NAVY and NASA - The REAL "Chemtrails"

reply to post by Phage


well, let's see...
various "substances" = various "chemicals"

and, "released" in the atmosphere by things traveling in one direction leaves, "trails"

so, not chemtrails, but CHEMICAL TRAILS. (and, of course, there is no reason to be concerned about THAT!)

us dumb dumbs have a hard time with minute details, sometimes.

reply to post by billybob

Those chemical releases were done at altitudes of about 177 miles (did you miss that part?). There are satellites which orbit lower than that. That's one hundred miles higher than what is considered re-entry for the space shuttle and other spacecraft. It's not generally considered the "atmosphere".

The releases form more of a blob than a trail.







[edit on 10/5/2009 by Phage]

That's one hundred miles higher than what is considered re-entry for the space shuttle and other spacecraft. It's not generally considered the "atmosphere".

Phage you dropped a Bomb here

SO what are these other Spacecraft which don't need to consider the effects of re-entry

Thanks mate you dropped a good clue there

reply to post by Somamech


Huh?????!!!!!?????


You make no sense, at all....we aren't even talking about re-entry dynamics!!!

WoW!!!!

Imagine not understanding a concept....this one takes some cake....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Somamech

 

Huh?????!!!!!?????


You make no sense, at all....we aren't even talking about re-entry dynamics!!!

WoW!!!!

Imagine not understanding a concept....this one takes some cake....

I guess you are also waiting for the NASA to bomb the moon which is going to occur in a crater?

We have a guarantee that we will see the "clouds" from said bombing

reply to post by Somamech


No.

We have a guarantee that we will see the "clouds" from said bombing.

"clouds" in this context, that is the ejecta and debris that will fly up as a result of the impact of the LCROSS with the Lunar surface have nothing to do with clouds, in Earth's atmosphere, being mistaken for so-called "chemtrails".

The debris will not remain suspended, as it would in Earth's atmosphere, since there is no atmospheric medium on the Moon to suspend any particles.

Following normal laws of physics, and absent the friction and interference that a dense atmosphere (such as Earth's) would provide, the debris will arc up, and fall back under the influence of the Moon's gravitational field.

The exact trajectories of the debris will vary, depending on the location to the point of impact.

Go out to the beach, and throw a rock into a pile of sand, and watch the results. Not an exact comparison, but good enough for illustration.....

reply to post by weedwhacker

The debris will not remain suspended, as it would in Earth's atmosphere, since there is no atmospheric medium on the Moon to suspend any particles.

I thought in another thread we all agreed that there was an atmosphere on the moon

Where is that Atmospheric model of the Moon when I need it

Now we are back to discussing the Moon as having NO atmosphere yet we all decided it has an atmosphere

Ring a round a posies a pocket full of rosy's ain't it ???

WOW...ZORGON....hard work pays off...you are on target with ...1- the NAVY & 2- Messing with the atmosphere! I have begun to put together all my NASA shuttle videos of cloud formations that "fit the Profile"...& a pattern is emerging. This is yet another reason the NASA flight day videos are so valuable...I will post the results on my You Tube Channel as I need more than the 3 minute max.time allowed by ATS on this one!

and ZORGON,...You might also be interested to know that for the past few years I have had regular phone discussions with Trevor (James) Constable (on his free minutes!). We talk about his up to date thoughts on this very topic...expanding on his writings ("The Cosmic Pulse of Life") about weather engineering... chemtrails...& more.. ("critters!")...

...I will also go through some HAARP/weather modification videos he sent that actually prove his theories... as far as I am concerned. I will re-edit & then post the results as well. They are not currently available on the Web...

This newer post is yet another example of the massive size of the NASA cover-up... about the true nature of space, & NASAs true objectives...

Perhaps someone here could share some light on something I stumbled on; I had been doing some research into something a friend said he had seen on the 19th of OCT '09. Turns out it was a centaur rocket "fuel dump".

Now i've only just discovered ATS (Wow) and after reading the threads on SPACE COMMAND and this topic. I do see some similarities in the photographic evidence I’ve seen.

Photographs

This rocket was carrying up the DMSP F18 and launched from Vandenberg Space Complex 3 on OCT 18 9:12 a.m. local (12:12 p.m. EDT; 1612 GMT)

The DMSP satellites also measure local charged particles and electromagnetic fields to assess the impact of the ionosphere on ballistic-missile early warning radar systems and long-range communications. Additionally, these data are used to monitor global auroral activity and to predict the effects of the space environment on satellite operations.

www.defenseindustrydaily.com...-6140

spaceflightnow.com...

www.losangeles.af.mil...

So is what I am seeing a Fuel Dump as they say?

I have never researched this type of material before, so please humor me.

BTW great thread Zorgon, been very educational.

reply to post by Somamech


G!!!!!
Really????

You wish to bring up this riduculous canard????

Do you even KNOW what the definition of an "atmosphere" entails????

Did not think so....

Let it go!!!

Sheesh!!!!!!

In case you're wondering.....Neptune has an 'atmosphere'---and you can clump, in that broad category, EVERY planet as well....

Does NOT mean that each and every 'atmosphere' is conducive to Human (or ant other organism here on Earth we are familiar with) as sustainable for that lifeform!!!!!!!

Sheesh!!!!

This should not be difficult to comprehend....

reply to post by zorgon


Agreed. Seems like Phage believes he does not have to read the source material and do research anymore, as his celebrity status has made him above all that.

He can simply say "Not" and all the followers will listen.

There is so much documentation on these experiments, but no one listens. They certainly will not read it all. They will simply discount it.

I come here now for the entertainment value, as you can not discuss anything with people anymore. They will not read the links and then say you provide no evidence.

Good thread.

Great thread/Great work! ...if only I could retain it all...

I do believe something VERY strange is going on - and not just in our skies! Thanks for this thread ! I was unaware of several things!

Keeping eye on and S&Fing this thread!

has anybody done any research into
Project Cloverleaf ????

Hmmmm no..

Not yet

See an FOIA request...

02-F-0351 WILLIAMS, CHRISTOPHER 12/14/01 12/18/01 INFORMATION ON PROJECT CLOVERLEAF
www.dod.mil...

I'll see what I can dig up

Well this is interesting...

They call it Project Cloverleaf. At night, giant planes with no pilots roam the sky over the U.S. Instead of a mere vapor trail, they are filling the sky with unknown chemicals designed to darken the earth. To thousands of people around the U.S., this is not a sci-fi movie or even a conspiracy theory; it is real.

Scott Stevens is a believer.

Stevens, a meteorologist and weatherman with News Channel 6 in Pocatello, said the phenomenon known as "global dimming" could be a clandestine operation by the government to slow the effects of global warming. While global dimming is a contentious scientific issue, some scientists think thicker cloud cover may be reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the earth.

www.infowars.com...

Now using "global dimming" as a new search word...

The Contrail Effect by Peter Tyson
Dimming the Sun homepage
Are vapor trails from aircraft influencing the climate, and if so, should we worry?

www.pbs.org...

PBS NOVA has a whole section devoted to Dimming the Sun
www.pbs.org...

Contrails, the man-made clouds left in the wake of jet aircraft, may actually alter climate, though to what degree remains unclear.

Gotta love it when respectable orgs like PBS NOVA cover stuff like this. I still owe them for "Astrospies"

AND a mainstream News weatherman

Seems I have some homework to do... thanks for the lead

Scott Stevens believes all clouds are manmade ...... And calling him a meteorologist is like calling someone who once ran a half marathon for charity, and collapsed half way round, an olympic athlete

(he used to read the weather forecasts on a local TV station until he got sacked. Blaming Hurricane Katrina on the Japanese didn't help)

Anyway, it seems the jury is still out as to whether contrails produce a net warming, cooling or nothing of significance at all. It does seem to depend on when they occur - during daytime in summer thay lead to cooling but at night or in winter they cause a slight warming.

Pat Minnis famously determined that all of the observed warming over the USA could be caused by contrails - though his study has since been questioned.

Global dimming is mainly down to other aerosols produced by human activities - especially sulphur from industrial processes.

Originally posted by Essan
Scott Stevens believes all clouds are manmade ......

Please post a quote by Stevens stating that there were no clouds before the coming of man.

Originally posted by Essan
(he used to read the weather forecasts on a local TV station until he got sacked. Blaming Hurricane Katrina on the Japanese didn't help)

Yes that was a mistake... we all know who really did it...



But see... here is the problem... every time someone steps forward, no matter what their profession, the skeptics will find something wrong with them. At this rate the only ones you will believe are you and maybe 3 others on ATS.

Well, as I see it Zorgon you can lead the animals to the water but you can't make them drink

I don't even pay attentions to the debunkers anymore most here should know who they are.

Everyone just needs to fo out and observe their skies and it will sink in sooner or later.

I would suggest when anyone sees those beautiful pink/purple clouds out there not to deep breathe out there that Barium one day might just make some rats sick...might even kill off a few.

Love those red bloods cells too!

reply to post by zorgon


Hang on a sec, and let's put our thinking caps on (over the tinfoil, if you prefer)....

This "Scott Stevens", as cited in the link, said:

Originally posted by zorgon
Well this is interesting...

They call it Project Cloverleaf. At night, giant planes with no pilots roam the sky over the U.S. Instead of a mere vapor trail, they are filling the sky with unknown chemicals designed to darken the earth. To thousands of people around the U.S., this is not a sci-fi movie or even a conspiracy theory; it is real.

Scott Stevens is a believer.

Sorry, but instead of critically examining those claims made by Mr. Stevens, they are just swallowed without question? I am puzzled about his "...giant planes with no pilots...." assertion. Certainly that alone ought to diminish any (last) shred of whatever credibility he was clinging to???


And, then....little wonder the "khemtrail" sheeple believers are so easily hornswoggled, when they don't bother to examine the LACK of any evidence for such outrageous claims. Like, these so-called "...giant planes with no pilots...". Not to mention, the sheer implausibility of the AMOUNT of material needed, for this "clandestine spraying" at night (maybe the Boogeyman is helping?)

Finally....would the "khemtrail" sheeple at least settle, for once, on ONE example of what they decry?? SO far, it is the commonly mistaken quite normal clouds and cloud types....and of course, seen very easily by everyone, so not very "clandestine", huh?

Then, we get some who don't understand how sunlight can reflect off of clouds, during low Sun angles (you know, sunrise/sunset) and make them appear "red". (**)

SO...this latest, is the "dastardly deed" being done at night, so as to confound all of the logical-thinking naysayers, you explain the problems with the misconceptions, as outlined above? How desperate are they getting, then?

(**) about those "red" clouds.....can't believe some haven't heard of the ancient mariners' slogan ---- or, adage, as it were?

"Red sky at night, sailors' delight;

Red sky in morning, sailors take warning."

That little ditty existed well before the invention of the airplane....even before the definition of "meteorology" as established science. It was borne out of experience, and times spent watching the skies, to anticipate sea-faring conditions. It's not exactly rocket science......

Here, although it is attributed (often) as an old wives' tale, found this treatise (so you don't have to take my word for it...):

The 'red sky at night' rhyme is more than an old wives' tale though and has some meteorological foundation - in England at least.

To explain why we'll need to know why clouds sometimes appear red and how that may be used to predict the weather. Firstly, why do clouds often appear red in the morning and evening?

- Sunlight is broken into the familiar rainbow spectrum of varying-wavelength colours as it passes through the atmosphere.

- The blue/violet end of the spectrum is diverted more than the red/orange.

(This is the same mechanism that causes us to see the sky as blue incidentally, but that's getting rather off our point)

- When the sun is low in the sky, at dawn and dusk, sunlight travels through more atmosphere than at other times of day. The red wavelength is better able to go on a direct course and be reflected back off clouds, whereas the blue light is more scattered before reaching the cloud and is therefore less visible. So, we see the clouds as red as the light that is reaching them is primarily red.

...and how does that help predict the weather?

- The weather in the UK comes from the west, i.e. the wind is primarily westerly.

- The sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

- If there is broken cloud in the morning we may look to the west and see red light reflecting back from the cloud, i.e. 'red sky in the morning'. As the clouds are coming towards us there must be a chance of rain, at least an increased chance compared with the cloudless period we had just enjoyed.

- Likewise for 'red sky at night'. If we see red clouds in the evening they will be in the east and have already passed us by, giving a good chance of clear skies and fine weather ahead.

www.phrases.org.uk...