Real Contrail Science, why they persist and why they spread out and why they are not chemtrails

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 06:06 AM
It has become far too obvious; the "Debunkers" on this thread are clearly Feigning ignorance of the vast amounts of relevant literature and research that is available.

Notice how their ad hoc reactionary debunking never contains any of the qualities one might expect from a properly formed rebuttal - no counterpoints, no citations, and never, will you ever find a point by point refutation by any of these 'debunkers' - for them, blatant mischaracterization, ad hominem attacks, and defamatory misquoting will often suffice to complete their primary objective.

Their feigned terminological inexactitude, ignorance and lack of capability to exert any intellectual rigour - combined with their shear force of numbers and unnecessary quantity of unsupported posts is often enough to overwhelm and bury even the most pertinent data and most important contributions relevant to the topic.

I believe this to be their primary objective.

Spraying Heavy Metals To Stop Global Warming

J.D. Aber and K.J. Nadelhoffer, "Nitrogen Saturation in Northern Forest Ecosystems." Bioscience, 39 (1989) pages


American Geophysical Union, "Jet contrails to be significant climate factor by 2050," AGU press release no. 99-19,


R.B. Ames and W.C. Malm, "Estimating the Contribution of the Mohave Coal-fired Power Plant Emissions to Atmospheric

Extinction at Grand Canyon National Park." In Visual Air Quality" Aerosols and Global Radiation Balance, Air and

Waste Management Association, Pittsburgh, Pa., 683-697, 1997.

Marcus Dalton, "Chemtrails Are Over Las Vegas." Las Vegas Tribune, vol. 7 Issue 3, 8/19/05

S.L. Baughcum, "Subsonic aircraft emission inventories, In:Atmospheric Effects of Aviation:First Report of the

Subsonic Assessment Project." NASA RP-1385, pp. 15-29, 1996

Bill Gallagher, "Chemical Aurora Keyhole Surveillance." Arizona Indymedia, May 2004

Laura Kelly, "Mysterious powder shrouds area." The Alpenhorn News, Feb. 2006

D.M. Hunten, "Residence Times of Aerosols and Gases in the Stratosphere." Geophysical Research Letters 2(1): 26-27,


A.C. Mueller, "The Effects of Particulates from Solid Rocket Motors Fired in Space." Advances in Space Research 5

(2): 77-86, 1985.

U. Schumann, "In Situ Observations of Particles in Jet Aircraft Exhausts and Contrails for Different Sulfur-

Containing Fuels." Journal of Geographical Research, Vol. 101, Issue D3, 1996.

Weather mod. patent Numbers

6569393-5/27/03-Method and Device for Cleaning the Atmosphere.
6520425-2/18/03-Process and Apparatus for the Production and aerial dispersion of Nanofibers.
6412416-7/2/02-Propellant-Based Aerosol Generation Devices and Method.
6315213-11/13/01-Method of Modifying Weather.
6263744-7/24/01-Automated Mobility-Classified-Aerosol Detector.
6056203-5/2/00-Method and Apparatus for Modifying Supercooled Clouds.
6030506-2/29/00-Preparation of Independently Generated Highly Reactive Chemical Species.
5984239-11/16/99-Weather Modification by Artificial Satellite.
5762298-6/9/98-Use of Artificial Satellites in Earth Orbits Adaptively to Modify the Effect that Solar Radiation

Would Otherwise Have on Earth's Weather.
5628455-5/13/97-Method and Apparatus for Modification of Supercooled Fog.
5286979-2/15/94-Process for Absorbing Ultraviolet Radiation Using Dispersed Melanin.
5104069-4/114/92-Apparatus and Method for Ejecting Matter from an Aircraft.
5038664-8/13/94-Method for Producing a Shell of Relativisitic Particles at an Altitude Above the Earth's Surface.
4999637-3/12/91-Creation of Artificial Ionization Clouds Above the Earth.
4873928-10/17/89-Nuclear-Sized Explosions without Radiation.
4686605-8/11/87-Method and Apparatus for Altering a Region in the Earth's Atmosphere, Ionosphere, and/or Magnetosphere

[edit on 18-11-2008 by TruthTellist]

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 11/20/2008 by Hal9000]

posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 06:07 AM

Originally posted by SuperSecretSquirrel
Oz and Defcon,

I sometimes worry about you Defcon because of the sheer amount of energy that you waste trying to change the minds of some of these people.

I can post when I am at work.
So basically, when I am not busy with one of my vast number of hobbies, I often have WAY too much time on my hands.

posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 06:33 AM
reply to post by defcon5

Perhaps you should spend less time on the internet then and more time actually experiencing the outdoors. That will change your perspective on this issue, because you are probably being hit by chemtrails yourself, if you live anywhere near a metropolitan area in the western world.

Don't take the word of anyone on the internet, pro or con, regarding this issue, for heaven's sake investigate for yourself, the truth is right above your head.

And if you do this you will be less ignorant.

posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 06:57 AM

Originally posted by TruthTellist
It has become far too obvious; the "Debunkers" on this thread are clearly Feigning ignorance of the vast amounts of relevant literature and research that is available.

It has become far too obvious that some chemtrailers are ignorant of real science and persist in their refusal to learn. Furthermore, some seem wholly incapable of presenting a coherent argument in favour of their preferred theory nor of providing any reasoned argument against the prevailing explanation for what they claim to be chemtrails - and can only resort instead to continued illogical non sequitur reasoning and flimflamming.

Can you explain why chemtrails should be visible from the ground?

Can you explain why they appear and act identical to contrails?

Can you explain why what you see cannot be contrails?


Edit: I'm pretty sure Truthtellist doesn't know himself what he thinks chemtrails are - one minute it's some highly secret NATO defence thingie, next it's cloud seeding or theoretical dispersal of sulphur particles to prevent global warming or anti radar chaff or probably the teletubbiues if he can find a website that connects the teletubbies with the words spray, chemical or aircraft in some configuration of other

Come on, out with it: you're just here to wind up the chemtrailer believers, aren't you? You no more believe anything you say than you believe my neighbour is the tooth fairy. I bet you really work with Pat Minnis - in fact, are you Pat Minnis?

[edit on 18-11-2008 by Essan]

posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 07:11 AM
Just seen the bit from Jim Marrs' book that concerns Chemtrails - in which he states that no-one will admit they exist.

Well that's very much not true.

It's well known they exist.

They are extensively studied - and have been since long before 1997 or whenever the Internet Viral Hoax was started.,

It's just that we call them persistent contrails

Anyone care to prove otherwise?

posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 07:39 AM
We all know what contrails are.

However aerial saturation has and is being maintained.

These flights are allowed into restricted airspace and additionally fly with transponders OFF.

Feel free to try to track any of these mystery flights online through a service.

Once again, transponders are OFF. Chalk up another FAA violation.

Moral of the story is.... next time you see what you know to be a chemtrail do the following.

1) Grab sounding data (look for -40° C and 60%+ humidity).

2) Hit up something like flightaware for flight tracking. These flights are tracked by transponders, not radar. Do not let the fab 5 tell you otherwise.

3) Finally check the aerial icing data.

You will see nonexistent flights spewing something into the atmosphere more so then one would think.

This is simple, 100% effective and will show aerial operations are and have been taking place.

Additionally note that I have been noticing most concentrations being released into fronts. I am guessing this is to have the aerosols dispersed ASAP to avoid more and more prying eyes noticing them lingering.


posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 08:01 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 08:05 AM

Originally posted by utmostbastard

Moral of the story is.... next time you see what you know to be a chemtrail do the following.

But how do you know it's a chemtrail when chemtrails look and act exactly like normal contrails?

Additionally note that I have been noticing most concentrations being released into fronts. I am guessing this is to have the aerosols dispersed ASAP to avoid more and more prying eyes noticing them lingering.

Nothing to do with the well known fact that atmospheric conditions conducive to persistent contrail formation tend to occur more frequently ahead of weather fronts then?


Contrails can give clues to what the weather will bring. A lack of any contrails from the aircraft is a sign that the high altitude atmosphere is very dry and the weather could stay fine. Short contrails that disappear quite quickly are indicate that the air is fairly moist. And a persistent contrail shows that the air is very moist and possibly a sign of an approaching weather front and rain.


... a flow pattern analysis identifies typical regions where the occurrence of contrails was above average. These regions are in the upper atmosphere: (a) ahead of a surface warm front either in moist warm layers before the cirrus clouds arrive or more likely with the cirrus in a warm conveyor belt and (b) ahead of a surface cold front in rapidly moving cold air in the turbulent regions near a band of strong wind (though the speed is not necessarily as high as in a jet).

[edit on 18-11-2008 by Essan]

posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 08:28 AM

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by thefreepatriot

Are you saying lawmakers are to always be trusted? That they are not manipulated? That they do not introduce legislation for political purposes?

[edit on 17-11-2008 by Phage]

No they are not to be trusted... but the fact that they would put it in the bill and call it BY name should be alarming to any logical person.... .lawmakers may be liars. but I doubt they are loonies, and make things up that don't exist for political purposes. What political purpose can you think of that making such a thing up would serve?

[edit on 18-11-2008 by thefreepatriot]

posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 08:30 AM

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by SuperSecretSquirrel
Oz and Defcon,

I sometimes worry about you Defcon because of the sheer amount of energy that you waste trying to change the minds of some of these people.

I can post when I am at work.
So basically, when I am not busy with one of my vast number of hobbies, I often have WAY too much time on my hands.

We all know you can post when your at work... And I doubt this is your hobbie... maybe more like a full time thing right?

posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 08:31 AM

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
I hava a good question to all you "debunkers\meterologists"
if chemtrails DON"T exists then why WOULD they be mentioned by NAME in the initial draft of HR 2977??

Because a bunch of chemtrail believers talked a senator into including it in his bill, even though he did not know it was a conspiracy theory. The Senator took some heat over that as well.

Besides your WORD do you have any reference for this?

posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 08:33 AM
So one year is all it takes to be an old timer on ATS? Wow

Here is a contradictory point of view sourced from an ancient member - me.

Chemtrail/Contrail subject covered by Whitley Strieber

The magazine “Columbus Alive” reports that they’ve received many reports about airplanes “spraying” or leaving behind mysterious “chemtrails” in the sky. When civilian flights were grounded immediately after September 11, this was more noticeable than ever. Some people feared the U.S. was under biochemical attack while others thought we were being inoculated against anthrax or some other biochemical hazard. During a flight to Phoenix in early October, a Columbus Alive reporter saw jets spraying everywhere.

The way to tell the difference between a chemtrail and a normal contrail is that contrails can only form at temperatures below negative-76 degrees Fahrenheit and at humidity levels of 70 percent or more at high altitudes, according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. And even in most ideal conditions, a jet contrail lasts no more than 30 minutes.

Chemtrails are large, multiple trails that seem to hang in the sky indefinitely, then slowly feather out and appear to turn into cirrus clouds. Some seem to be sprayed intentionally in geometrically precise grid patterns. Their source and purpose is a mystery that is addressed by websites such as,, and (a skeptical site).

The official government response is that they’re due to increased commercial air traffic. However, in the month after the attack on the World Trade Center, there was very little commercial airline traffic and virtually no private civilian air flights, but contrails could still be seen frequently over many localities.

One “Columbus Alive” reporter used high-quality binoculars to look at the planes producing chemtrails and saw that Stratotankers and KC-10 Extenders, which are refueling planes, appeared to be used for the spraying.

The Canadian “Ottawa Citizen” newspaper reported a “fervor over chemtrails” on May 16 and said, “Ground fallout [from the chemtrails] analyzed in the United States contained carcinogens and bacteria. Coincidentally in the past decade, most jet fuel was re-engineered to reduce fire hazards by adding a long-banned pesticide, which was reportedly also found in gel samples from chemtrails. Also found were toxic micro-fibers, much finer than asbestos.”

Explanations for chemtrails range from their use in military communications applications to scientific experiments designed to control the weather. A scientist working at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, who insists on anonymity, told “Columbus Alive” that public disclosure of the experiments is inevitable and may occur soon. He said that two different secret projects have been conducted. One involved cloud creation experiments to lessen the effect of global warming. The other involved radiation reflection off clouds in conjunction with the military’s High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) in Alaska.

The scientist claims that the two most common substances being sprayed into chemtrails are aluminum oxide and barium stearate. When you see planes flying back and forth marking parallel lines, X-patterns and grids in a clear sky, that’s aluminum oxide. The goal is to create an artificial sunscreen to reflect solar radiation back into space to alleviate global warming.

In some cases, barium may be sprayed in a similar manner for the purpose of “high-tech 3-D radar imaging. The barium can be used for a ‘wire’ to shoot an electromagnetic beam through to take 3-D images of the ground far over the horizon,” according to the scientist.

Ken Caldeira, a scientist at Lawrence Livermore Labs and one of the country’s leading experts on weather modification, conducted the original computer modeling for the use of aluminum oxide to fight global warming. He says, “We originally did this study to show that this program [using massive spraying for weather modification] shouldn’t be done,” due to negative health effects. Caldeira says there are persistent rumors that the Bush administration will announce geo-engineering weather modification projects this spring, which he sees this as “political suicide.”

Throughout the Cold War, both the United States and the Soviet Union actively investigated the military use of weather modification. In 1958, Captain Howard T. Orville served as the White House’s chief advisor on weather modification. He publicly admitted that the military was studying “ways to manipulate the charges of the earth and sky and so affect the weather through electronic beams to ionize and de-ionize the atmosphere.”

Professor Gordon J.F. MacDonald served on the President’s Science Advisory Committee in 1966, and frequently published papers on the military use of weather modification. In the book “Unless Peace Comes,” MacDonald titled a chapter “How To Wreck The Environment.” He described the military applications of weather modification including climate change, melting the polar ice caps, techniques for depleting the ozone layer over the enemy, engineering earthquakes, manipulating ocean waves and using the earth’s energy fields for brain wave manipulation. “The key to geophysical warfare is the identification of environmental instabilities to which the addition of a small amount of energy would release vastly greater amounts of energy,” said MacDonald.

In the early 1970s, the U.S. Congressional Subcommittee on Oceans and International Environment held investigative hearings on the military’s research into weather and climate modification. The committee’s findings included detailed plans for creating tidal waves through the coordinated use of nuclear weapons.

A 1977 United Nations treaty, “The Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of the Environmental Modification Techniques,” prohibited “the use of techniques that would have widespread, long-lasting or severe effects through deliberate manipulation of natural processes and cause such phenomena as earthquakes, tidal waves and changes in climate and weather patterns.”

Chemtrails Are Back--in the Mainstream Press

This story/report was from 2001, and this debate is still going. There are valid point for both sides of the argument.

[edit on 18-11-2008 by arizonascott]

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 11/20/2008 by Hal9000]

posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 08:40 AM
reply to post by arizonascott

Excellent post arizonascott, What i find with these "debunkers' is that they really don't bring any evidence that counters the tons of evidence that this phenomenom IS happening... instead you see them resorting to attacks and just "beleive me I am a meterologist" and I know more then you do post. Our families health and well being is at risk here people.. We need to put a stop to this NOW.

posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 08:48 AM
reply to post by thefreepatriot

Indeed, this is not a debate. Chemtrails are real.

People like me are not debating. I am warning. This is almost certainly a bad thing that is happening, even if they are justified with lofty rhetoric, like "saving the planet" and other such bs. No, it's nothing like that. This is repression and, possibly, attempted genocide.

Essan, OZ, Weedwhacker at all should not be listened too, because they are either catastrophically wrong or part of the other side, part of the sociopathic elites repression network. And of this they might even not be aware of, because as Richard C. Hoagland often says the lie is different at every level, and they could have been fooled into either thinking they are right when they are not or that they are helping when they are contributing to mass poisoning of the environment.

Wake up people, we been down these threads before, and there is no longer no valid position against the chemtrails phenomenon, no matter how much these folk type, the truth is right above your heads. Get off these threads and go outside damnit. See for yourself.

[edit on 18-11-2008 by Zepherian]

posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 08:59 AM
I can't believe all these folks saying they are real when there is no evidence for them. Here we go, believers. Read this PDF and get back to us. It explains all the formations of clouds that seem to have you worried, why there are more contrails now, and why some of them look different and persist for different times.

The ignorance and irrationality displayed in this thread is stunning.

posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 09:09 AM
reply to post by dave420

Alright answer me this: What do you have invested in this? What do you get out of convincing people that chemtrails do not exist?

I notice you spend a lot of time trying to debunk the chemtrail issue so I just wondered what you get out of it. You must have something personally invested to spend as much time on this issue as you do.

There is so much evidense proving they exist. Really, all one needs to do is look up in the fricking sky, but there is also science behind the truth that they exist.

But even with putting all that aside, what do you get out of it on a personal level trying to convince people everything is fine and no chemicals are falling down upon the population - whether it's cloud seeding, weather modification, or just experiments for bio reasons.

Can you tell us why you invest so much time debunking this topic?

posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 09:10 AM
Cool thing about science is there is always a peer that comes along and makes the first hypothesis null and void. Now someone will eventually come along and hush you up for a moment

This need for us humans to be right or wrong, smart or not smart, pretty or ugly, good or bad, light and dark. Reality you say?


[edit on 11/18/2008 by prometheus1111]

posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 09:13 AM
Okay, so chemtrails are real.

1) How can we recognise them?

2) Assuming we can see them, why?

3) What are they for?

I know answering questions is proving difficult for some people
But surely someone can offer something for us to discuss?

IMO if chemtrails are real the answers are:

1) We can't because they are not ice crystals and thus not visible from the ground

2) See above

3) I don't know.

Anyone else like to try?

(But please, if anyone says a chemtrail can be identified because it doesn't dissipate after a few minutes I really will scream!!!!)

posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 09:15 AM
reply to post by dave420

I take that as a compliment for us ATS readers.. we don't swallow anything... without questioning it.. WE DENY IGNORENCE.. so far none of you "debunkers" have produced any evidence that explains why chemtrails don't exist..? what exactly have you produced? how clouds form? planes don't create clouds last time I checked..And again david420.. I usually see you hanging around these threads trying to debunk them.. its always the same few with the same argument.. the question is WHY? why do you care? why do you spend time arguing againts a supposed ignorent audience?? why?

posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 09:15 AM

Originally posted by thefreepatriot

Besides your WORD do you have any reference for this?

Like many bills which are introduced by Congressmen and Senators, Kucinich did not write this bill. The goal of the bill was not to ban chemtrails but,

To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons.

Kucinich didn't really read what he first introduced and dropped the wording about "exotic weapons" in the revised bill.

His bill banned "other energies" directed at individuals or targeted groups for the purpose of "mood management or mind control." It also banned "chemtrails." The term chemtrails is part of a conspiracy theory that has been at the center of lively Internet chat room debates and radio talk shows. Its supporters believe the white streaks jets leave in the sky - known as contrails, which are formed by condensed water vapors - are actually toxic substances the government is spraying on people.

After being questioned about the bill last year, Kucinich rewrote it, removing the controversial language. "I'm not into that," he insisted. "Understand me. When I found out that was in there, I said, 'Look, I'm not interested in going there.' "


The bill was written by Alfred Webre and Carol Rosin.

With Dr. Carol S. Rosin and many others, [Webre] is a co-architect of the Space Preservation Act and the Space Preservation Treaty introduced to the U.S. Congress by Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) to ban space-based weapons.

With others, Webre is a co-architect of the Space Preservation Treaty ( ) and the Space Preservation Act that was introduced to the U.S. Congress by Congressman Dennis Kucinich and is endorsed by over 270 NGO’s worldwide.

new topics
top topics
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in