Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Chemtrails: US Patent #5003186: Stratospheric Welsbach Seeding For Reduction Of Global Warming

page: 7
86
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 
The quote you have highlighted is just that, a quote from my link for the attention of Weed. But, if you read at the actual link you will see the idea is that the spray is distributed world wide in around ten days. You will see also that the gang of "IV" have not bought into the "Greenhouse Effect" and that they are actually proposing a fix using Sulpher Dioxide in a way to prevent global warming. One of them was against the idea at the start, Ken Caldeira who has changed his idea. I think you picked the wrong bunch to call edjits....read on

BTW the Times article is by journalist reporting on a extract from a new new book.





[edit on 29-10-2009 by smurfy]




posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 

I don't really think the evidence shows that CO2 is the greenhouse gas some alarmists claim it is, as the statistic in that link suggests:
www.timesonline.co.uk...

“A doubling of carbon dioxide traps less than 2% of the outgoing radiation emitted by the Earth,” he says.


So I agree with that much of what he says.


Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 
But, if you read at the actual link you will see the idea is that the spray is distributed world wide in around ten days.
That's not exactly the way I read it, what it says is the global plan is only to be implemented if the polar plan proves insufficient:


It is a fiendishly simple plan and startlingly cheap. IV estimates a “save the poles” project could be set up in just two years at a cost of roughly $20m, with an annual operating cost of about $10m.

If cooling the poles alone proved insufficient, IV has drawn up a “save the planet” version, with five worldwide base stations instead of two and three hoses at each site. This would put about three to five times the amount of sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere. Even so, that would still represent less than 1% of current worldwide sulphur emissions.


Whether the science of SO2 remediation would work or not, or the global plan, I don't know without further research, but even after re-reading the link, it's clear they intend to spray just at the poles or high latitudes to start which makes little sense.

And I apologize if I misunderstood your quote to weedwhacker but he was stating that the most effective regions to address were lower latitudes where sunlight is more intense, and it appeared that you were contradicting that by suggesting that spraying higher latitudes might work, and even though he was probably referring reflective spraying and you're referring to SO2, it still makes little sense to me to spray either just at the poles or high latitudes.

[edit on 29-10-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 03:16 AM
link   
THIS THREAD HAS BEEN MENTIONED ON ATS NEWS: ATS News 04: US Defense Contractor Owns Chemtrail Patent!

WHAT A SHOCKING SURPIRSE! I had no idea this could even happen.

I am very honored and flattered to have been mentioned in this video segment.

A few things I must point out:
The ATS thread hyperlink listed during the video segment beginning at (5:52) where it says: ‘CHEMTRAILS TO FLIGHT GLOBAL WARMING’ is this:
.../forum/thread511373/pg1.
Which leads to a thread about:
German Chancellor, Ministers Get Special Vaccine Without Soft Kill Ingredients.

The ATS thread they are talking about in the ATS NEWS segment is actually this:
.../forum/thread513525/pg1:
Chemtrails: US Patent #5003186: Stratospheric Welsbach Seeding For Reduction Of Global Warming

ABOUT THE PHOTOS USED IN THE ATS NEWS SEGMENT:
The photos used as news backdrops (some of which HAVE been debunked on other web pages and ATS threads): I am not sure where they came from but I assume they were taken from other Chemtrail web pages… the only one I recognized from the thread I authored was the image of the actual patent, and even then the actual image is not within the thread of mine only a link to it is.

I cannot make any claim to the photos used in the news segment and they should be viewed simply as images commonly associated with the Chemtrail debate.

I think people should take a look at the thread and decide for themselves. Don’t be lazy and discount the theory without reading the sources and thinking logically. Look at all the different reports about methods to combat global warming being discussed, and look at the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) report and OF COURSE the original source patent developed by Hughes Aircraft (now: Raytheon) engineers back in 1991.

This article is my attempt to dig for the truth about the possible reasons for the strange sky activity which I myself and SO MANY have witnessed from all over the world.

The patent was issued in 1991 but I wrote this article the very first day I discovered it. Using the information within the patent such as the engineer’s names, companies, methods, and technologies… I was able to uncover more reports and scientific papers (linked in the thread) which had similar findings.

Whether or not the purpose of the Chemtrail activity is actually related to this patent remains to be seen. But if you read the reports I believe you will be intrigued.

This issue is hotly debated here on ATS and has yet to be proved or debunked.

But we must keep digging for the truth.

THANK YOU JOHNNY ANONYMOUS AND ATS NEWS !!!



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 04:20 AM
link   
Just a thought, if there are these additives in jet fuel then why don't we see trails from the moment the plane starts up and takes off?



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Hmmmmm.....
Then, please SHOW us.
Demonstrate to everyone, do the math.


The Engineers and scientists who developed this patent ARE demonstrating the math and methods along with the scientists of works and papers with similar findings. The Council on Foreign Relations also seems to think so.

I am not going to be pedantic and quote math figures here even if I could (I am not a mathematician.) I am a pilot with a degree in aviation and at least a part 141 aviation college's worth of weather classes under my belt and I know the difference between a regular contrail and a suspicious Chemtrail.

What I am doing in this thread is presenting the patent which suggests a method which may explain the suspicious Chemtrail phenomenon. I am convinced based on my own observations, logic, and intuition that what I have seen is not normal. I DO NOT KNOW what the purpose of the Chemtrails are but I am hoping research into this patent and the information surrounding it will somewhere.


Please calculate HOW they can carry the needed heavy payloads, given that they must also carry fuel to keep them flying for the duration of the time aloft, plus safe reserves for landing.

SO, you are now forced to consider only the Military, and/or contracted sources. BUT, you still have to show how the manpower, the hours needed, and the payloads can possibly approach the needed levels to carry the vast amounts that are alleged, here.


Simple: There are a number of aircraft capable of performing the mission this patent suggests. For example the KC-135 can fly 1,500 miles carrying the max fuel load of 150,000lbs of liquid cargo or a max range up to 11,015 miles empty or cargo (go halfway on the payload and get halfway on the range).

The government also has enough of these aircraft to operate a few of them as Chemtrail or Geoengineering research aircraft (whatever you want to call them): Inventory: Active duty, 180; Air National Guard, 171; Air Force Reserve, 64.

I am not suggesting that the Chemtrail program is massive and I am sure it does not include the entire Commercial airline fleet.

It may only be a handful of KC-135's executing specific operations at certain times and places. I have only seen Chemtrails for sure twice in my life. I may have seen them other times but that would have been before I was aware of their existence and before I questioned the clouds.

I agree most of the the trails left by aircraft are normal contrails. But there is a specific type of activity which is suspicious taking place and I am trying to get to the bottom of it.


It is a benign intent...not nefarious
Very well may be, but if such activity were taking place without the permission or knowledge of the public it would be wrong.

Also if they believe that saving the planet is worth the possible health risks associated with the substances which have been suggested to be used, they should at least make a public debate about it. But based on the activity which I and others have witnessed, something is going on with a veil of secrecy surrounding it.

[edit on (10/30/09) by AllSeeingI]



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
Just a thought, if there are these additives in jet fuel then why don't we see trails from the moment the plane starts up and takes off?


Most aircraft have multiple fuel tanks. Larger aircraft have many along with connections which allows transfer. It has been suggested on Chemtrail research threads and web pages that aircraft would activate a certain tank which would have the additive mixed in when at a proper altitude. An additive-free tank would be used for all portions of the flight not part of the spraying.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by AllSeeingI
 


The fuel tanks are all interconnected to maintain balance throughout the craft, you can see the system diagram for a Boeing 747 here:

www.meriweather.com...

Besides that, what you're saying would mean the planes would have to get fueled up from two different fuel trucks, surely that would set off a few alarm bells?



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


All aircraft are different. They can also be specialized and modified.

It would send up some flags if they were using every airliner around. But I doubt they are. More likely they are just using some military airplanes and in that case there would be no questions asked.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by AllSeeingI
What I am doing in this thread is presenting the patent which suggests a method which may explain the suspicious Chemtrail phenomenon. I am convinced based on my own observations, logic, and intuition that what I have seen is not normal.

I have only seen Chemtrails for sure twice in my life.


Am I right then in assuming that you accept that the vast majority of persistant contrails, usually left by what are clearly commercial airliners, and which sometime spread out to cover the sky, are - as meteorologists claim - just contrail and nothing more?

Only occasionally might there be "chemtrails" which may be mistaken for normal contrails?

If so, then I agree with you though personally I've never seen a chemtrail.


As for the patent under discussion here: as I've previously indicated, there seems at present no evidence this procedure is being carried out and if it were there is no evidence that it would be visible in any way from the ground. Although depending on what was being deployed to counter GW it's possible the more observant might notice a pall of dust in the skies around sunrise and sunset - as happens after big volcanic eruptions - and, perhaps more obvious, more spectacular sunsets.

Indeed, thinking about it, could sunsets/sunrise - and perhaps increased incidence of some optical phenomena? - be presented as better evidence of high altitude spraying?



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by AllSeeingI
 


I'm glad to hear you're also a pilot...I see you mentioned part 141 training. (For non-pilots there is essentially no difference between what's required to be learned under FAR Part 61 and 141...141 is simply a reference to a more structured Flight School syllabus program. It follows a more rigid sort of "checks-and-balances" for each student. And it can be argued that it provides a more comprehensive training, but that's a matter of opinion. There really is no substitute, ultimately, for experience).

So...my experience is different from others here. That is all.



I am a pilot with a degree in aviation and at least a part 141 aviation college's worth of weather classes under my belt and I know the difference between a regular contrail and a suspicious Chemtrail.


It seems strange to me that no one I know and speak with who are also airline pilots and have a great deal of aviation experience think that what they see is anything other than normal contrails....




What I am doing in this thread is presenting the patent which suggests a method which may explain the suspicious Chemtrail phenomenon.


What "suspicious phenomenon"? Messrs. 'OzWeatherman' and 'Essan' are showing a gfreat deal of correlation with every time a contrail is lingering --- it relates to the upper-level conditions at the time. THAT defines whether the contrails remain, and sometimes merge into the naturally occuring cirrus...usually as a precursor to a changing weather pattern to come.



There are a number of aircraft capable of performing the mission this patent suggests. For example the KC-135 can fly 1,500 miles carrying the max fuel load of 150,000lbs of liquid cargo or a max range up to 11,015 miles empty or cargo (go halfway on the payload and get halfway on the range).


OK...fine. The military certainly CAN use its tankers as carriers for these alleged "spray chemicals"....but how is it "delivered"? Do they just shoot it out the boom, of the dump valves? (If so, it'll gush out VERY rapidly) or is there other apparatus designed specifically for the purpose? Verifiable photos, please. That would go a long way in helping your efforts to 'prove' this as a fait accomli.

You can also look into airman's flight records in the services...I know all of the ex-military guys I ever met at the airline always told me that when in the service they almost had to beg to fly, with budget cut-backs and such...has that changed?



I am not suggesting that the Chemtrail program is massive and I am sure it does not include the entire Commercial airline fleet.


Hallelujah!!! If it's not massive....then it can't be nearly as widespread as so many "chemtrail" sites are claiming...and the amateur "eyewitnesses" here on ATS.

Oh, and does not include the "entire" Commercial airline fleet? How about NONE of them...(unless, I will grant you, retired 'boneyard' airframes resurrected by some other group...but again...photos, please).



I have only seen Chemtrails for sure twice in my life.


Um...that is quite the claim. HOW do you know they were "chemtrails"? Air samples? Please provide your evidence.



...but if such activity were taking place without the permission or knowledge of the public it would be wrong.


Ahem. These patents are NOT secret. I would imagine that nothing will remain secret, either...I mean, these alleged "activities" are supposedly being conducted in broad daylight!!!

The military certainly can, and does, do things in secret. BUT, those sorts of things fall under the umbrella of "National Security", not "Save The World".



Also if they believe that saving the planet is worth the possible health risks associated with the substances...


Again, it bears repeating, just the nature of our industrialized manufacturing society already accounts for FAR, far more substances that are detrimental to Human health. I do not think that substances "sprayed" in the stratosphere and above, if and when that comes to pass, will be as dangerous as the electronics components plant at the edge of your town.



... something is going on with a veil of secrecy surrounding it.


Well, since the advent of the Interwebs and people like 'Carnicorn", how can anyone continue to claim it's "secret"?



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by AllSeeingI
 




I have only seen Chemtrails for sure twice in my life.


Um...that is quite the claim. HOW do you know they were "chemtrails"? Air samples? Please provide your evidence.


I was wondering the same thing. How do you know those two were chemtrails, and not merely contrails that were more pronounced or persistent due to atmospheric conditions?

The only things I have seen that might be called "chemtrails" are once I saw cropduster plane dusting crops with some kind of chemicals or fertilizer, and another time I saw a plane dropping fire retardant onto a fire. I don't know if you call those chemtrails or not but from what I've read, what many people call "chemtrails" sound a lot like "contrails" to me. Even the alleged photographs of chemtrails look like contrails.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Edited,
See revised post below.

[edit on 30-10-2009 by smurfy]



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Willing to give up blue skies for climate fix?
PLAN B??
who do they think they are kidding -
they have been doing this for YEARS!
And we are sick because of it.

www.msnbc.... msn.com/id/ 33495560/ ns/us_news- environment/


Willing to give up blue skies for climate fix?



Geoengineering gets closer look as a 'Plan B' in case emissions don't fall Image:

A new study describes pros and cons of cooling Earth via a thin cloud of aerosols. Techniques cited to do that are, from left, artillery cannons, a miles-long tower, military aircraft and stratospheric balloons.

l We can probably engineer Earth's climate to cool the planet, scientists say, but are we willing to live with the downsides? Those could include creating more droughts, more ozone holes and, oh yeah, a thin cloud layer that obscures blue skies and gives astronomers fits.


[edit on 30-10-2009 by spinkyboo]



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 
I am not talking about CO2, I am talking about the use of Sulphur Dioxcide and again if you read the link,you will see that the gang of four have not actually bought into the idea of Global Warming themselves, but they are still making a plan anyway.



These are the four men you called a moron,
Nathan Myhrvold — a polymath who as a young man did quantum cosmology research at Cambridge with Stephen Hawking.

Lowell Wood, astrophysicist in his sixties.

Ken Caldeira, among the most respected climate scientists in the world, and holds a Nobel certificate.

Paul Crutzen, a Dutch atmospheric scientist, Nobel prize winner.

So yes, I'm agreeing with them, and not you or Weed.
The ten-day plan IS referring to the spraying at the poles. The section for further action comes later.

If you doubt the idea of the sulphur being used in jet engines,
this is a piece of the DEFRA PDF titled Geo-engineering 0409,


"using airborne sub-microscopic particles such as sulphate, metals, dielectrics, resonant scatterers or dust [A12]. These aerosol particles would be created by releasing aerosol precursors into the stratosphere. This could be done by: releasing precursors at the Earth‘s surface and allowing them to be carried into the stratosphere; or delivering them into the stratosphere using high-altitude balloons or aircraft [B2] (possibly by addition to aviation fuel, which could reduce the cost of delivery [Q15])."

"Sulphate aerosols — The most widely-discussed proposal in this category involves the injection of sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere24. It has been estimated that this scheme would require ~1.5 to 3 teragrams of sulphur to be added to the stratosphere each year to counter the effects of a doubling of CO2 levels25, although another study suggested that ~5 teragrams of sulphur per year might be needed to mitigate future warming26 [cf. B3, F4]. The aerosols could be produced: either by injecting sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere, where it would be converted into sulphuric acid droplets; or by releasing long-lived sulphur compounds such as carbonyl sulphide (OCS) at the surface [AD1]. Unlike in the troposphere, sulphate aerosols in the stratosphere do not get washed out within a few weeks, but have a residence time of ~1 to 2 years."

The DEFRA article is not complete, and I would be interested to know if anyone has the full article to post here at ATS.

[edit on 30-10-2009 by smurfy]



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
If spraying to counter GW were occuring - as suggested by the OP and some subsequent posts - I'd expect that if there were any visible evidence it'd look like this:



The faint blue/white clouds are actually dust from a Siberian volcanic eruption in June and, being in the stratosphere, only visible at sunrise/sunset.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 




"using airborne sub-microscopic particles...*skip*... These aerosol particles would be created.... This could be done by: releasing precursors at the Earth‘s surface and allowing them to be carried into the stratosphere;


Note the preponderence of the future tense....emphasis mine.

Also, note ONE idea, releasing at the Earth's surface...umm, we already do that, though. Called pollution.




...or delivering them into the stratosphere using high-altitude balloons or aircraft.


Note 'high-altitude' is vague. Still, he does refer to the 'stratosphere', so we have some target height.

This one, though, makes me chuckle...as smart as this person (no doubt) is, he has no understanding of what the fuel goes through as it is burned in the engines...



...(possibly by addition to aviation fuel, which could reduce the cost of delivery."





Sulphate aerosols.... It has been estimated that this scheme would require ~1.5 to 3 teragrams of sulphur to be added to the stratosphere each year...although another study suggested that ~5 teragrams... might be needed ...


"teragram"....interesting. "What's a teragram?", you ask?

After a quick search, I found a conversion calculator.

ONE 'teragram' = (are you sitting down?) 2,204,623,621.85 POUNDS!

That is over two Billion pounds. OR, 1,000,000,453.59 kg.

Well, there's still a lot of "coulda/woulda"s....



... could be produced: either by injecting sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere, where it would be converted into sulphuric acid droplets;....
Inserting !!! here! Is this really a serious proposal?? Well, as long as it doesn't get into the water cycle and make more "acid rain" than we already have from ground-based factory-generated pollutants.

The guy may be book-smart, but really? This has to be a dire, very last-minute act of desperation proposal...seems ONLY if stopping runaway GW is preffered to spoiling crops with acid rain...a Hobson's choice, eh??



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Hi Essan,
they look a lot like the Noctilucent clouds, and they can only be seen at Sunset/sunrise too, although Noctilucents are thought to be plasma generated.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Really are we so naive to think that what finally hits the MSM front page - is a project that they are just thinking of doing - something that is just beginning?
Come on. You don't really think that do you?
I suspect you must know differently.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by spinkyboo
 


Maybe I wrote too much.

What I think is "naive" is that people haven't looked at the numbers in this 'proposal'. I did them, and then buried them with too much other writing...so, here again:

6.6 BILLION pounds PER YEAR is the proposal.

IF you had 50 airplanes EVERY DAY each would have to carry 361,645 POUNDS!!!!

I challenge anyone to say that an operation of that size is a) not seen and b) even possible.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy
Hi Essan,
they look a lot like the Noctilucent clouds, and they can only be seen at Sunset/sunrise too, although Noctilucents are thought to be plasma generated.


Yes, they do look a bit like noctilucents - and others have commented on that fact. But I'm not aware of any suggestion the later are plasma generated?

The main way of telling them apart is that volcanic dust clouds fade away as the sun sets - whereas noctilucent clouds become more prominent. I saw these nocties in June this year:



Nocties have been more prevalent in the past few years. I've not heard any suggestions that that might be due to any geoengineering - but it's perhaps something to consider?





new topics

top topics



 
86
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join