maximize fuel efficiency fly at around 35,000 feet. At this cold altitude there is water vapor just like on the ground but it freezes quickly and turns to ice at those high altitudes. True that this is mixed with the normal exhaust, but it is the same exhaust that is on the ground. No more or no less hazardous. With the amount a jet exhaust that I have been exposed to, I can testify that I am still perfectly healthy.

As I stated earlier, "chemtrails" cannot be proven or disproven but my logic tells me that they are indeed just contrails and do not pose any threat to humanity or to the environment.

reply posted on 21-10-2008 @ 05:52 AM by Essan

Well, the simple fact is that if eganthorn is right and there are additives in jet fuel which make the exhaust more likely to produce ice crystals, then the only effect on us is a small amount of global warming .....

And there's plenty of research at the moment being carried out on ways to reduce contrail formation. So that's okay then

reply posted on 21-10-2008 @ 09:53 PM by toasted

reply to post by SuperSecretSquirrel

" The people that would be servicing these spraying devices would be the local contractors with A&P Licenses. "

Well, what if it ain't military, per se, but paramilitary, you know, the kind that can wear any uniform and get away with it, the kind that own "normal" companies. THEY would hire "one of their own".

So altho I see your logic, I've seen the trails with my own eyes. I don't KNOW what it is, but there is definitely something there, and nobody is talking.

Sorry, they're real, but real what, remains to be seen.

reply posted on 21-10-2008 @ 10:44 PM by defcon5

Originally posted by eaganthorn
The very first time I heard something about Chemtrails was back in 1980 on a radio talk show in Kansas City. The discussion was initiated by a pilot who said that the aviation fuel being used now (in 1980) had some new chemical additives that made the exhaust fumes persistently visible at various altitudes and he came to believe it a potential health risk.

He claimed that the fuel smelled different and that the fuel he could get in Kansas City was different from the fuel in Alaska.

It sounds like maybe he was getting fuel with higher sulfur content, the only difference between various grades of diesel/kerosene is the amount of sulfur in the fuel. I suppose it may vary depending on who processed it, and where it originally came from.

Though 1980 is kind of early for the Chemtrail stuff, most seem to think it began in the 1990’s. There was no difference in the fuel smell or additives during the time I worked the airport from the late 1980’s until the early 2000’s.

Originally posted by eaganthorn
I have attempted to approach the issue of Chemtrails in this debate by highlighting the logical and sensible aspects in a step by step scientific and analytic fashion, but I see you aren’t interested in the facts. It is your desire that I follow your lead and argue on behalf of the points you are outlining so you can have the opportunity to continue your practiced debate, which is one you feel confident to support.

I did not make that stuff up, the chemtrail “experts” did, and they are the things given as evidence that there is a deliberate conspiracy of aerial spraying being preformed. I am not the one throwing out facts to fit my theory, you are in fact the one throwing things out to try and make the facts fit your argument. Unfortunately, the facts are that the items I listed are the evidence given by chemtrail believers that there is anything out of the norm about supposed chemtrails vs persistent contrails.

I mean after all what good does it do just to add something to the gas if you are not going to control where its going to be released at?

Originally posted by eaganthorn
The idea that Chemtrails must follow the path that you’ve outlined is a conceited supposition with no true foundation in fact or procedure and something I consider to be "disinformation". To suggest that I cannot debate my points on this topic, simply because it isn’t what you’ve come to expect or that it is a different category altogether, is naive, deceitful, or perhaps an indication that you may have some other problems.

Or maybe its that you have an ego problem that will not allow you to ever lose an argument so you have to limit the evidence to only what you feel you can win at? I have not limited your evidence in any way, I have simply asked you to explain these things in relation to other supposed chemtrail evidence. You cannot have it both ways, either this stuff exists, a conspiracy exists, and thus all the flight crews and ATC personnel must be in on it, or not. However, I think this is really all about you being right, and not about the truth or anything, now is it?

Are you Cliff Carnicom per chance, you seem to have an motivated agenda here to keep this alive despite all the experts who have torn it apart over the years?
Maybe the guy selling Chembusters on the net?
A book?
Video?

Originally posted by eaganthorn
Defcon5, I have made my points, supported by facts, some of these facts where actually introduced by you and other debunkers of Chemtrail.

No, you have made speculation that there is something that may be added to gas that magically eludes detection and all the quality control procedures. You have yet to explain what it supposedly is, what it supposedly does, and how it is used for anything useful if it is sprayed around at random. You have also thrown out 99% of the supposed supportive evidence used to prove the existence of this supposed Chemtrail conspiracy, just to push your idea of this magical cloud generating fuel additive.

I can tell you exactly what that additive is… H2O

Originally posted by eaganthorn

Originally posted by SuperSecretSquirrelI received a couple U2U messages warning me...

Pack hunting, huh, I suspected as much. So you guys do this routinely do you, sort of a debate tag team?

No, I believe he is referring to several of the other experts in the field who have given up with trying to help people understand the fraud that is Chemtrails. I would assume he specifically means OzTheWeatherman, who is a professional meteorologist down in Australia, and just recently announced he was done with this utter twaddle. Other folks who seem to have given up at this are people such as FirePilot, Weedwacker, GreenEyedLeo, and Zaphod, to name a few, all of whom have inside knowledge of aviation and military aviation, and all of who’s opinions I respect. This topic and the incessant inane evidence of this theory eventually beats folks down, and they quit trying to explain the truth.

[edit on 10/21/2008 by defcon5]

reply posted on 22-10-2008 @ 10:43 AM by eaganthorn

Originally posted by SuperSecretSquirrel
To me, you are correct about chemical reactions due to heat and pressure. However, altitude would not play a role in this equation because although there are fewer molecules, IE: O2 and N2 at high altitudes, they are still there. There is not something else that reacts high altitudes except O3 (ozone) but normal planes do not fly that high so I would argue that the chemical reaction that happens on the ground is the same as what happens in the sky.

You appear to follow along to a point but I respectfully submit that you seem to get lost here. Altitude is a pressure variable, the higher the altitude the less the pressure, so it can play a role in chemical reactions and I can effect a different chemical reaction in some formulas using more or less pressure. To take it a step further, I can reformulate to cause a different reaction subjective to an altitude of choosing. So, if I can do this it must mean that the potential does exist based on the facts of the science involved. You’ve also made note the gas content ratio and availability at higher altitudes, could they be made into a factor? Potentially, but I don’t really need more support for my argument as my point is the feasibility.

I am happy to see that you have progressed enough to accept that it is impossible to debunk the Chemtrail issue regardless of our personal beliefs of its existence. It demonstrates character, intelligence, the ability to adapt and the ability to separate belief from fact. But I am puzzle that you wouldn’t want to read over the posts in support or opposition of your own argument here. If you do not wish to read the posts in debate with your own OP, why bother with opening an OP?

Originally posted by defcon5
No, you have made speculation that there is something that may be added to gas that magically eludes detection and all the quality control procedures.

Science may appear to be magic to the uneducated. Again this is something we have already covered and another in the long list of things you simply wish to ignore. Anything that would have a specific reaction at such an altitude would not give the same testing result at ground level. Surely you have the mental ability to absorb this information, or is this an example of obstinacy on your part? Are you unwilling to accept a science if it contrasts your views and beliefs?

Originally posted by defcon5
It sounds like maybe he was getting fuel with higher sulfur content, the only difference between various grades of diesel/kerosene is the amount of sulfur in the fuel. I suppose it may vary depending on who processed it, and where it originally came from.

You again, assume too much, but you do bring up yet another good point about the fuels having some variation in their contents that you previously denied. But again, I will give you the benefit of the doubt concerning the oversight, as I don’t think it was intentional. But if you do ever take the time to review not only my threads here, but yours as well, you might start to notice something of value and adjust your position.

Originally posted by defcon5
I did not make that stuff up, the chemtrail “experts” did, and they are the things given as evidence that there is a deliberate conspiracy of aerial spraying being preformed.

Then given that it is not my position of debate, why do you insist on applying it to me. That isn’t my argument, it’s yours with someone else, and you are trying, desperately so, to make it applicable to me. You cannot, have not and will not as it is not my position.

Originally posted by defcon5
Or maybe its that you have an ego problem that will not allow you to ever lose an argument so you have to limit the evidence to only what you feel you can win at?

So, this is your level, the ole “I know you are, but what am I?” You still can’t distinguish between my argument and the one you want to have. Sad, very sad. Look up the term Ego-Centric.

As far as who I am, I do not have a book or a video or profit of any kind from this or any other debate and I do not know the person you have mentioned. I have had three major career moves in my life each about 10 to 15 years a piece, communications, medical laboratory, computer science. I have an FCC license (expired) and a research permit (also expired) and the two are not related. My credentials are not really applicable to this argument except perhaps as to my level of understanding the analytical approach and means of which I may accumulated data.

reply posted on 22-10-2008 @ 11:12 AM by eaganthorn

Originally posted by defcon5
No, you have made speculation that there is something that may be added to gas that magically eludes detection and all the quality control procedures. You have yet to explain what it supposedly is, what it supposedly does, and how it is used for anything useful if it is sprayed around at random. You have also thrown out 99% of the supposed supportive evidence used to prove the existence of this supposed Chemtrail conspiracy, just to push your idea of this magical cloud generating fuel additive.

Actually you supplied the information about the additives and it was your comments that proved that any additional additive would go undetected by describing the field tests. You are correct that I have not explained what any of the additives are as my only claim thus far has been the feasibility of a conspiracy. You’ve added the rest. In fact you have been very helpful in proving my point, but I don’t suppose you realize that yet or else you would have remained silent a long time ago. Go back and re-read, a person might even think you and I were working together on this issue.

As far as magic, we've already covered how science may appear as magic to an uneducated person.

I have from the very start simply stated that the chemtrail conspiracy was feasible and given my reasons, repeatedly, and I have also said from the start that the practicality was another issue altogether. I have also stated that a conspiracy can be one of deliberate design or one of silence. And here is where some of these things can be tied together, but do not confuse this statement to indicate any limitations.

There are additives in the fuels as defcon5 has supplied us and please note that this was his link www.csgnetwork.com...
If you follow this link you will note the long list of additives. It has been learned that some of these additives are causing great harm, but there are currently no FAA regulations to govern emission control standards for aircraft that would make any of these additives illegal and the debate about Chemtrails has been continually reduced to levels of lunacy by those either willing or inadvertently initiating dis-information on the subject matter. Those in the military or ex-military often act as parrots by repeating what they have been told by their superior officers and aid in perpetuating the dis-information.

Some of the harm caused by these additives;

Please also note that in the debate of whether something does or does not cause harm, when the response is that "we need to conduct additional testing" the testing being referred to, is to continue use as before and accumilate data from the population in a study as to how many more people get sick or die as a result of the chemicals in one area over the next.

[edit on 10/22/2008 by eaganthorn]

[edit on 10/22/2008 by eaganthorn]

reply posted on 22-10-2008 @ 02:39 PM by Essan

The creation of contrails - that some call chemtrails - is not dependent on pressure.

But the fact remains: even if additives to jet fuel means more contrails, the only issue is that it may be acting to increase AGW.

So I'm really not sure what your point is eaganthorn?

reply posted on 22-10-2008 @ 05:28 PM by eaganthorn

reply to post by Essan

You must of skimmed over it without really reading it as my niece gets it forwards and backwards and she is only 11. Granted she is smarter than most 11 year old children and is in a private school for gifted students, but she is only 11. Are you telling me that an 11 year old child has a better comprehension of this information than you? Seriously, dude read it again and quit yanking my chain.

reply posted on 22-10-2008 @ 06:35 PM by interestedalways

reply to post by Essan

I would say that his angle in this refreshing and above refute.

I have rarely seen a poster on these threads who has information that even the "experts" can't use words to deflect from.

His point is that those of you who say that you know all about it are wrong. There are other factors to consider that are being ignored.

It is kind of fun to watch an expert in another area add to this debate. It has shown how the tried and true are having trouble with something outside of their area of "expertise" *choke , choke*

reply posted on 22-10-2008 @ 08:35 PM by defcon5

reply to post by interestedalways

No, he has not! Actually, what he has done is throw a bunch of apples in with oranges then started pealing off their skin to say they are the same thing, which they are not. Fuel additives used in aviation have existed since well before the 80’s/90’s, and yet we have heard constant testimony by the “Chemtrail Experts”, that something changed in our skies in the 90’s. That now there are suddenly contrails, which form clouds, that persist like they never did in the past. That suddenly aircraft working in various formations are intentionally spraying the sky with giant grids and X’s, for whatever nefarious reasons. That The planes have all sorts of oddball spraying devices attached, and the spray was coming from different areas then the engines.

Sorry but none of this fits with fuel additives.

He has yet to explain how if an additional chemical is added to fuel, that the elements which comprise that chemical elude a chromatograph, which breaks a substance into its base components.

He has yet to explain why we don’t see fuel additives on the ground considering the much vaster number of additives in normal fuel:
Fuel Additives

What he is talking about is normal pollution, same as you get from your car, not chemtrails.

[edit on 10/22/2008 by defcon5]

reply posted on 22-10-2008 @ 09:17 PM by newagent89

reply to post by jvm222

What sort of delusional fantasy is this? That does not make any sense. Contrails are mostly water and linger in a high humidity atmosphere. Look at a website that explains it. This isn't that complex. That garbage about a high level of barium and stuff: that comes from a review where they were off by a factor of 100. The level is infinitesimally small, same with other trace releases in other vehicles.

reply posted on 23-10-2008 @ 02:32 AM by Roufas

I don't see why it is so hard to understand , it is understandably feasible.

I have read the whole thread , and all I saw was a guy asking for proof , of things that don't need proof at all , to proof that the hypothesis of Chemtrails is feasible.

Simple as that.

So yeah , unless anyone can 100% prove it is impossible , it is still possible.
Just because you think it is "obvious" it is impossible , it doesn't mean its the real truth.
Some people have a hard time separating assumptions from real facts , I see.

[edit on 23-10-2008 by Roufas]

reply posted on 23-10-2008 @ 03:41 AM by defcon5

reply to post by Roufas

It works the other way around. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and so far we have seen no proof that there is anything amiss, but rather that all the supposed Chemtrail nonsense is explicable via natural events and normal engine use.

Lets just say for a second that it were true that gas additives were in fact making contrails persist for longer periods, but only at the magic correct pressure settings as claimed, they are still contrails. Chemtrails infers that there is some nefarious chemical, which is being intentionally sprayed on us from aircraft, however it has been repeatedly shown to not be the case. Some of the additives he is picking on have been in use since the 1930’s, and some are the same that are used in normal gas of the variety you put in your car. The gas that is used in ground ramp equipment comes right from the same ground pit that is used on the aircraft. The idea that those chemicals magically don’t burn at normal pressure means that we would have to scrape all that unburned chemical out of the fuel lines and tanks of the ramp equipment on a regular basis.

Other items, which are claimed to be sprayed in chemtrails, again obviously do not work under either theory. These would include: Blood Cells

, Stringy Fibers (Angel Hair), and NanoBots

to name a few. Additionally the Cirrus Blanket, as pilots refer to it, has been a known event in high air traffic corridors since WWII, with photos to prove it existed back then. Therefore, these increases in sickness must be from some other source, as the increase would have started post WWII.

The photos that Chemtrailers hold up as proof, showing trails that stop and start can only happen in two ways, either someone intentionally shut off some mechanism, or the temperature and humidity changed in that area. Planes obviously do not descend enough to cause massive pressure changes then ascend back to the previous altitude in that short of an amount of time, as it tends to bounce passengers off the ceiling of the aircraft. This has yet to be explained by our chemist friend, and he continues to dodge the matter because he knows it kills his theory. The fact that he wishes to omit these inconsistencies from the discussion, tells me everything that I need to know about the fellow; he is not interested in truth, but rather wining a debate.

reply posted on 24-10-2008 @ 03:23 PM by eaganthorn

Originally posted by defcon5
It works the other way around. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

You provided the proof, I used your information, if you have fault with your own information, how can we ever trust you? Is it no wonder that people who supply information and then claim it to be wrong when it is used to support a different position are not taken seriously? Do you realize what a fantastic source of entertainment you have become?

Originally posted by defcon5
Chemtrails infers that there is some nefarious chemical, which is being intentionally sprayed on us from aircraft, however it has been repeatedly shown to not be the case.

And I have consistently said that the chemicals are in the fuel and I have made no claims about spraying as that was your argument with someone else, please pay attention and stop confusing me with others.

Originally posted by defcon5
Some of the additives he is picking on have been in use since the 1930’s,

And “some” were introduced later, can you guess which ones I’m talking about? I’ll give you a clue, they aren’t in the gas I put in my car or my truck or my boat or my motorcycle.

Originally posted by defcon5
The idea that those chemicals magically don’t burn at normal pressure..

Ok, we all get that you do not understand chemistry or science and that it may seem like magic to you, but hey, you aren’t required to understand chemistry to pump gas, its ok, really. But if you keep it up with the “magic” non-sense, people will start referring to you as either “Goober” or “Gomer”.

Originally posted by defcon5
The photos that Chemtrailers hold up as proof, showing trails that stop and start can only happen in two ways, either someone intentionally shut off some mechanism, or the temperature and humidity changed in that area. Planes obviously do not descend enough to cause massive pressure changes then ascend back to the previous altitude in that short of an amount of time, as it tends to bounce passengers off the ceiling of the aircraft. This has yet to be explained by our chemist friend, and he continues to dodge the matter because he knows it kills his theory. The fact that he wishes to omit these inconsistencies from the discussion, tells me everything that I need to know about the fellow; he is not interested in truth, but rather wining a debate.

I don’t address your outlined issues because they are irrelevant to my point, I am not those other people. You can debate all you want with anyone other than me about those points and I won’t even try to stop you, I just don’t care to enable you and your little speech. Does this make me an evil person, I guess in your world it might, but hey, I’m ok with that too.

I understand that you are upset, that you want so very badly to argue your practiced speech about atmospheric conditions, but that isn’t what I have ever discussed. I’ve asked you to review what all I have said, but you would rather continue a pointless volley of inconsequential rhetoric instead of progressing. I get it, you’ve practiced all summer long, bought a brand new catchers mitt, a new ball and a shinny new baseball bat, walked twenty miles to the park only to find out that the other kids are playing football, I get it and it is sad. I am so sorry for you.

Please understand this, the OP has already gone on record as saying that he has come to realize the fact that Chemtrails cannot be proven or disproven, case closed. You whining about it only makes you look bad. If you are not satisfied with the outcome, you may start your own thread and you can be the OP, lay out your specific guide lines, be the boss and go for it, instead of high jacking someone else’s OP and getting all "swishy" when things don't go according to your plan.

reply posted on 13-1-2009 @ 04:19 PM by Angus123

reply to post by SuperSecretSquirrel

I mean no disrespect. I thought the idea of chemtrails was goofy too at first.
Then one early winter morning on my way to work I looked up at the sky and saw a high-flying aircraft. There was no visible contrail of any kind.
Then black smoke began pouring out the back of it all of a sudden. That black smoke began to lighten into shades of grey that got progressively lighter until it was the familiar white chemtrails I'd seen before and thought nothing of.

Now as a veteran of the 82nd Airborne, I know aircraft don't just start leaving a contrail in mid-flight. Especially not thick black ones that lighten up as the craft flies along.

That's when I became a believer. I've read that it's some kind of aluminum they're using to reflect sunlight back out into space to combat global warming, but I don't know if that's true.

reply posted on 17-1-2009 @ 02:43 PM by BoboIsBlue

I'm a newb to the chemtrail debate so perhaps this has already been pointed out, but I noticed that those who do not believe in Chemtrails, often cite the Appleman Chart for predicting contrails.

Well, I ran the numbers for the chart for Chicago for 12 evenly spaced days last summer in Chicago. 5 of them predicted NO CHANCE of contrails (let alone persistent contrails). We did not have ANY chemtrail/contrail free days last summer. Its a very flat geography and you can see way in the distance in every direction around O'Hare.

Now mesh that against the USAF's and NASA's claim that the Appleman Chart to be correct 98% of the time in predicting (NO CONTRAILS). This is a necessity in planning day missions (or night missions with moonlight) in which contrails will reveal the aircraft on mission to the enemy.

So, I don't see any room for anyone to "explain away" the Mid-Latitude Summer Appleman chart being dead wrong in predicting NO CONTRAILS more than 50% of the time.

I invite everyone on this thread to make local observations in the skies. When you see heavy spraying, get your local weather data from here: weather.uwyo.edu... and then use the correct chart for your area and season here: asd-www.larc.nasa.gov...

If the results predict NO CONTRAILS despite you seeing heavy trails THEN THEY ARE NOT CONTRAILS (98% of the time anyway).

[edit on 17-1-2009 by BoboIsBlue]

reply posted on 17-1-2009 @ 03:25 PM by Essan

reply to post by BoboIsBlue

The Appleman Chart is 50 years out of date. Science moves on.

For example:

A new formulation for the critical temperature for contrail formation

An empirical model to predict widespread occurence of contrails

[edit on 17-1-2009 by Essan]

reply posted on 17-1-2009 @ 03:40 PM by Phage

reply to post by BoboIsBlue

I don't understand exactly what you mean by "correct chart for your area and season". There is only one Appleman Chart. It is the blank chart at the top of the page you linked. The charts further down the page, with captions like "Mid-Latitude Summer" are just showing representative data points as examples. You need to plot the sounding data for a particular day to determine whether contrail formation is likely according to the chart.

Can you provide the sounding dates and times you found no possibility of contrails? Were you using Davenport or Lincoln? I made a few spot checks and didn't find any soundings for last summer from Davenport that precluded the formation of contrails (according to the Appleman Chart).

[edit on 1/17/2009 by Phage]

Pages: << 4 5 6 7 8 >> ^^TOP^^