Have These Chemtrail Formations Been Appearing In Your City Lately?

reply to post by defcon5


I was not saying that i don't remember persistent contrails, what i meant is that (in my opinion) they look different now, like they are more substantial, meatier if you will.

And I have to agree with the op about the patterns....I really can't believe the "flight plan" theory, but i digress.

be good

reply to post by coyotepoet


College educated or not, they are NOT patterns, formations or signs of anything other than the fact that planes fly in many different directions.
You need to research what you say. You thought of plane schedules, did you think to look it up? You can near real time at flightaware.com. Are they regular air traffic patterns? You can find out on Google earth, where there is an app with all the regularly scheduled flights from every airport in the US. Really a little research on your part would have told you exactly what you were seeing and why.

And you have your words mixed up. It's not a perceptual issue, it's one of perspective. I've have some art experience in my background and I can tell you one of the first things you learn is that all lines converge to a single point on the horizon. The perspective visualization of an airplane will look to be a plane flying vertically up, then horizontal to the ground, then down to the horizon on the other side. In reality, what you see is most like a plane flying level through the curved space above you. Planes look smaller and lower in the sky the farther away they are from the observer. So two planes who look to be flying at the same altitude, are most likely NOT. And as Defcon pointed out, any two planes will make two different contrails and/or being in the same airspace enough to share atmospherical conditions.
All of this is considered by us debunkers enough evidence to say you are mistaken about what you are seeing. It's a free and open forum. And as you are mistaken, then your grasp of the reality of "chemtrails" must be questioned.

Yea back in the day i use to think Chemtrails were sky writers now even my mom looked up in the sky and said that's not sky writing and i never even talked about chemtrails with her before she didn't know what they were and even she knew something wasen't right, but yea i see them all the time around my way but i didn't pay attention to the formation which i will next time...thanks for the post intresting.

Here is a picture I took this morning:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0d17cb654781.jpg[/atsimg]

Things are not what they seem.
The plane was not flying up, it was maintaining altitude and was miles away.
The contrail didn't stop and start, there was a zone of drier air, apparent to the eyewitness more than the picture, because there was a strip of no cloud cover that matched the "missing" section of contrail.
The plane did not turn or the contrail bigger, one section was being blown by the wind.
It was being colored by the sun, still below my horizon.
It is not a black "chemtrail", there is a shadow of the contrail on the cirrus cloud "screen".

What you see in the sky is viewable only by you. The sun would have moved, the clouds and contrails would have moved and you had moved. Unless you are claiming the trails were placed just for you as the viewer, than what you are saying you saw is wrong.

reply to post by BadBoYeed


My father flew to work each week for the majority of my childhood. I watched the planes in the sky because I had a reason and interest to do so. I am 49 years old. The contrails look the same now as they did back then. There are more contrails because there are more planes.
You don't always remember something you didn't really notice to begin with.

reply to post by stars15k


hi there,

so true....people also need to remember that the air is like a fluid ...it is not all the same ,
and there can be a lot of movement up there.

snoopyuk

reply to post by stars15k

Definition of PERCEPTUAL : of, relating to, or involving perception especially in relation to immediate sensory experience

perception: Psychology . a single unified awareness derived from sensory processes while a stimulus is present.

Perspective 3. a visible scene, esp. one extending to a distance; vista: a perspective on the main axis of an estate, often determined by the viewers position.

Technically we are both correct on this one. In the way I was using the word, I was using it correctly.

As for the "perspective" of appearing across curved space, your picture was a really excellent example of the illusion that you speak of. However, in the case of my second sketch-the one where it went on a high angle upwards, if I saw it from a distance I may have to agree with you, but, since as I stated before, the plane was right over my head and I stopped my car, got out, tilted my head so that I was looking straight up in the sky and watched the jet continue to ascend right above my head, I would say that you are just trying to explain something away. Again, it wasn't a horizon type picture like the images of the "California Missile" which the same thing was used to explain away, Since it was right above my head and I have a good understanding of perception (my perspective was right underneath the jet) I have to say that what I saw actually happened.


As far as your flight quote:

You thought of plane schedules, did you think to look it up? You can near real time at flightaware.com. Are they regular air traffic patterns? You can find out on Google earth, where there is an app with all the regularly scheduled flights from every airport in the US. Really a little research on your part would have told you exactly what you were seeing and why.

I did not look up the flight patterns beyond realizing they were different than usual. However, Rosalind Peterson of California Skywatch who was a certified U.S.D.A. Farm Service Agency Crop Loss Adjustor working in more than ten counties throughout California, did think to get the FAA maps for Mendicino county. She shows and explains the maps on video number 2.

www.youtube.com...

Using these FAA maps, which she shows on the video she talks about intra flights, which loop around her county. I have seen these flights looping around my county and so am sure they are the same thing. Of these intra flights she says, "Intra flights couldn't possilbly be commercial airlines because they'd be using so much fuel and they'd be off their schedule. They say you have so much time and you go straight you don't loop and loop." She also point out regular commercial airline traffic on the map and how it differs from these "intra flights." If this is happening in Mendicino County, CA according to FAA Maps, and similar things are being observed in other places it is a similar phenomenon. FAA maps. Is that enough research for you?

Originally posted by BadBoYeed
people who say they are just contrails obviously don't remember their childhood, because these chemtrails are a new (er) phenomenon

Really?

And people that think they are chemtrails dont know the first thing about upper air meteorology

Signed- a real weatherman

Oh and do i really need to post the 1944 film footage of the B-52 bombers creating contrails to prove the first part of your post incorrect? Go to youtube and type in "Memphis Belle Documentary"

reply to post by OzWeatherman


This is a quote from my post earlier in the thread.

Here's a good summary of at least part of the playbook you are using, by setting it all up as legitimate persistent contrails against people who must be seeing things instead of considering that both could be and are true.

In that post I talk about, or at least point out false dichotomy. Just because there are actual persistent contrails does not mean that all of the trails in the sky are contrails. It is not an either-or kind of choice. In other words, just because there are some legitimate persistent contrails in the air does not mean that they all are legitimate. Both are in fact true, there are both legitimate persistent contrails and chemtrails that are not legit.

I go back to the 120,000 (Fox news lists the number at 139,000) unaccounted for private jets. Combining this with the FAA maps showing intra-flight circular patterns, I suspect that are large number of those intra-flights are spraying chemtrails, not contrails and are among those 120,000 missing-though I obviously can't prove that. However, I would agree that there are at least a certain number of jets that are spitting out legitimate persistent contrails instead.

Again, it is not an either/or decision, it is both. Be dubious of anyone who tries to tell you that it is all one thing or another on either side of the argument. This is sometimes referred to as all-or-nothing thinking and is on many psychological lists as being a type of thought distortion.

In other words, proof of legitimate persistent contrails is not disproof of chemtrails and anybody trying to tell you that it is is either misinformed or has an agenda.

reply to post by OzWeatherman


Well oz,since your a real weather man, you may be able to answer a few questions for me.

Why has Tasmania been geoengineering for the last 40 years?
Why would the past victorian government look at cloud seeding when they are building a desal plant?
Is cloud seeding not a chemtrail?

reply to post by coyotepoet


Let's break down your many, many misconceptions here, and hopefully explain a few things. I will also be pointing out a few incredible leaps of logic, and hyperbole, that have led you to these false assumptions. The full paragraph, to focus on this post:

I go back to the 120,000 (Fox news lists the number at 139,000) unaccounted for private jets. Combining this with the FAA maps showing intra-flight circular patterns, I suspect that are large number of those intra-flights are spraying chemtrails, not contrails and are among those 120,000 missing-though I obviously can't prove that. However, I would agree that there are at least a certain number of jets that are spitting out legitimate persistent contrails instead.

OK?

Getting started:

I go back to the 120,000 (Fox news lists the number at 139,000) unaccounted for private jets.

SHOW the "facts" that there are "120,000" JETS "unaccounted for"....

THAT was mistaken assumption Number 1.

Combining that with the FAA maps showing intra-flight circular patterns...

I have to say, "Huh?!" What in heck are you jabbering about?? SHOW me, and we will quickly get to the crux of your mistaken assumption Number 2!

Continuing with M.A. #2, above:

....I suspect that are large number of those intra-flights are spraying chemtrails, not contrails and are among those 120,000 missing-though I obviously can't prove that.

Totally invalid, and quite off-the-wall..."invalid" since (I happen to know) there are NO "120,000 missing jets"!! Secondly, "off-the-wall" because you've just contradicted yourself, compared to your "argument" about "persistent contrails", and how they aren't proof (or absence of proof...or, whatever your attempted argument was.....).

The last sentence, int eh paragraph, is the ONLY thing you wrote that is accurate.......

reply to post by weedwhacker


First the FAA maps (or rather map), is shown and discussed clearly in this video, which was posted earlier in the thread. Watch it. You may learn something.

www.youtube.com...

Secondly the missing planes, this from Fox's AP post (though not the exact article I was referencing on Fox:

www.foxnews.com...

NEW YORK – The chairman of the Senate subcommittee overseeing aviation said Friday he would recommend holding congressional hearings on aircraft registration after The Associated Press reported the Federal Aviation Administration was missing data on one-third of U.S. planes. "We need to find out why, and how it can be brought back to have a registry that has credibility," said North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan, a Democrat. The FAA says as many as 119,000 of the 357,000 U.S.-registered aircraft have "questionable registration" due to missing paperwork, invalid addresses and other paperwork problems.

The Epoch Times post about the same thing is linked in an earlier post.

This was a second post at Epoch Times yesterday back pedaling a little but still confirming that there is inaccurate information on these planes registry:

www.theepochtimes.com...

Reports surfaced on Friday that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) “lost track” of nearly 120,000 private airplanes, but a spokesperson with the agency told The Epoch Times that the reports are not entirely factual. There are more than 357,000 registered aircraft in the FAA’s database and “approximately one third of the ... registered aircraft records are inaccurate,” the agency said in a press statement. The FAA is initiating a new compulsory registration system, similar to the one used to register vehicles, to gain a better grasp of information in its database. Meanwhile, the agency is attempting to update its registry database following “concerns of law enforcement and other government agencies” about information accuracy.

Here's the original Epoch Times article I initially referenced:

www.theepochtimes.com...

The FAA said that it lost track of nearly 120,000 airplanes in the United States recently, a fact exploitable by drug traffickers or terrorists, various media reported. The original report appears to have been an Associated Press piece on the topic, and the FAA disagrees with the assertion that it "lost track of" any planes. The FAA has ordered all owners of the 357,000 private jets in the United States to re-register their aircraft. Around 119,000 have "questionable registration," the FAA told AP. The articles expressed fear over the fact that criminals could purchase planes without the government knowing. Several factors, like missing forms, wrong addresses, unreported sales, and other problems, have led to the agency telling owners to re-register their aircraft.

Wrong addresses? Unreported sales? Sounds like missing to me. How do you "know" there are no such planes when the Associated Press was under the impression that there were? I was unaware of the backpedaling article when I wrote that post, but even the second article indicates that there are problems with these planes registries. And I didn't contradict myself, that's why I used the word suspect and pointed out that I couldn't prove that, as opposed to the people that say the persistent contrails prove that there can't be chemtrails too.

So, read the linked articles and watch the youtube video I've linked to and then restate the point you were trying to make. Which was what exactly? That you don't pay attention to all aspects of the post before trying to call someone out on it?

reply to post by coyotepoet


I read and read, but couldn't find the bit of info. I was looking for...

Where are you generally located?

It would help if you could be as specific as possible, but if not, I do understand.

reply to post by coyotepoet


Oh, dear, oh dear...and they call ME "condescending"!!

First the FAA maps (or rather map), is shown and discussed clearly in this video, which was posted earlier in the thread. Watch it. You may learn something.

Listen....I DID "learn something". That woman (n the video?). She nuts.

She is completely crazy, and NOT very well-versed on aviation, either. Where to begin?

Well, in my nearly FOUR DECADES flying airplanes, I have often encountered such ignorance, in the lay public. But, rarely has it ever been to this level of stupidity, as the last decade or so has seen....again, it is ALL due to the likes of "Alex Jones", and his ilk....AND the Internet Era, that we live in. You DID realize how recent that is, right?

OK..."intra-flights"?? A term that, apparently, the fringe "chemtrailers" have made up, all on their own. And here nonsense about he "looping", then the video cuts to images of normal contrails, showing very normal course correction turns, of ten, fifteen, maybe twenty-five degrees of course change. This s NORMAL!!

She seriously shows another delusional "belief", with the mention of jets that "go out to sea, and turn around and come back". We see that nonsense a lot, in these threads. People see ONE airplane pass overhead, say westbound...and some time later (after THAT one is well out of sight), they see an airplane in opposite direction...they ASSUME it's the same airplane!! That is the crux of their "argument", based on a false assumption. Not ONE of them ever shows proof of having tracked, second by second, the airplane, to verify that it is THE SAME ONE! Because, they can't...it doesn't happen!!

Posting this part, now....will go off to research DETAILS of air traffic over her area, Mendocino County. Her "Maps"?? Man, is she unable to comprehend what they've told her!!! She's wearing "chemtrail-colored glasses", as do most "believers"...until they get some education under their belts....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Since I'm originally from CA, Mendocino is a familiar term...although, I am not intimately familiar with that part of the state...I grew up in SoCal. There is sort of a dichotomy, amongst Californians...the "northerners" versus the "southerners".

Anyway, to refresh my memory (and she mentioned Sacramento, the State Capital, of course...east, and slightly south of her area), I reviewed the Aeronautical Charts for the area. She is hardly, despite her claims, "remote"....nor, "off the beaten path"!

Do you have ANY idea how much air traffic there is, up and down the west coast of the USA?? You can certainly research it, for yourself...if you know how.

But, first...the aviation charts to review. YOU should do this, just to get started on your education,a nd to dispel SO MANY misconceptions, and falsehoods that have been fed to you.

Go to www.skyvector.com... (They have free online charts, the same ones published by the FAA / NOS. Most airline pilots use charts published by the Jepesson Company...both formats have all the same information, just presented slightly differently. "Jepps" are preferred, due to their convenience...AND, the airline company pays for them!!).

When "skyvector" loads, look for a box, upper left corner. Since Sacramento is fairly close, we will use that airport, to zero in on the correct selection of charts ("maps" are called "charts" in aviation...and for maritime use, too).

In the box, type KSMF (not case-sensitive). That is the four-letter (ICAO) code for Sacramento..."SMF" is the IATA (Airline) code that you will see, when you fly as a passenger in or out.

What will load is the VFR Sectional Chart. This is used by all Student, Private, and other General Aviation pilots when they fly under "Visual Flight Rules"...other words, clear skies. AND, below 18,000 feet (in the USA).

What you want, now, is the "Enroute H-3" chart..so click the tab there, along the top. There's a LOT if information, and it will seem overwhelming, at first...take some time to look and learn it. Jepps Charts have legends on the end panels, to help decode a lot of it....let's see....YES! "Flip" the chart over....scroll it around, until the option for the other side (Enroute H-4) comes up. Or, just jump to KLAX or something, in the corner box. THAT "side" of the chart (real, paper charts, printed both sides) has the end panels, with the lengends.

It would be IDEAL if you had the real paper charts in your hand, instead of online. They aren't very expensive, OR...if you're near a commercial airport, you might find a pilot or two who will give you their old ones....charts expire periodically, and the old ones are just tossed away, as new ones are issued to replace them. You have to catch it on a cycle date, for renewals....


So, looking at the "H-3" chart ("H" means "High", or above 18,000 feet....FL180):

Look for the VOR labelled "Mendocino". (A "VOR" is a navigation aid, operates in the VHF radio band. VHF Omni-Range). See the black lines, that are all labeled with a "J", and a number? Those are "Jet" Airways...J for Jet, see? The blue lines ("Q") are a recent development, requires special equipment and flight crew certification. They are part of the FAA's new "free flight" upgrade, for the ATC system, in the 21st century. Basically, they are GPS Airways. More and more jets are using GPS, standard nowadays. The old land-based system (VORs), as you can see, don't have all routes in straight, and more efficient, lines.

Now, look out WEST of the ENI (Mendocino) VOR....way out to the longitude line of approx. 127 degrees west. See those black triangles, and they all have five-letter names? Those are "intersections" (old terms)....everything, in the GPS, and even other long-range over-water navigation systems parlance, are also called "waypoints". GPS navigation is also sometimes referred to as "RNAV" (AREA Nav), in case you see that acronym. You can research all of these, if you wish....

ALL of those points, out over the ocean? Any one of them can be used by flights, as "anchor" points, when they are departing out over the Pacific, or arriving to the continental USA, from the oceanic crossing. To/From those waypoints, routing will vary, depending on the overland routes that have been flightplanned. There are a GREAT number of variations, there....and flights can choose them based on traffic conflicts/availability, and favorable (or unfavorable) winds, for any given day and time....BTW, speaking of flight planning...some turns you see airplanes making (when their contrails show the arcs, the "curves") may occur due to changes in the Jet Airway, over a VOR...OR, when in a radar environment (and radar goes out to well over 200 nautical miles, of shore, when jets are at cruise altitudes), ATC can grant turns that are "more direct", if requested...to straighten out any of those "dog legs" in a route. Also, on occasion, ATC will require an airplane to turn, because of confflicting traffic of some sort, either at same altitude, or climbing/descending through shared airspace....

Well, there's a lesson, from a firehose (since it's actually kind of advanced, really...not meant to be taught until a pilot has a great deal of experience). I wasn't watching the clock....but, for a typical aviation "ground school" rate, a person would expect to be charged about $45 to $50 per hour ...or more.

This one's free....

Oh, and I found, by accident, another website that may be interesting...has a LOT of resources, for those interested in some self-educating:

www.thirtythousandfeet.com...

reply to post by sonjah1


What info are you looking for? Where I am is immaterial to whether other people saw the sun angle phenomenon or the chemtrail phenomenon in general. I try not to disclose my location for obvious reasons.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Except for the fact that she wasn't making that stuff up or basing it on observation. She was basing it on the pattern of yellow lines going in a thick loop she pointed out on the FAA map. If she is incorrect about what those yellow lines are about than I would appreciate your explanation as an aviator. She was referring to the lines on the FAA map she was showing not anecdote when she was talking about going over the Pacific Ocean. So, in your career in aviation, you've probably seen the phenomenon indicated by the yellow lines she points out on that FAA map. What else could those be? (asking genuinely not derisively.) Didn't mean to be condescending but you have to admit that yours was as well.

Originally posted by coyotepoet
reply to post by sonjah1

 

What info are you looking for? Where I am is immaterial to whether other people saw the sun angle phenomenon or the chemtrail phenomenon in general. I try not to disclose my location for obvious reasons.

I understand. I have been dispute with my husband over parallel circumstances you provided in the OP, and was trying to help support you as he claims these are contrails or cloud-formations natives to our area.

reply to post by sonjah1


I'm in the Southwest US if that helps

reply to post by coyotepoet


Same here. Well, up until yesterday; I jumped ship. But was seeing these everyday in Cali.

Do contrails/chemtrails have signature patterns?