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.

 

Here is some pictures i got today, Chemtrails ?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   
I see these all the time and they only come from little planes why not the big ones?

I see them during the summer because I'm outside playing basketball and they look thick and checkerboard pattern.

I first noticed them when I was 10 years old when I was laying on a float in the pool, so yeah it was warm weather...




posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   
www.youtube.com...

We see chemtrails in the skies where I live all the time. They seem to appear out of nowhere, appearing much lower to the ground than the contrails. They become extremely thick, wide and they often almost completely cover the sky. I grew up here and I have spent many years looking at the sky (by day and night (part of being an Earth-loving spiritualist I guess.) I always enjoyed looking for shapes in the clouds, or gazing at the stars at night. I live in a small town area far out into the country, on the coast. We have been used to many clear, open skies. But only very recently these strange “cloud trails” have been covering our sky in a most vulgar fashion. I have only recently learned that these are called chemtrails, and in the video I posted above NufffRespect explains the difference between chemtrails and contrails.

Studies have been done: www.healthfreedom.info...

What aggravates me about this issue is that the lamestream, and various individuals who probably live in large city areas and wouldn't notice the difference in their skies anyway, outright pin the "conspiracy theory" tag on this subject. They may dispute the harmfulness of the chemtrails without my taking offence, but I have to object to the notion that everyone who sees them are lying. Thousands of people live in my county, and over the land millions of people. This is in my province alone (I live in Canada.) I have friends in the US who see them, in Australia and across Europe. If we wanted to we could get an international statement signed by millions of people, as well as daily photographs, video footage, and whatever other evidence that we could gather. But all these disbelievers need to do is take a drive out to the country and look!

I always state for a fact that chemtrails exist, and are a fairly recent phenomena (to some accounts they began appearing in the late 90s.) As for the toxic effects, I am not a scientist but am always interested to hear the results of independent studies (and to listen to the reactions of those who can follow the science.)


[edit on 8-2-2009 by Neurolanis]

[edit on 8-2-2009 by Neurolanis]

[edit on 8-2-2009 by Neurolanis]



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shawn B.
1) I see these all the time and they only come from little planes why not the big ones?



2) I first noticed them when I was 10 years old when I was laying on a float in the pool, so yeah it was warm weather...


1) Because the "little planes" are the same size as the "big ones", but they are flying higher up in the atmosphere so they look smaller to you. When you are further away from something, it will look smaller. Go on top of a skyscraper and look down into the street, people will look like ants. The same applies to airplanes in the sky. Here's an experiment you can do, take a common household item, like a cup or glass. Place it on a table. Now stand close to it, and slowly back up until you are far from it. Do you see how when you back up, the cup appears to get smaller and smaller?

Now you only see the "little planes" developing contrails because they are higher up, where the air is colder. When the air is colder, contrails (or regular natural clouds for that matter) have a much higher chance of forming and lingering around.



2) So you think because it was warm on the ground where your pools is, that it's not going to be sub-freezing temperatures 3,000+ feet in the air? By your logic, because it's 30 degrees out right now here at my house, it should also be 30 degrees out in Florida, or that if I go to Mount Everest and it's 20 degrees at the base, it should also be 20 degrees at the top when I finish climbing it. I'm taking it that you've never climbed up a mountain before.












[edit on 8-2-2009 by DrJMengele]



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neurolanis
They become extremely thick, wide and they often almost completely cover the sky.
Clouds tend to do that.



Originally posted by Neurolanis
I grew up here and I have spent many years looking at the sky (by day and night (part of being an Earth-loving spiritualist I guess.) I always enjoyed looking for shapes in the clouds, or gazing at the stars at night. I live in a small town area far out into the country, on the coast. We have been used to many clear, open skies. But only very recently these strange “cloud trails” have been covering our sky in a most vulgar fashion.

Blame that on increased air traffic. As the population rises, more people will need to travel from point A to point B which means more airplanes will need to fly, so hence there will be a lot more contrails every where.




Originally posted by Neurolanis
I have only recently learned that these are called chemtrails, and in the video I posted above NufffRespect explains the difference between chemtrails and contrails.
There is no such thing as a chemtrail, only a contrail. Just because contrails behave different in different conditions doesn't mean they are not the same thing. It's like saying that when you take a glass of water and put it in a freezer, because it behaves differently and freezes, it is now "chemwater".




Originally posted by Neurolanis
Studies have been done: www.healthfreedom.info...
The first thing we teach college students is that when using the internet for reference in papers, only .edu and .gov sites are credible. .Com, .Net, .Org, and .Info can be created by anyone.





Originally posted by Neurolanis but I have to object to the notion that everyone who sees them are lying. Thousands of people live in my county, and over the land millions of people. This is in my province alone (I live in Canada.) I have friends in the US who see them, in Australia and across Europe. If we wanted to we could get an international statement signed by millions of people, as well as daily photographs, video footage, and whatever other evidence that we could gather. But all these disbelievers need to do is take a drive out to the country and look!
I live in the country as well and see contrails every day, but just because I don't understand the scientific process behind how contrails form I don't go around making up crazy theories that it's chemicals and that the evil government is going around spraying them for no apparent reason.

Fortunately I do understand how contrails form and the processes behind them, though. College meteorology classes are fun!



Originally posted by Neurolanis
I always state for a fact that chemtrails exist, and are a fairly recent phenomena (to some accounts they began appearing in the late 90s.) As for the toxic effects, I am not a scientist but am always interested to hear the results of independent studies (and to listen to the reactions of those who can follow the science.)


So you claim you are not a scientist, but you also claim that you can state "for a fact" that chemtrails exist?


???



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoolBlackHole
1.You are simply keeping on omitting facts, glossing over facts, making statements that are physically or statistically false or are as far fetched as stating “of course our world is flat, everybody knows we would fall down otherwise.”

I am stating first hand experience. I have seen aircraft that I have overseen the ground servicing of emit persistent contrails that have formed into clouds, and they were certainly not equipped to spray anything, nor was any type of liquid spray material loaded on the aircraft. There have also been commercial pilots both on ATS and other sites who have stated the exact same thing.


Originally posted by CoolBlackHole
Now, ultimately I can’t prevent you from keeping on posting fairy tales.

Sorry I don't believe in fairy tales, believe in science, facts, inside knowledge, and personal observations.


Originally posted by CoolBlackHole
As soon as someone has disproved your latest claims you keep on dodging and producing new “facts” that contradict the laws of physics.

I simply don't feel like re-typing all the stuff I have already explained on ATS over again, I suggest that you use to search feature and find out that I have stated the EXACT same “facts” for about 4 years now.

Post from 2004 about engine types:

Originally posted by defcon5
What I mean is that there are aircraft specific factors that could contribute to the formation of contrails. The age, type, and altitude being a few factors I can think of off the top of my head. Older planes have less efficient engines, insulation, and may be running with a higher engine temperature, or less ability to reduce condensation due to inferior insulation.


This sound familiar from 2007:

Originally posted by defcon5
No, a lot of them never bothered to notice what was going on in the sky until they read this nonsense on the Internet. Also there are more contrails now then ever for two reasons, 1) bigger intake fans on new aircraft exposing more air to the hot engine core, 2) increased Air Traffic.


Hows about this also from 2007:

Originally posted by defcon5
Take a course on aerial navigation, and you’ll soon figure out why that is. It has to do with the system that aircraft navigate on called a Victor or VOR system. Aircraft fly toward the VOR from various angles which causes these patterns to form in the sky.
Here is a bit on VORs:
VHF Omnidirectional Range


Here is one were I got tired of explaining this and drew a graphic of them:

Originally posted by defcon5
Well, writing this stuff obviously does not explain it well, so I decided to make up a few graphics to try and better explain what I am saying. I am not much of an artist, so excuse the crudeness of the images, but hopefully a picture is worth a thousand words.

Holding patterns:


VOR’s creating grids and other patterns:


A nice one on Victor Airways from 2006:

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by Long Lance
These images are very strange indeed, i'm sure someone will argue that wind drift distributed these err trails in a way that made them appear as a grid, but why don't they extend above oceans??


No they appear as grids because aircraft fly on Victor airways and jetways, heading at different directions at different altitudes. Where VOR lines cross you often get a grid pattern.


Victor Airways

In aviation, an airway is a designated route in the air. Airways are laid-out between navigation aids such as VORs and NDB's (NDB-based airways are rare in the United States, but are more common in much of the rest of the world).


A 2006 one about the change in the engine types:


Originally posted by defcon5

I want you to look at the engines on these aircraft photos: 727, 707, DC-8, 737-100&200, and DC-9

What do you notice about the sizes of their engines? All about the same size aren’t they. Now consider that until the later 1990’s the 727 was the main workhorse used by all airlines for domestic flights. This was followed by closely by the DC-9 and then the 737-100 & 200. Some airlines, such as American and TWA only flew 727’s and DC-9’s for narrow body aircraft. Do you notice anything else about 727’s and DC-9’s in the engine department? How about the fact that the engines are all on the tail and very closely spaced?

Now lets time travel to the late 80’s and early 90’s. The 727 is still the main workhorse, but now the second most common aircraft is the 737-300, followed by DC-9’s, MD-80’s (same engines as a DC-9 basically), and the older 737-100 & 200’s. Engines are getting quite a lot bigger and spaced further apart, aren’t they?

Now lets set the way-back-machine for the early 2000’s and see what is most common now…
737-500, 737-600, 737-700, 737-800 (here is a comparison photo of the whole 737 family, which I wish I had found before making all these other links
), MD-80, the Airbus 330, and the757.


I can continue with this all day long if need be, do you want me to?


Originally posted by CoolBlackHole
I do not have and do not want to take my time again and again to answer posts that do NOT INTEND to take note of facts, that do not care about what really happens and just keep on dodging and dodging. That's not "discussing", that's kindergarten.

I am sorry to tell you the stuff above are Facts, what you have written here so far is speculation with no backup other then your personal opinion and a smattering of condescending remarks and insults.


Originally posted by CoolBlackHole
The URL you mentioned above (profhorn.aos.wisc.edu...) links to a site providing obviously made up “information”, made up to deliberately mislead and disinform readers. The 'applet' ("The applet demonstrate how ....) alleging to explain the “formation of contrails” distorts and omits important facts and thus is simply meaningless and useless as a depiction of the real situation.

Umm...
That is from a University, I suppose you know more then they do though.


Originally posted by CoolBlackHole
I've seen posters falsely claim to be 'pilots' or 'engineers', but I think C-JEAN is a real one (".. I'm a pilot ... ") and obviously knows the REAL facts. Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to cast an eye on his post and links above.

Actually I know that guys like Weedwacker, and Zaphod are who they say they are because of knowing either company specific information or other employees I used to work with. Guys like OZ and Essan have posted their actual work information before.


The rest of your linked videos full of nonfactual garbage doesn't even merit a response.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by mystiq
I've seen alot of chemtrails, and had militia type US looking planes flying over the poorer townhouses in Penticton, BC, dusting us with poison.

The military cannot just start doing whatever they want to in any airspace they please. They have to shut down that airspace first (issue a TFR or Temporary Flight Restriction), and issue a “Notice to Airman” (NOTAM) so that other aircraft know they have to avoid the area. Beyond that Military aircraft either have to fly Normal IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) and file a flight plan just like all other large traffic, or stay inside their MAO (Military Area of Operation). They cannot just start spraying or maneuvering around wherever they want, whenever they want, as it would create a hazard to other air traffic in the area. The kicker of this is that TFR's, NOTAMS, MAO's are all public information and can be looked up in the Net. They HAVE to be public information so private pilots can figure out their flight plans.


[edit on 2/8/2009 by defcon5]



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrJMengele


1) Because the "little planes" are the same size as the "big ones"


**SNIP** I know the difference they're not the same height up they're lower....


Originally posted by DrJMengele
2) So you think because it was warm on the ground where your pools is, that it's not going to be sub-freezing temperatures 3,000+ feet in the air?


Once again they're not the same height up.


lolol


Admin Edit: removed unnecessary text speak.

[edit on 8-2-2009 by Crakeur]



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
DrJMengele, I am not playing that whole quote-to-quote game, life is too short. If you feel that I am so moronic that after many years of looking at the sky in my home town that unusual cloud forms would cause me to believe in chemtrails, then go right ahead. I suppose you also believe that policemen and military officers who have gone on record for seeing UFOs were just seeing shooting stars.


[edit on 8-2-2009 by Neurolanis]



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neurolanis
I suppose you also believe that policemen and military officers who have gone on record for seeing UFOs were just seeing shooting stars.



Yes, policemen and military officers have no more experience with this subject than any normal uneducated civilian. I don't recall police academies ever teaching their recruits about meteorology and astronomy.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   
these guys are clearly disinfo agents

they have no doubts, no questions, they don't think at the matter nor analyse anything

they present themselves as guardian of the only possible truth

so they can just push myths (this same naive/useless/irrelevant/ignoring facts/"few seconds that becomes few hours...euh... somehow" contrails theory) over readers repeating it as much as they can so eventually it can transform into admitted truth in some weak minds (the power of repetition)

then this statement that" only .gov and .edu website are credible"...

is amazing: and would be laughable (you forgot "the least" between are and credible) if not so irresponsible

(is it ok for you guys to look yourself in the mirror every morning ? and if you still manage to do it, what do you see ? a betrayer or a jerk ?)



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Hi again, inquisitive persons.

FINALY ! I was waiting for this DISinformation.


Originally posted by defcon5
Holding patterns:


I am a pilot, and let me tell you that when a **holding pattern**
is done, it is NOT DONE AT altitudes where contrails can form ! ! !

EDIT:
??? I don't understand why people would play
the ostrich-head-in-the-sand game ???

I DID not believe it, neither, the CHEMtrail parano, but after
INFORMING myself, **honnestly**, I now catch it all ! !

I repeat:
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2815320198655156407&hl=en
1:39:23 long.
Let's hope that the CONtrail promoters will be **honnest** enough
to see them to the end. . .
and this one:
uk.youtube.com...

Blue skies.


[edit on 09/2/8 by C-JEAN]



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by DrJMengele
 


No, this was before I ever heard of chemtrails or ATS, roughly 3 years ago. But when I discussed it with my close friend she believed they were trying to mess with the lower income families again, because it only happened in these areas. If I had the extra money, I believe that heavy metal traces may still be in the soil of that complex and perhaps in peoples blood. But I don't know how to go about getting that investigated along with questioning the mayor's office, who would have had to be involved.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Hi all found this site sounds very much like chemtrails to me-www.asp.bnl.gov...



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ::.mika.::
 


ORLY?
Maybe you can explain how they are getting around these rules, eh?



A military operations area
(MOA) is "airspace established outside Class A airspace to separate or segregate certain nonhazardous military activities from IFR Traffic and to identify for VFR traffic where these activities are conducted." (14 CFR §1.1, U.S.A.) Similar structures exist under international flight standards. These are designed for routine training or testing maneuvers. Areas near actual combat or other military emergencies are generally designated as restricted airspace. See Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR).

Military operation area (MOA)
Military operation areas (MOA) are areas in which military activities are regularly conducted. No special clearance is required to enter MOAs, but pilots should verify with ATC or Flight service station that no hazardous activity is underway before entering an MOA.

Temporary flight restriction (TFR)
Temporarily restricted airspace is designated by NOTAM and used to provide a safe airspace environment for emergency aircraft operations in situations such as forest fires, disasters, or during Presidential movement.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by C-JEAN
Hi again, inquisitive persons.

FINALY ! I was waiting for this DISinformation.


Originally posted by defcon5
Holding patterns:


I am a pilot, and let me tell you that when a **holding pattern**
is done, it is NOT DONE AT altitudes where contrails can form ! ! !


Well you must not be a very good one, or you would realize that for commercial aircraft ATC can stack them as high as they need to, inside operational limits of the aircraft:


Maximum holding speeds:
At 6,000 feet (1,800 m) MSL and below: 200 knots (370 km/h; 230 mph)
From 6,001 to 14,000 ft (4,300 m) MSL: 230 kn (426 km/h; 265 mph)
Above 14000 ft MSL: 265 kn (491 km/h; 305 mph)

Of course they are not going to stack your unpressurized piper cub at 20K feet.


[edit on 2/9/2009 by defcon5]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by robnar
Hi all found this site sounds very much like chemtrails to me-www.asp.bnl.gov...


If it sounds like "chemtrails" you should see an audiologist. Your link (very interesting by the way, thank you for it) concerns the study of the effects of particulates (aerosols) on climate.

Aerosols are suspended solid or liquid particles in the air that often are visible as dust, smoke and haze. Aerosols come from a variety of natural and human processes. On a global basis, the bulk of aerosols originate from natural sources, mainly sea salt, dust and wildfires. Human-produced aerosols arise primarily from a variety of combustion sources. They can be the dominant form of aerosol in and downwind of highly populated and industrialized regions, and in areas of intense agricultural burning.

www.asp.bnl.gov...

The full report produced by the study is here: downloads.climatescience.gov...
It shows that such materials can have a profound effect on global and local climates and concentrates on methods of quantifying the levels of natural and artificial aerosols. The study is based on experimental sampling and computer modeling. I can't seem to find anything about "chemtrails" (or contrails) anywhere in your link or the study itself. Did you actually read it?

Please correct me if I'm mistaken but, while fascinating, I cannot find any relevance to the thread topic in the study which you linked.

[edit on 2/9/2009 by Phage]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by C-JEAN
 


C-JEAN....um, you claim to be a pilot, and know what a holding pattern is, yet you CATEGORICALLY claim that no holding pattern would occur at altidudes where contrails can form????

Well, C....you likely have an Instrument rating, but have ever flown above FL350???

Because I have....I can assure you I have held in quite a few holds in my career....at very high altitudes, and have SEEN the airplanes holding at the same fix produce contrails.

You see, if you fly light airplanes, and know how to hold....well, good!

It works the same for airliners, except....the radii of the turns will be larger, due to our higher speeds. You know, of course, the various speed limits, based on altitude??? Sometimes on our charts we are given a limit of 240K, even at a high altitude....and depending on our min flaps/slats up speed, and allowing for the 1.3G buffet safety margin in the turn, we have to either ask for a variance from ATC, or waste fuel by extending slats and/or flaps.

In addition, with modern avionics, the 'one-minute' inbound leg can, with approval by ATC, be changed to a 'ten-mile' or even 'twenty-mile' leg....it's about the protected airspace they have, while we're in the pattern. AND, it is far more comfrotable for the passengers.....

BUT, YES!!! Contrails WILL form, as I've seen repeatedly. Thing is, most holding is done in inclement weather, unless it's very far away from the destination airport.....holds can occur because of (A) low ceilings at the destination or (B) traffic saturation.....especially in the NYC area, with three airports in such close proximity to each other.

EDIT....defcon, you beat me to it!!! I wanted C-JEAN to answer the question! But, it's OK.....hope I explained well, you certainly did.

[edit on 2/10/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by C-JEAN
 


One more attempt at educating C-JEAN---

I have flown into the Los Angeles Basin area in airliners many, many times...and even at FL350, while just beginning the Arrival, have been slowed.....turned off course, told to Hold at one of the waypoints along the route....re-routed to another Arrival, told to hold again (usually after a frequency change as we switch between the controllers who control the airspace we are currently in) because THIS IS the state of ATC today!!

We understand, as pilots, what is going on, especially nowadays since we have the ability to see other airplanes in our vicinity, up to about 40 miles and plus/minus 8,000 feet above/below (although we have to flip a switch to see above/below....normal range is about 3,000 feet).

Hey! We get paid by the minute!! While we want to keep the schedule, when ATC needs to maneuver us in order to line up in the proper order, and deliver us at the right speed at the rate that the local controllers (the 'Tower') can handle, which is how the Airport can handle arrivals, and at the same time co-ordinate departures, all the while maintaining legal seperation standards....try to live in MY world for a day, and you'd learn a heck of a lot.

Hot engines produce hot exhaust and produce contrails.

Not always, of course.....just as weather fronts don't ALWAYS produce clouds....it is dependant on the variations in moisture and temperature, at the altitudes involved.

Sheesh!!!! There are plenty, plenty of beautiful photos of WWII bombers laying contrails. B-17s, at roughly 25,000 feet....they were NOT pressurized, of course....crew used supplemental O2....but those hot ole' radials made contrails!!!

Now, if you think that in the middle of a War they'd be wasting time spreading a so-called "chemtrail" when it was all they could to do lumber off the base, with fuel and bombs.....then go right ahead and live in a fantasy........


EDIT, since I have someone's attention.....I mentioned 'Arrival'...it is a 'procedure'.....pilots can look them up at a website called 'FlightAware', or possibly 'FlightTracker'. You can see the actual 'plates' that we use (well, the government issued ones, not the Jeppesons...)......but close enough to figure out, IF you're an instrument-rated pilot.




[edit on 2/10/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 12:36 AM
link   
NOTwithstanding my previous posts, which I still maintain to be as true as I can write, I am NOW looking a the OP's photo, the one I didn't see originally.

Allow me to explain a simple observation: YVR (Vancouver) is one of the 'anchor points' for Trans-Pacific airliner flights. Actually, it is really a point out over the ocean, but depending on the departure point and destination of long-range airline flights, due to the high latitude of Vancouver, it is a great place to begin the long-range over-water flights. So is SFO, and LAX....depending on destination. Even, 'ahem' SEA.

Now, if you really wish to believe that a 15-hour New York/Hong Kong, or New York/ Beijing, or New York/Tokyo flight that wishes to carry EXTRA weight in order to 'spray' some nefarious chemical....even though EVERY pound is accounted for in EVERY commercial jet flight, since fuel is a priority, NOT some BS about 'chems' being sprayed......then go right ahead and believe in the tooth fairy as well. I hear hear she's up to US$5 per tooth!! The parent's 'Union' is up in 'arms'....

There's more of a conspiracy in tooth prices than in so-called 'chemtrails'....reeeeaaaallllyyyy......



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Hi, inquisitives persons.

Thanks for the education, guys. You are right one some flight stuff.
The flights I do are always in Canada. So, that's why I have
never seen paterns with contrails. I went to Oshkosh KOSH once,
from CYHU. THAT was fun ! ! B-)

For those who do the chemtrails, I guess that money is NO object.
Now for the **honesty** of YOUR educations, did you
SEE the **2** CHEMtrails, behind the *4*-engine-jet ????
Between engines #2 and #3, each side of fuselage ??????

This is a 3:09 minutes ONLY video!
www.youtube.com...

Watched it ???? I guess not.
Only argueing without viewing the CHEMtrails references.

I REPEAT: At first, I did not believe it either !
BUT, I **honestly** watched MANY videos, bad and good ones !
There are some small errors in some videos, but those
who will **HONESTLY** SEE the CHEMtrails videos, will understand !

Soooooooo, I did MY part ! I should be done answering here.
The others, stay in your felicity and bliss. . .

Blue skies.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join