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.


Chemtrail Sunset over Yorkshire (just taken)

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 12:24 PM
reply to post by brokedown

where does it show/mention:

a milky haze which reduces the sun light the ground receives

all I see is dissipating condensation trails, there is no evidence in the picture at all of what you just described?

posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 02:51 PM

Originally posted by madscientistintraining
but yea, this has been going on since at least the time when I was born, daily, frankly that photo is not the worst i've seen. the one over japan showing the planes laying these lines was the worst i've seen. parallel for miles and miles...

whats the solution here? wear a gas mask 24/7, or...what?

You could if you wanted to. But that would mean you're assuming that the people involved in these "chemtrails" must be taking the same precaution. Now, if every contrail that persists for more than 15 seconds is a "chemtrail", that must meen there are a lot of people involved in this scheme, so they must all have to take these precautions. I have only recently come back to ATS after some time away from internet connections, so I'm not sure if there has been any real developments with chemtrail theory. I must say though, I'm far from convinced. I can accept that there may be limited experimentation going on, but saying every contrail is a "chemtrail" is quite a statement, that must be backed up by some kind of facts, right?

Also, if you live on a flight path, surely you recognise why there would be contrails "parallel for miles and miles" in Japan? Or is that meant to indicate that they are chemtrails and not contrails

edit: contrails do not linger. I refuse to go into an, at least, half hour explaination which eventually boils down to 'regular contrails last all of 15 seconds' to be denied through ignorance so, to those who are paying attention, contrails my ass.
edit on 8-2-2011 by madscientistintraining because: (no reason given)

ed2: and before someone, anyone, decided to lash at that edit, I live on a flight path. I know what a contrail is.

I would love to know your theory on contrails, so it's a shame you refuse to come up with an explanation. Although "contrails my ass" is a pretty good one, lucky I was paying attention
I was under the impression that with freezing temperatures and relatively high humidity, ice crystals could linger in our atmosphere a considerable length of time before sublimating. But I haven't had a half hour explanation explaining otherwise, so I could be wrong.

I can't say I live on a flight path, but I have been obsessed with aircraft since I was a kid. Living in NZ, we don't have that many high altitude jet aircraft, but we still get a few decent contrails forming. But with increasing air traffic and they advent of increasingly more powerful engines, it would be expected that we see an increase in contrail formation. With air travel commencing 24/7 around the world, it means whenever atmospheric conditions suit contrail formation, we will see them, such as in the OP.

We could just assume every contrail is a chemtrail, and chastise those who dare to question this theory. But that would seemingly go against the motto of this site, something to do with ignorance...

posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 02:57 PM
I knew I'd see a thread like this today, from the UK. This is because of the weather conditions right now in that area. Basically, Contrails will linger when the conditions are right for cirrus cloud to exist. So, what we would expect is the right conditions for cirrus to exist, which, at the moment, is a warm front approaching.

Taken from hillwalking, an instructional bok by the Mountain Leader Training board

This shows a warm front, if you look at the area of the red line. Ignore the blue line, that would be for a cold front. Note that at the leading edge of the warm front there is a marking of Cirrus clouds. Now, we should therefore expect, if this is true and they are cirrus clouds, not chemicals, that there is a warm front approaching the UK. And there is:

Taken from the Metoffice website

That red line that extends from Ireland to Germany, is the warm front (or rather, where it touches the ground). It happens to be moving in a north east direction, so you would expect that Cirrus would exist some 300-400 miles ahead of that line. Which, adding a few hours on to get sunset, would happen to be somewhere around Yorkshire.

So, this would be exactly what one would expect to see. I got to see some nice contrails too, around lunchtime. I would guess thay were pretty much definitely contrails, given that they usually happened to be from Aer Lingus jets, and a few from KLM as well. I was using Flight Radar as the source of aircraft information.

posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 08:40 AM
reply to post by PuterMan

Im afraid if you believe "chemtrails" are just something paranoid or misinformed people made up, then yes, Im sorry.

And Im not trying to debate the comet Elenin - Nibiru connection, I don't know much about either. I was just wondering if its possible that this comet Elenin could be the Nibiru we've all heard about...and I figure the answer to that question is yes, almost anythings possible. So I figured Id ask if there are any people who believe it is definitely not the same as Nibiru, and why. Proof was a silly word to use.

posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 08:53 AM
Ok, before anyone starts to get snippy about whether the picture in question contains chemtrails or contrails give this short documentary a look see.

Then visit this informative site on the subject :

Here's a former FBI Chief with his take on the subject:

edit on 9-2-2011 by vermonster because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 09:24 AM
reply to post by madscientistintraining

I'm pretty ignorant about chemtrails/contrails - though I am just a couple of miles from Leeds/Bradford Airport! The key to distinguishing one from the other seems to be that contrails are only visible for 15 seconds, and I'd be grateful if someone could set out the science behind this idea.

Thanks in advance

posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 10:25 AM

Originally posted by Snippy23
I'm pretty ignorant about chemtrails/contrails - though I am just a couple of miles from Leeds/Bradford Airport! The key to distinguishing one from the other seems to be that contrails are only visible for 15 seconds, and I'd be grateful if someone could set out the science behind this idea.

Thanks in advance

As to why they were seen yesterday - see my post above on this page. It is basically because of the air conditions at high altitude, as a function of temperature and relative hunidity. Referring back to the picture I posted above, water vapour ascends along the red line forming the clouds shown. If there is enough then you will be able to see Cirrus clouds, whether they are natural or artificial, ie contrails. So, if the air conditions are already good for cirrus formation, it stands to reason that adding a large amount of water vapour (like that contained in the exhaust of a modern High-Bypass Turbofan) will cause a cloud to form, and will likely persist for a long time.
Bear in mind that the illustration I posted above is a simplification with a more or less logarithmic scale on the horizontal axis, so in reality the line will be flatter, such that an aircraft just 1000 ft below another may not leave a contrail, despite them seeming to be next to each other from the ground. This is because in those 1,000 feet the air conditions can be different.

When there is not enough humidity, then contrails will tend to dissipate rather quickly.

There would be no way to actually tell if there was a chemical being dumped unless you were to actually go up there and sample the trail, you simply can't tell from the ground.

posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 12:26 PM
reply to post by apex

Many thanks for your helpful reply. The '15 second' idea doesn't seem to fit the facts, but it does look like a surefire basis for believing that almost everything in the sky that isn't a solid object or a cloud is a chemtrail.

Looking at the 'comet Elenin - Nibiru connection', I've been keeping up with the Nibiru/Planet X debate for some years now, and the answer is straightforward. Comet Elenin is a comet. Nibiru is a hoax.

posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 04:20 PM

Originally posted by vermonster
Ok, before anyone starts to get snippy about whether the picture in question contains chemtrails or contrails give this short documentary a look see.

I've taken the time to watch this video you have posted. Are you suggesting that it has information which somehow distinguishes chemtrails from contrails as seen in the OP? The video showed a small clip of what appeared to be an interview with a random woman saying "a contrail would be dissipated by now". This of course, has no factual or scientific backing whatsoever, which appears to be a common theme with chemtrail theory.

The video spends some time mentioning military "chaff". Chaff are thin strips of aluminium, plastic or paper used to jamm radar signals. While it's talking about chaff, it then shows a clip of a 747 with what appears to be standard exhaust contrails. I believe this to be rather disingenuous, as they are falsely attributing chaff to contrails, when chaff is something completely different altogether.

A large portion of the video shows scientists and engineers discussing the possiblity of geo-engineering with aluminium particles (as before, whilst showing clips of contrails reinforcing a false premise). This would be far different to the use of chaff, as chaff falls from the sky within a day, and would not be practical at all for geo-engineering purposes. The video then seems to imply that aluminium is being released in contrails, without backing it up with any real evidence. The end of the clip says that aluminium is being found in "massive quantities", but does it have evidence of this? I have limited band width use, so am not willing to load another part if it contains such misleading information as the first, unless someone can reassure that it does contain any actual information worth considering.

I don't mean to offend anyone, but so far the evidence I've seen is far from convincing. If anyone has any specific information which could help understand the firm belief in chemtrails, I will happily look into it.

Then visit this informative site on the subject :

I took a look at this site, specifically this article which showed time lapse footage of contrail formation drifting with what I thought was regular cirrus cloud as well. For those who don't know, contrail formation is often present when atmospheric conditions allow the formation of cirrus cloud. So although the video brings up the relevants point of how these "artificial" clouds could affect us, it does nothing to enforce the notion that these are "chemtrails" and not contrails.

Also the video of the former FBI chief is rather emotionally compelling, which could easily sway people who already have distrust in government. However, yet again, it is void of any real, tangible evidence of chemtrails? This isn't meant to seriously convince someone who is open minded, yet unwilling to blindly believe without real evidence or reasoning, is it?


posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 04:39 PM

Originally posted by iversusvsversusi
Whoever denies this is an idiot in all honesty.

Well i must be an idiot then.

That looks like a typical day where my girlfriend lives, she lives a few miles away but under the approach path to Leeds/Bradford airport.

So all of those trails are chemtrails? Hmmm.

I don't claim to have ALL knowledge regarding what planes spray. Neither do i claim to know everything about ordinary contrails. i do know that not every single trail you see in the sky is not out to depopulate us.

edit on 9/2/11 by CX because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:30 AM
reply to post by iversusvsversusi

Im afraid if you believe "chemtrails" are just something paranoid or misinformed people made up, then yes, Im sorry.

You would not know a chem trail if you saw one. Pretty much every single one of the contrails pointed to on ATS are just that contrails.

Yes they spray chemicals. They have been seeding clouds since I was a youngster and that is many years ago. They do not (generally) use airliners to do this. Now it is possible that they are some converted airliner sized sprayers but on the whole they are smaller.

The one I went in up in Scotland many years ago was a DC3!

posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:32 AM
Please just STOP with the cold weather garbage. Tons of chemtrail photos are taken in the summer time. They don't just suddenly appear during the winter.

Thank you and have a nice day.

posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:37 AM

Originally posted by jjkenobi
Please just STOP with the cold weather garbage. Tons of chemtrail photos are taken in the summer time. They don't just suddenly appear during the winter.

Cold weather on the ground has very little to do with it, anyway. It only really matters whether or not conditions are right for Cirrus cloud formation, which is indeed a function of temperature and relative humidity, at high altitude. At such altitude the temperature is, year round, about -50 degrees C. The temperature on the ground doesn't matter.

And those photos are of course of contrails, unless you want to disprove meteorology. The reasons for peristent contrails are simple enough to look up for yourself...

posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 10:35 AM
reply to post by Curious and Concerned

It sounds like you are a contrail/chemtrail expert.

I'd be interested in hearing your take On this paper which mentions chemtrails numerous times.


posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 10:49 AM
Im in wiltshire and its not the cold weather thats to blame. We get these what ever, all the time. Even in the summer.

posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:28 PM
reply to post by union_jack

Hey Union great pics my friend and I have to apologize for being an idiot. I have been an ATSer for a short time and really have been blowing off the chemtrail thing as TOO unreal for me to get invovled. But, just recently before this major snowstorm and blizzard hit the Divided States of America I got a reality check.

I was taking my morning walk araound 9:00am (just 24 hrs before the storm hit) and looked up and saw a jet passing overhead. Now big deal right...just another flyby. But then I noticed another in the distance and then another until it got out of hand. I counted a total of twenty-five jets spewing chemtrails in all different directions.
I LOST COUNT of the total of leftover chemtrails and began to be amazed.

Before I went inside, one jet flew directly overhead and then I ran inside to get my binoculars to see what type of jet it was. It appeared to be just a commercial airline type(as far as it's paint) but I think it was military.
What really creeped me out was when it passed. Then another jet just like it was following it's chemtrail and hiding behind it... and wala another followed behind it. They knew they were going to attract attention, so they started masking their tracks.

Now I'm not the brightest star in the galaxy but something tells me that if they are indeed spraying massive amounts of aluminum and arsenic up there, it's for a grand purpose. My take on this is that when NASA came out with an major announcement of an alien life form that lives (and thrives in arsenic based environments) here
and other planets. I get suspicious about the connectivity of these events. This better not be some kind of X-Files mess where these elites have made a deal to walk out under the radar and leave us holding the bag (so to speak). Anyway where's Mulder and Scully when you need them. The truth is in you.

posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:40 PM
reply to post by union_jack

So, you're in Yorkshire? (Never been your "pudding", though)...

Since I'd have to check a map to orient its location relative to London, I will let everyone else who lives there (the UK) and is more familiar with the layout of all the Shires figure it out, as you (and they) watch this short video.

AFTER watching, please explain how, and why, the CONTRAILS in your photo are something other than normal, everyday CONTRAILS made by jets cruising along at their normal, very high, cruise altitudes??:

Any questions? I am here to help, as I've flown in and out and over the UK (and many, many, many other places as well)...and, of course, have crossed the Atlantic countless times. By air, not by ship (yet)....

posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 01:43 PM

Originally posted by vermonster
I'd be interested in hearing your take On this paper which mentions chemtrails numerous times.


Well, I didn't read all of it, as it isn't the most readable of documents (seriously, couldn't they use OCR rather than scanning it straight to PDF?), but it looks to be the usual unscientific stuff you find.

Two parts which seemed rather wrong

...The use of afterburner-type jet engines to generate carbon particles while flying through the targeted air. This method is based on the injection of liquid hydrocarbon fuel into the afterburner's combustion gases [this explains why contrails have now become contrails]

No, it really doesn't. First of all, afterburners aren't used on most aircraft. The only ones they are used on tend to be fighters, as they use up a lot of fuel very quickly, making them only useful where speed and thrust, not endurance are what matters. Constantly using afterburners is going to reduce your aircrafts range considerably, so it isn't really useful to spray a lot of sky. Additionally, Afterburners are usually part of turbojet engines. Unfortunately for this theory, turbojets fell out of fashion, as it were, for airliners and most military jets. Again, this is due to a large amount of fuel usage for a given amount of power, and the fact that outside of fighters, this is useless. 737-100/200 series used turbojets, I believe, as did 707s and DC-8s (for example). The widebody airliners, I am pretty sure, have always used turbofans.

Lastly, 'carbon particles'? That would be soot then. Last I looked, that was black, not white.

Dumping tons of particulate matter from aircraft has geo-engineered our planetary atmosphere into a highly charged, electrically conductive plasma useful for military projects.....

Oh dear, what did the laws of physics do to the author of this?

Plasma, tends to be hot. So hot, in fact, that it usually tends to glow. It is night here, I'll look outside.... No, the sky isn't glowing.
As well as this, it takes a lot of energy to make something ionised, let alone a plasma. Without a constant supply of energy, it will also tend to stabilise, cool and the ions will join back up to become normal molecules or atoms. It can't be produced by adding particulate matter to the atmosphere. The aurora borealis is a plasma effect. It takes energy from the sun to produce it in the form of ionised atoms hitting the atmosphere. And it only lasts for a short amount of time.

So there is no real way the atmosphere could be a plasma.

posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 02:09 PM
reply to post by apex

This is key to continued understanding, and education, into why contrails are becoming more and more prevalent, especially in the last ten-fifteen years:

737-100/200 series used turbojets, I believe, as did 707s and DC-8s (for example).

Specifically, those airliners flew with a combination of straight turbojet and the hybrid-in-between LOW-bypass turbofan, that was developed ahead of the (now ubiquitous), and modern versions of turbine jet engines, the HIGH-bypass turbofan.

The Pratt & Whitney JT-8D basic engine was (is, since still in use, in variations, on the DC-9 and MD-80) a LOW-bypassturbofan:

The Pratt & Whitney JT8D is a low-bypass (0.96 to 1) turbofan jet engine, introduced by Pratt & Whitney in February 1964 with the inaugural flight of Boeing's 727. It was a modification of the Pratt & Whitney J52 turbojet engine, which powered the US Navy A-6 Intruder attack aircraft.

Eight models comprise the JT8D standard engine family, covering the thrust range from 12,250 to 17,400 pounds-force (62 to 77kN) and power 727, 737-100/200, and DC-9 aircraft.

The 727 and older 737-100/200s, as well as MANY older DC-9s are banned in many jurisdictions, due to their noise "footprints".

You may be interested in the history of the venerable incorporated many different engine designs, over its span. Early on, the DC-8s and 707s DID use turbojets, as they were the technology of the era.

You will see that over the lifetimes of those airplanes, it involved occasional engine changes, as new technology was developed. DC-8s saw a bit of continued life, at United Airlines mostly (in the U.S.) with turbofan retro-fits. As did some 707s (I am not sure about the one John Travolta owns...will look it up). The USAF decided to further the lifespan of their fleet of KC-135 tankers (based on the B-707 airframe) with new engines....they are the same engines as on the 737-300, and up, family. HIGH-bypass turbofans.

The widebody airliners, I am pretty sure, have always used turbofans.

Yes...the development (and competitive rush at the same time....e.g., the Lockheed L-1011 and Douglas DC-10) of the Boeing 747 drove that surge forward....the JT-9D variant was initially designed just for the 747. And so it goes, lots to research on that....

POINT of all this? The exhaust gas temperatures and characteristics are very, very different in modern HIGH-bypass turbofan engines, when compared to the LOW-bypass versions, and of course, the regular turbojets. Resulting in the greater size, and durability (persistence) of contrails today. This, combined with the large growth in total numbers of airplanes, and flights per day/month/year worldwide.....

edit on 10 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 02:18 PM
reply to post by vermonster


I'd be interested in hearing your take On this paper which mentions chemtrails numerous times.

Bogus. Load of claptrap.

Here, being discussed other threads, one example:

Basically, it's a type of "Op-Ed" bit of spam, and spread around by those HOAXERS, charlatans, and otherwise nutters who have a vested interest (or deluded emotional attachment to) the so-called (and non-existent) "chem"-trails........

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in