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.


Clear Chemtrail Skies

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 04:00 PM
reply to post by tommyjo

tommyjo, I did NOT give you permission to use MY initials in your sign-off!!

Just kidding, of course! I am also a "TJ", but not related to my online ID, more to my actual name, in RL.

Still, it was FUNNY, the co-incidence! are SPOT - ON, in every post!

Not much more to say, except


AND, further the discussion, and DESTROY "Tanker Enemy"s claims, per what was alleged earlier by (sorry, Sauron):

The video that tommyjo introduced as evidence show, very clearly a BOEING 767...not even remotely, at ALL simlar to a KC-135.

Basically, the "Tanker Enemy" personna that infests YouTube does NOT substantiate his(her) claims. EXCEPT by subterfuge, and innuendo.....

[edit on 1 September 2010 by weedwhacker]

posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 04:37 PM
Likewise, Weedwhacker

Of course it is N606TW, but you won't get Tanker Enemy admit it.

It is sad to see so many people get sucked in by the 'evidence' that he/she presents.

Yet another one. They have no clue what they are filming.

Not a drone with a pod spraying attachment, but a Tu-154 Careless. The pod is the undercarriage nacelle as featured on many Tupolev designs.


[edit on 1-9-2010 by tommyjo]

posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 06:20 PM
To chemtrail or not to chemtrail. These were taken from my back balcony. You can see how they criss-cross, I watched them for about 20 minutes.

posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 06:22 PM
ooooh,oooh. IDK why they came up like that instead of a link??? Sorry...

posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 07:27 PM

Originally posted by Demetre
ooooh,oooh. IDK why they came up like that instead of a link??? Sorry...

actually they have a stronger affect than a link... nice pics…

posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 07:33 PM
reply to post by Demetre

"Chemtrails" do not exist.
I have supplied an answer to this earlier on the same thread, but it is short enough to repeat:

You show that planes fly in different directions.

That is all.

It is not a pattern, nor painting a target from space. With GPS, why would they mark anything with so an ethereal "paint" as ice crystals where they would be blown about and away by wind? Does that even make sense? It doesn't to me, nor anyone who flies planes or knows about clouds and the atmosphere.
Oh, and the curved lines show planes turn. Sometimes because they are in a holding patterns, because the runway used was in a different direction than their destination, lots of reasons. But planes need to turn. If they are in conditions for contrails, they contrail will follow the plane.

Why do people not understand this? It is so logically simple. Perhaps it is too easy to a conspiratorial mind. I don't have one so I don't get it.

posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 11:23 PM

Originally posted by stars15k
Why do people not understand this? It is so logically simple. Perhaps it is too easy to a conspiratorial mind. I don't have one so I don't get it.

I understand what you are talking about.. I just don't believe you... it's ok... many don't believe me either... Being a knowledgeable or a skillful debater as you are does not mean you’re telling the truth.

Please allow me to digress so that I can explain why not everyone may believe you.

I’ve already mentioned this in other posts that many do not realize that they’ve been equipped by nature, like all the other creatures, with an innate sense that can detect danger. With humans, who are of higher intellect, the very same sense that detects danger does so in conjunction with being able to sense that it’s being duped. So every person doesn’t need to be a rocket scientist to avoid being deceived by a rocket scientist. They may not win a debate with a rocket scientists but their innate sense will tell the rocket scientists to take a hike anyway.

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 12:38 AM
reply to post by Demetre

Great Pix , Thanks for sharing.

Those are the grid pattern I have NOT been witnessing lately.

Hidden in plain sight.

[edit on 2-9-2010 by Wildmanimal]

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 12:57 AM
reply to post by ChemBreather

Thanks for the interesting reply.

Every Truth passes through Three stages before it is recognized:

First, It is ridiculed

Second, It is opposed

Third, It is regarded as self evident -Aurthur Schopenhauer

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 01:01 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
making them see the light, but rather because its opponents
eventually die.

- Max Planck

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 07:57 AM
reply to post by stars15k

Now, why do you have to be condescending? I didnt say they were chemtrails. I said to chemtrail or not to chemtrail. I never gave my personal opinion. I said they criss-cross, which they do and I said I watched them for about 20 min. Of course planes turn and I know they fly in many directions, if they didnt that'd be one hell of a flight back home.
I do know there were 3-4 of them making this pattern in the sky at the same time. I've never been on a plane that had to circle to land for a 1/2 hr or more. The pattern was in the process of being made before I got outside.
Actually I do believe in chemtrails, I believe these are chemtrails. What we have here are sets of beliefs. We cant prove that there are chemtrails anymore than you can prove there are not. I appreciate the knowledge you have in aviation, I could never be smart enough to do a job like that. That doesnt make you an expert on chemtrails or lack there of. You wouldnt know anymore than the rest of us, even being a pilot. You're one of 'Us' and just fodder like we are, why would you be made privy to anything more just because of your occupation?
I'm not saying every line in the sky is a chemtrail. I remember being little and watching the planes land, seeing the contrails. I do not believe these are contrails.
I know our countries history and the things they've done concerning war and manipulation. The experiments conducted on ppl without their knowledge. The Tuskegee Incident, the Pellegra Incident. '___' experimentations. Testing mustard gas on civilians. Prisoners purposefully infected with malaria and dioxin and studied to see the outcome, etc, etc...
I honestly feel that my 'case' for chemtrails has far more evidence leading to the possibilities of them than your 'case' has for disproving them.


posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 09:40 AM
I know you believe they are "chemtrails" which is why I answered what I did.

Unless or until you supply proof the trails you see are doing anything other than behaving in the manner they are, whether it be natural or man-made, it's still contrails of planes flying in different directions.

The onus is on the claimant, you.
Supposing you decided they most probably were contrails. How would you as a believer in "chemtrails" be able to claim the next similar shots are not also contrails? You wouldn't.
When high-flying planes fly, their exhaust leaves a trail. FACT
Planes fly to all points of the compass. FACT
Planes flying in all direction will leave trails in all directions. FACT
What you see are chemtrails. NOT PROVEN
Occam's razor, common sense, science, millions of people who know about weather and planes, and decades of scientific study have never proven anything even remotely like "chemtrails" are anything more than a myth.
Do you have proof? Until you do, they are contrails.
The only people who believe that all the science, aviation, and weather experts are not proof that contrails are the answer are the people who believe in "chemtrails".

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 09:53 AM
reply to post by Demetre

I reread your comment and wonder why you are making the claims you are making.
I have never said I was a pilot. I am not.
I have never said I've gone through specialized training. I have not.
I have never said contrails had anything to do with my career. They do not.
I am, in fact, what you call "fodder". I just saw the inconsistencies in the "chemtrail" myth, studied both sides and chose the facts over the opinion and paranoia.
So you have read into my post a lot of stuff that isn't there.
You never did answer my question:

With GPS, why would they mark anything with so an ethereal "paint" as ice crystals where they would be blown about and away by wind? Does that even make sense?

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 10:26 AM
reply to post by Demetre

Are you aware of this website?

(Assuming you're in the USA), you simply type in the four-letter code for the nearest major airport to you.

In the orange box, left of screen, near bottom.

In the U.S. just add a 'K' to the front of the usualy Airline City Code...example, for Kansas City ('MCI') write it as 'KMCI'.

(Cities in Alaska and Hawai'i have a 'P' instead of the 'K' --- stands for 'Pacific').

Of course typing in the full name will bring up a list of airports codes for you, too. Click the blue box, "VIEW ACTIVITY".

Once you've told the site where to go, you have LIVE tracking data, so next time you see the flights making the CONtrails overhead your area, you can figure out the airline, flight number, departure/destination points, etc.

There is a LOT of useful (for pilots) information to be accessed, and even laypersons can find some of it useful, even if they can't read/decipher more of the specific pilot-related info.

BTW....when you see the LIVE flight tracking, you will see the ATC data box that accompanys the targets (flgihts).

Something like this is typical for an airliner:

SWA1012 B737
380 396

Just a random one, when I last looked. It is Southwest Airliens flight #1012. At altitude of 38,000 feet (Flight Level 380) and showing a groundspeed of 396 knots, at the time of that radar sweep "hit".

Departed Nashville, destination Kansas City.

(On the LIVE tracking map, targets showing in blue are departing/arriving the city you green, they are just passing through the airspace represented).

ONCE you have this full information available, it will become more and more clear how there are NO SUCH THINGS as "chemtrails".

Airliners are NOT equipped with, nor are the companies that operate them inclined to be "spraying" anything.....

The "chemtrail" myth is a HOAX....and the persons who promote this HOAX do so for various reasons, and none of them are altruistic.

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 11:40 AM
I havent answered ur question because I havent the time. I was leaving for work and I'm here as I type. I only checked in to see if you had left a response whiich I have to respond to since you so obviously think I've bitched out on you. I have but I would like the opportunity to discuss this further when I have the time to do so properly, on my time, not yours. Sorry for the misunderstanding on your occupation, my bad, it happens.

ttyl, Kim

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 02:13 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Thanks for the link to that helpful website. I will check it out.

Remember, even though I may disagree with you on this subject,

I do respect your research and opinions. Thanks for the replies.

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 02:21 PM
reply to post by 4nsicphd

Thanks for the info. That being the case, there should be trails behind these aircraft no? I have not been witnessing any.

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 02:24 PM
reply to post by 4nsicphd

The science you provided is greatly appreciated.

Thanks for taking the time to share that.

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 02:25 PM
Wow... today over the entire area of southwest British Columbia there is continuous bombardment of chemtrails leaving a thick white haze enveloping all the beautiful mountains. The sky is completely screwed.

How any normal person would want to deliberately plaster one of the most beautiful places on earth with a haze of chemicals is beyond understanding. We’re dealing with psychopaths.

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 04:29 PM
reply to post by soleprobe

I do not seem to recall any mountains in the British Columbia/Pasific Northwest region of this planet with mountains that reach up as high as ~26,000 feet, and above....because THOSE are the altitudes where CONtrails are going to form.

Therefore, the CONtrails are not going to be "shrouding" any beautiful mountains.

Now, if it's a particularly hot, humid, sticky and icky day today, in the area, then you MAY see the sort of atmospheric haze you described....however, it is NOT a result of the airplanes flying overhead, 5 - 7 miles above.

Best way to illustrate the ridiculousness of these "chemtrail" claims is with time-lapse videos of clouds, and contrails.

Fortunately, thanks to YouTube, there are resources to find where others have done just that.

Normally, things in the sky, whether naturally occuring clouds (Cirrus) or contrails, change and alter their appearance so slowly, that with normal human perception, they can't be discerned as easily --- hence, time-lapse.

We KNOW these are Cirrus, by observation. This is a fundamental truth, in the science of meteorolgy. (A shame that it doesn't seem to be taught to people much, lately..)

By observation, and recognition of the TYPES of clouds, an initial estimate as to their height can be made. We also KNOW the heights (altitudes) for normal contrail formation, too. They are BOTH (Cirrus and contrails) high-level phenomena above ~25,000 feet, at least.

I strongly recommend that people take time to read and study...the ubiquitous "Wiki" is a good starting point, but by no means the only source.

Now, watch some videos, for demonstrations of clouds actual, typical movements across the sky. NOTE that nothing ever "comes down" to ground level, as alleged by the "chemtrail" HOAXists:

Watch, a very good example of how a SMALL contrail fragment will "morph" into a more extensive area of Cirrus cloud coverage.

(The process is the same, in our atmosphere, everywhere on Earth, when conditions favor cloud formation. It happens cases of airplanes interacting, at altitude, then that SPURS cloud formation, too).

BTW....contrails in "fragments" occur because of the variability of the atmosphere, and its ablity to hold enough moisture, at any given time/altitude, for clouds OF ANY SORT to form at all.

Note that this dictates, very often, the extent, and shapes, of any cloud coverage that forms, whether induced by jet airplanes, or Mother Nature.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in