It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 03:24 PM
reply to post by C-JEAN

C-JEAN....that photo you refer to from that YT video was PHOTOSHOPPED!!!

This has been discussed ad infinitum here at ATS.....

Look carefully....whowever did the job decided to have a faint image of a skull appear as well....not very subtle, dontcha think??

posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 05:50 PM

Originally posted by devareous
hello everyone,
after reading all this its very appernt that the arguements againt the existance of chemtrail are derived from evidence set forth by the same enity that is belived to be doing the chemtrails.Its like McDonalds serving kangaroo meat for hamburgers and telling everyone its beef.You can go and pull up a pic of beef hamburger it looks the same,so it must be beef there serving,yet it isnt.this is just a exaple im not saying McDonald serves kangaroo lol.but i am saying that ALL the evidence we have is from the same people we suspect so how can we take it at face value.Some would say well we have scientifc evidence of contrails, and i would agree,but adding something to the mixture just as million of crop dusters do would be much harder to tell.And dont argue about the crop dusters array for dispersal being diffrent,it is,but all high altitude sparying is same method,no matter if seeding cloads for rain, or spraying a as of now unknow to the public harmfull chemicals.
and u ask why would anyone do that?
well for one they may BELIVE they know best and are trying to "fix" the atmospher,but time and time again we see that good intention DO NOT EQUAL good results.Another reason albit grim, is slow depopulation considering we dont have the reasources to support the current # of humans on earth.Another reason,an alien/unkown agenda.Another reason, there may be some atmosperic quaility theat enhance the current technoligy they have,so therfor they modifi the enviroment to use this tech more effectively.Another,it could be a form of disipating the current levels of CO2 in the air through chemical treatment of the atmospher.Im not a genius so i cant think of 100's of reason , but im sure there is.
THE FACT REMAINS all contrails look alike,but not everything that looks like a contrail is one.
it very hard to realy be informed when the poeple u suspect are the ones suppling the information to you.and this cover all branches,u can NEVER know anything 100%,# u cant even say gravity will always be here lol.
anyway thank your for your time!

I've posted a link to a completely independant, nonprofit, uninvolved with the government article/podcast audio file. Is he doing chem trails? And anyway, If you saying that we get our info from the very people who are doing it is a defense that isn't logicaly feasible. With those eyes, evidence against your propistion is really evidence for a conspiricy, which is helpful to you anyway. Its a win win if you say that.

posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 01:52 PM
Being +- on topic. . .
Here's an interesting site I found:

Chemtrail Report.

? Hey, Mr. Chemtrail Meteorologist, would you add that link in
your ?

Blue skies.

posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 03:08 AM
reply to post by C-JEAN


And that blank 'form' does what, exactly??? never answered me, regarding your screenname.

I see you live in Canada. Airplanes that are registered in Canada typically begin with a capitol 'C', followed by a dash, and four other letters.

IS THIS the registration of your airplane??? I mean, enquiring minds want to know....(and, it can be looked up....)

EDIT.....since this IS in a general consipiracy forum, I think it's on topic. I'm assuming that someone who MAY be a pilot is contributing to a thread about so-called "chemtrails" what end, I cannot fathom.

Of course, I could be completely bollocks!

Back to the 'form'.....let's try this:

Imagine airplanes had NEVER been invented. But, vigilant observors noticed that just prior to big rain storms, the sky got progressively more 'hazy' and 'cloudy'. These are signs of approaching weather 'fronts'....of course, the ignorant 'vigilant' observors wouldn't know that.......

These so-called 'observors' would reach incorrect conclusions, depending on their point-of-view.

Any questions?????

[edit on 3/9/0909 by weedwhacker]

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 10:00 PM
A poster/member of another forum I read, showed us that:

Wheather forecast, German TV, state sponsored broadcaster ZDF, january 14th 2009.

From app. 0:40 in the clip, the forcaster says, pointing to southern germany,
"..will be only snow and ice in the south..."

and then he points to the west of Gemany, saying:
" ...and here we got something that we cannot identify as rain or snow.
Here, in the west, these sinuous lines - This was most likely produced by some planes,
military planes, over the North Sea this afternoon, at an altitude of approximately
5 or 6 kilometers . This has nothing to do with the weather."

One can clearly see the chemtrail-lines on the screen in the back.

EDIT : Are we to believe those who say that these are chaffs ?
HUNDREDS of miles long chaffs ?

Blue skies.

[edit on 2009/3/11 by C-JEAN]

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 04:17 AM
reply to post by C-JEAN


Do you speak fluent German?

I certainly don't, but I have traveled a bit, and inferred from his meaning that those few, brief arcs on his computer-generated weather map were confusing to him, at the time, as he was on air, attempting to predict the weather!!!!

Those arcs were, because of their short duration, likely 'noise'....they were in an 'arc' because of missing radar data.....

I can watch the YTube segment again, ask my friends who are German speakers to come over....but if I slow it down, I can understand the gist...

Still, this is tissue.....good try, but good luck, next time.

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 05:00 AM

Originally posted by CoolBlackHole

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by CoolBlackHole
Now, let’s assume it was not cold when taking the pictures nor were the trails very high (as it appears), so they were certainly no contrails but chemtrails.

Not cold?
In Canada?
In February?

NO "Whaaa"! Can't you read I wrote "let's a-s-s-u-m-e". Secondly, is it always very cold in Canada?

Originally posted by defcon5
Contrails can persist for hours, hence the fact that they gave them the name of... Persistent Contrails!

Totally fabricated. Such NEVER occurs, unless maybe under "very special conditions". But it is meaningless and an obvious lame excuse to assert something "might" happen under "special conditions". Under 'special conditions' even a man can get pregnant!! See what I mean? Under regular conditions contrails always evaporate within a few minutes. And that's the decisive fact. In 99,9 % there are no "special conditions". So contrails DO evaporate quickly. And if they don't they're simply no contrails but c-h-e-m-i-c-a-l-s. That's why they take so long to dissolve.

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by CoolBlackHole
... they massively expanded in width.

Persistent contrails can spread out since they are nothing more then normal clouds.

Sorry, but again a physical nonsense. Do you expect me to believe contrails are the same as "normal clouds"? Sorry, I'm no sheeple. Try this with somebody else.

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by CoolBlackHole
d)they were arranged ‘chessboard like’ (unlike regular flight paths), which isn’t the case in pic1/pic2.

Chessboard like paths are created where VORS or airways intersect. Its pretty hard to fly all those planes around on routes up there and never have any two cross paths.

Again totally fabricated. As you're pointing out it would be hard to "never have any two(!) cross paths". Right. But that's not at all what we're talking about here. On the third picture you can see about 20(!) crossing overs, and that was only a part of that sky view. All in all there were about one hundred(!) crossing overs/intersections within only a few square miles. Now are you trying to make believe these were regular 'airways'? Excuse me, but how stupid do you think I am?

[edit on 7-2-2009 by CoolBlackHole]

NO lets ASSUME its alway COLD at altitude

As for flight paths crossing more than 50,000+ flights a day world wide, I fly on a regular basis 15-20 flights a year and when your on a plane you see PLENTY of planes crossing ahead, behind above and below how often do you fly!

I live between 2 airports see plenty of international flights going overhead and see CONTRAILS that persist on a regular basis.

Link route map flights from Vancouver to North American cities this map doesn't show flights from other international cities so DO you think its possible for 20+ flights to criss cross what was that "stupid"
question again overlap all flights fying over that area if you have time!

[edit on 12-3-2009 by wmd_2008]

[edit on 12-3-2009 by wmd_2008]

[edit on 12-3-2009 by wmd_2008]

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 05:32 AM
reply to post by C-JEAN

God I love it when people that have no clue about planes make YouTube videos that they're chemtrail sprayers that get put in these threads. It's always good for a laugh.

Let's see.....

A bunch of the pictures were on a Boeing 777-LR test plane. The barrels are WATER for doing center of gravity tests. There were also a bunch of computers onboard to monitor telemetry.

At about 1:30 and 2:08 they are showing a KC-135 with an underwing refueling drogue attached. Nice try, but it's for refueling US Navy, US Marine Corps, and foreign aircraft without having to land and attach a refueling drogue to the back of the boom. The only operators of boom refueling are the USAF, Turkey, Iran, Israel, and the Netherlands.

Some tankers have both a boom and one or more complete hose-and-drogue systems. Where these are attached to the wings, the system is known as the Multi-Point Refueling System or MPRS. The USAF KC-10 has both a flying boom and also a separate hose and drogue system manufactured by Cobham plc. Both are on the aircraft centerline at the tail of the aircraft, so only one system can be used at once. However, such a system allows all types of probe- and receptacle-equipped aircraft to be refueled, including large aircraft that are probe-equipped and do not have the maneuverability to take fuel from an off-centerline wing pod. Many KC-135 and some KC-10s are also equipped with dual under-wing hose-and-drogue attachments known as Wing Air Refueling Pods (WARPs). ulti_Point_Refueling_System_MPRS_US_Air_Force.jpg

Refueling boom/drogue system

At 2:21 it's the Department of Energy Gulfstream I air sampling aircraft.

The Department of Energy's Atmospheric Science Program has as its long-term goal developing comprehensive understanding of the atmospheric processes that control the transport, transformation, and fate of energy related trace chemicals and particulate matter. The current focus of the program is aerosol radiative forcing of climate: aerosol formation and evolution and aerosol properties that affect direct and indirect influences on climate and climate change.

The G-1 is a large twin turboprop with performance characteristics of contemporary production aircraft. It is capable of measurements to altitudes approaching 30,000 feet over ranges of 1500 nautical miles, and can be operated at speeds that enable both relatively slow sampling and rapid deployment to field sites throughout the world. The aircraft is configured for versatile research applications. It accommodates a variety of external probes for aerosol, radiation, and turbulence measurements and internal sampling systems for a wide range of measurements. The G-1 has sufficient cabin volume, electrical power and payload capabilities, and flight characteristics to accommodate a variety of instrument systems and experimental equipment configurations. Internal instrumentation is mounted in removable racks to enable rapid reconfiguration as necessary. Data from most systems are acquired on a central computer that is tailored to airborne research data acquisition. In addition to acquiring the various analog and digital input signals, it can be configured to communicate with and/or control other systems onboard, and to provide time synchronization to other computers.

At 2:37 it's a US Navy E-6B TACAMO aircraft dumping fuel before landing. The vortices off the wingtips are caused by moisture in the air.

Emphasis in the design and operation of most of today's new Navy aircraft is on multimission capability. One exception, by designation and intended role, might seem to be the Boeing E-6A. Fleet Air Reconnaissance Squadrons (VQs) 3 and 4 operate E-6As in the same manner as their EC-130s - as TACAMO (take charge and move out) communications platforms serving as command links to the fleet ballistic missile submarine force.

The E-6 is the airborne portion of the TACAMO Communications System. It provides survivable communication links between the National Command Authority (NCA) and Strategic Forces. The E-6 is a derivative of the commercial Boeing 707 aircraft. Its a long range, air refuelable aircraft equipped with four CFM-56-2A-2 high bypass ratio fan/jet engines with thrust reversers. The weapon system is electromagnetic pulse hardened. It has an endurance of 15+ hours without refueling and a maximum endurance of 72 hours with in-flight refueling. Mission range is over 6000 Nautical Miles (NM). It carries a crew of five officers, nine enlisted aircrewmen, and up to four trainees for TACAMO missions. For ABNCP missions it carries five naval officers, nine naval enlisted aircrewmen, and a eight person battle staff as determined by the United States Strategic Command (J36).

Originally posted by Coolblackhole
Again totally fabricated. As you're pointing out it would be hard to "never have any two(!) cross paths". Right. But that's not at all what we're talking about here. On the third picture you can see about 20(!) crossing overs, and that was only a part of that sky view. All in all there were about one hundred(!) crossing overs/intersections within only a few square miles. Now are you trying to make believe these were regular 'airways'? Excuse me, but how stupid do you think I am?

FAA Facet radar screen:

Still think it's impossible to have 20 or more planes crossing? The average number of planes over the US on any given day peaks between 5-6000.

[edit on 3/12/2009 by Zaphod58]

[edit on 3/12/2009 by Zaphod58]

[edit on 3/12/2009 by Zaphod58]

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 02:14 AM
reply to post by C-JEAN


You need to visit a site called 'skyvector'

Be sure to but the .com at the end.

You will likely learn a lot....but, if you have questions, you know where to turn....

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 06:16 PM
Here is a chat answer from *another* worried person,
from another forum:

posted 10-07-2002
Chem 11 I'm with you. (Haze)

Start at the top.
LOOK UP. Explain what is seen.
Explain what the red powder substance is in my bird bath.
Explain what the very fine strands hanging from my trees and telephone wire, bushs etc, are.
Explain Why the doctors are at a loss to explain why so many people have breathing problems
such as asthma etc.
Explain why we cannot get this subject reported on in National papers.
Explain why this topic is so high on the debunkers agenda if there is no substance to the
claims (backed with evidence) by so many people.
The fact that we ARE being sprayed is not in question, Why and what with, is.

There is more than one answer to each question.

Normal contrails are NOT the answer to either.

I do not get involved in debates with debunkers I know they know, or they would not debunk,
so I do not preach to the converted.

However several people are reading about chemtrails, talking about chemtrails, and looking up,
to see with their own eyes. this will go on and on and on.

The chemtrails are not about to stop.
and nor is the debunking or the debunkers.
-However the gap is growing between the aware and the unaware, and it can only get bigger.
(100 monkeys and all that)

That seems a seriously made study:
And one result is ?:

Summary of Results
Additionally it was discovered that the jets that were responsible for leaving highly
persistent trails that last for hours did not ever appear on Flight Explorer and were
documented for 8 separate instances, including one instance with two jets in formation.

As we can see here, there is no evidence.
Just stuff to think about.

Blue skies.

[edit on 2009/3/16 by C-JEAN]

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 06:34 PM
reply to post by C-JEAN

The study is flawed for several reasons.

As the webpage points out, military aircraft are not included and therefore their flight levels cannot be determined. It is not valid to include incomplete data in a "scientific study".

A number of invalid assumptions are made about the upper air data being used. The data used does not come from physical soundings (by balloons), it is derived from GOES satellites. While the GOES data is generally accurate enough for forecasting purposes, it can vary quite a bit from the actual upper air conditions. The GOES data often misses changes in temperature and dewpoint which can appear in thin layers of only several hundred feet thick. These differences can and do result in difference in contrail production. The "researcher" believes that by taking the "best case" conditions from the GOES data, he is arriving at valid conclusions. He is not.

Because of the inclusion of incomplete data, invalid assumptions, and probable invalid data, this "statistical study" is worthless. There is no way to say that the unidentified airplanes were not flying in a regime conducive to persistent contrails nor that the contrails produced by them were any different than those produced by the known aircraft.

A clarification about the unidentified aircraft. As the website itself makes clear, these aircraft are not unknown by ATC. They are omitted from the publicly available flight tracking software. They are not "flying around without permission".

(posted previously here:

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 06:34 PM
reply to post by C-JEAN

If we are going to start using forums as evidence, then lets see what professional pilots have to say on the topic, em?

I'll use AirlinePilotForum:

Chemtrails, Funny Stuff
There's a show on Discovery right now called "Best Evidence". They're examining the whole "chemtrails" conspiracy theory. One lady from California in particular is a riot. She has a wall of pictures showing differnet 'chemtrail' styles. The show paid a lab to perform analysis on jet fuel samples from across the country. I'll let you guys guess what they found...
I watched it for a few minutes before I had to turn the channel. It was a good laugh.
I saw this show today on the Disc. Channel.
What a joke...
But if i didnt know anything about jets, i would have so bought the whole story...
There's no way to distinguish the diffference between chemtrails and contrails because there is no such thing as chemtrails.

So, maybe I have been living under a rock all this time, but I have only recently heard of this things called chemtrails. From what I have read, it seems that there is a group of people who believe that a contrail should last no more than 5 minutes, and if it does then it is a chemtrail. They seem to believe that the government is spraying chemicals, from some unknown reason.

I saw some pictures of the supposed chemtrails, and they looked like contrails. I personnaly think it is all crap, and just some guys poor understanding of meteorology, and have tried to explain that to some of these people, but they won't hear it, because contrails, by some unknown law, can only last a short time.
played a golf with one of those tree-hugger types last year who spent the first 5 holes complaining about how the airlines are shortening our life spans. the next 13 holes he decided to complain about how contrails ruin his blue sky and how the EWR traffic makes him suffer day in and day out...
Well, from what it seems, they don't think all contrails are chemtrails, just the ones that last more than 5 minutes.

I can imagine seeing these people sitting in lawn chairs, with tin foil hats on, and a timer, timing each contrail, then when it exccedes 5 minutes they start running and yelling about the government spraying them with chemicals. I kinda feel bad for them.

I thought I was the only one who had to deal with these people.
Most of the people that believe this are the same conspiracy theorists that swear there was a second gunman, that we didn't land on the moon, and the "victims" of 9-11 are in the witness protection program because it was an elaborate plot to bring us to war. Oh, the second plane to hit the towers was also a specially modified missile plane painted in a UA scheme. These people also typically like to answer a question with another question.
You're kidding me, right?

Your pilot license should be revoked just for posting this. What sort of chemicals do you put in YOUR fuel tank?

All jet engines make a lot of water as a byproduct of combustion. It's real cold up in the flight levels. Contrails are ice crystals illuminated by sunlight. Depending on altitude, humidity, winds aloft, they could last a long time or not be visible at all. High altitude clouds are also frozen water droplets. Contrails are basically long, narrow clouds.

Some old, old jets might actually produce some real smoke.
Sorry, thought you were serious. This kind of crap is a pet peeve of mine. The world has enough real problems without spending time, energy, and debate on fantasies derived from the doped-up minds of semi-educated paranoids.
No problem. I was just trying to figure out whether it was something others have heard about, or if it was just something this guy thought up. The more I look into the more I see how widespread it is (as in locations, not nesscarly people-wise), and how little facts are used in the arguements, and how they butcher meteorology.

Does anyone know who started this??? I heard it was some late-nate talk-show radio host who did other things like UFOs, and the like.

I have also read that these people actually harass NASA meteorologists and the like. I have tried to go about disproving them, but they completely ignore facts.

So what you think of chemtrails now?

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in