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.


Are They Spraying Anything?

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 09:33 PM
reply to post by Phage
No I do not. Thanks for the reply.

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 10:39 PM
Oh woops I forgot about this

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 10:43 PM
reply to post by Novatrino

Cloud seeding. No one denies cloud seeding is being done.
It has nothing to do with geoengineering or "chemtrails". Existing cumulus clouds are "seeded" in order to try to induce precipitation. It is a localized effort. For the most part cloud seeding aircraft are not seen because they do their work inside of the target cloud.

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 10:43 PM
reply to post by Novatrino

You forgot.....but, what about it??

It isn't relevant to the topic of "chem"-trails, as usually (hysterically) fear mongered....

Is this difficult to understand? The difference? Between contrails, and cloud seeding programs?

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 10:56 PM
reply to post by AnnunakiRageTheChosenPeop

Ah so they're there to protect us from solar flares (never mind the magnetosphere, that's just there for looks), only to depopulate us.

Logical you say?

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 10:59 PM
and you said you don't pounce on people lol. Cloud seeding is technially chem spraying unless your just talking about the jet creating contrails that have adverse side effects once in awhile.

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 11:01 PM
If that is not what you are talking about, what are you talking about in terms of contrails I mean chemtrails.
edit on 2-3-2011 by Novatrino because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 11:11 PM
So just spit out your own opinion and quit beating around the bush. All you are doing is just milking the subject,

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 11:14 PM
reply to post by Novatrino

My. Impatient aren't we.
Yes. I am talking about "chemtrails" in the context of geoengineering. A global scheme to modify the weather or, kill us all, or hide Nibiru. Depending on who you are talking to. Cloud seeding has nothing to do with that.

I admit it. Cloud seeding is real.

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 11:22 PM
So cloud seeding is real yet chem spraying is not?

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 11:42 PM
reply to post by Novatrino

There is no evidence that contrails seen today are anything different from the contrails seen since the early days of high altitude flight.

Until there is such evidence I have no reason to think otherwise.

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 12:25 AM
If I can get factual evidence of why a 2 engine TUTOR aircraft creates 4 contrails I would be very interested. Seriously I would. As well these white jets do not have any markings on them for some reason.

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 12:32 AM

Originally posted by Novatrino
If I can get factual evidence of why a 2 engine TUTOR aircraft creates 4 contrails I would be very interested. Seriously I would. As well these white jets do not have any markings on them for some reason.

Take a decent video if you can..
BTW, wingtips can cause contrails..That may be your 4....

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 12:36 AM
S&F Phage.

I cannot find anything on abnormal aluminum levels in the Mt. Shasta region and I see that an earlier poster posted some info on the aluminum levels. I have been digging around for a while and came upon this study. In this study I did not read anything on aluminum. There is alot of info in this study and Phage can you please go thruough this(if you have not already) and tell me if it is legit. I noticed a disclaimer for some reason at the beginning, but it is still on the Ca govt energy website. Sorry for the long post but there is alot of information on this study. I have chopped a few informative(or what I think is informative) paragraphs out. I have never seen this posted before so do not get upset if it has. Here it goes.

Cloud seeding has been conducted in California for over 55 years, one of the longest records of
operational weather modification anywhere in the world. The earliest program was at the
Bishop Creek watershed in the eastern Sierra in 1948, sponsored by the California Electric
Power Company, now Southern California Edison (SCE) (Henderson 2004). The Lake Almanor
and Mokelumne projects of Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) (Marler 1992) and Upper San
Joaquin project of SCE have both operated for over fifty years. The Santa Barbara operational
precipitation enhancement project (Griffith et al. 2005) began in 1950, with some research
phases between 1957–1960 and 1967–1974. Other programs have been operated in Los Angeles and Monterey counties.

Success in cloud seeding requires substantial knowledge of the physical processes in natural
clouds and how seeding materials change those processes to augment precipitation. There have
been two major research projects related to cloud seeding in California. The larger effort was
the Sierra Cooperative Pilot Project (SCPP), which was conducted by Reclamation and the states
of California and Nevada between 1977 and 1987. The SCPP (Reynolds and Arnett 1986)
focused on physical mechanisms affecting Sierra Nevada clouds, so that sound cloud seeding technologies could be developed. Ground‐based and airborne silver iodide seeding was done, along with the release of tracer materials to assess the transport and diffusion (T&D) of seeded plumes (Section 2.3.1 below). Major findings were: Sierra Nevada storms often have rapidly changing phases that affect seedability; a low‐level barrier jet stream frequently complicates T&D and targeting of seeding materials; clouds are frequently efficient natural snowfall producers because of a process known as ice multiplication; and most of the SLW that is needed
for seeding to be effective is within 3000 feet of the ground, at temperatures warmer than ‐10°C
(Marwitz 1987; Reynolds 1989; Rangno 1986).

2.2.2. Are There Any Adverse Impacts?
Regarding the second concern, Reclamation has studied environmental and health impacts
extensively (Bureau of Reclamation 1977; Harris 1981; Howell 1977). The toxicity of silver and
silver compounds (from silver iodide) was shown to be of low order. According to Reclamation,
the small amounts of silver used in cloud seeding are 100 times less than industry emissions
into the atmosphere in many parts of the country or individual exposure from tooth fillings.

Accumulations in the soil, vegetation, and surface runoff have not been large enough to
measure above natural background (Klein 1978). A 2004 study for Snowy Hydro Limited in
Australia confirmed these earlier findings. The expansion of LP as a gas is another possible
seeding method. Regarding the flammability of propane released from dispensers (Vardiman
et al. 1971), it was shown that it was necessary to bring the ignition source to within four feet of
the dispenser nozzle to cause the propane plume to burn under very light winds. A modest
increase in wind speed would blow out the flame. It was further noted that, ”Propane is a
colorless, odorless, hydrocarbon that is harmless to plant and animal life. The quantities used in
seeding are so small, 0.75 lb per minute from each dispenser, that there is no accumulation
leading to a pollution problem.” Another study (Super and Heimbach 2005a) noted that ”There
is a great deal of propane (C3H8) and butane (C4H10), another hydrocarbon, being released by
human activities at a scale far larger than for propane seeding. Propane does not present an
environmental hazard because of its rapid oxidative degradation. Although technically a
greenhouse gas, its approximate one month lifetime in the atmosphere is too short to function in
this manner. In contrast, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) have atmospheric lifetimes in the range of
60–500 yrs.”

From what I am reading in this study we should be happy about these studies. This study indicates that cloud seeding is more effective in the winter time. It looks like there is a real concerne for freshwater and water for electricity generating. If there is going to be a serious water shoratage in the future, I think that we need to study on how to make it rain. Like I said I do not know if this is legit, but there is alot of info. I know that the chemmies will dismiss anything of any real value, so here is my post.

Can you please let me know what is going on with this 2005 study. I feel this is definitely on topic because it directly talks of mountain range cloud seeding.

I just want the facts.

Thank you

edit on 3-3-2011 by liejunkie01 because: structure

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 12:42 AM
i must say phage, this one takes the cake.

persistent contrails?!?!

i read the nasa article describing what persistent contrails are and two statements stuck out like sore thumbs:

"NASA could use more data on contrails...

1. Is it possible to see contrails? That is, can the high altitudes be seen from the surface, or are there too many low clouds in the way?

are they serious? i remember watching a russian weather segment last year where they had sat. images of the massive contrails... and nasa can't (read doesn't want to) collect its own data with its own expensive equipment?

and then there is this winner of a statement:

"However, because they form at high altitudes where the winds are usually very strong, they will often move away from the area where they were born. When we look up into the sky, we may see old persistent contrails that formed somewhere else but moved overhead because of the wind."

this one is pure nonesense. i have witnesses countless chemtrails "evolve" while sitting at my desk job in front of a giant window. no chemtrail has ever "moved" anywhere. they always maintain their original line in the sky, the spread their contents with the wind. high winds gives long streaks which create haze. low winds allow the chemtrail to bleed out, as i like to describe it.

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 12:43 AM
It wasn't the wingtips, The contrails were all the same size. when summer comes along up here I will get some good film, got a an hd camcorder as well. I think I have some video on my system already gotta check it.

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 12:52 AM
reply to post by liejunkie01

Thanks. I have also to find any past metals testing results for the region. There just may not be any available online. It seems that if those promoting the claim that geoengineering is responsible for the "high" levels of metals were really interested in the facts they would be scouring local land offices and university libraries to find historical data to bolster their case. Maybe they have. Maybe they didn't find anything or maybe they did. Either way they don't seem to talk about it for some reason but I would like to hear about it.

Regarding the article you located, since the concern was for the environmental impact of cloud seeding, silver iodide was the only substance for which testing was done. While it does not bear much relevance to the topic of geoengineering it is important to weather modification, another controversial subject. I'll keep the bookmark.

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 12:55 AM
I am thoroughly enjoying this thread & there is quite alot of information...I hope this isn't off topic at this point since the topic of Aluminum in soil & else where has been going on for a good bit.

I would appreciate feed back from Phage & All regarding the Aluminum content in soil in regards to BSE . (I know many other factors re Magnesium & etc are factors as well)

I have seen several studies now which relate the prion dz or infection to soil as apposed to "cannibalism" feeding grazing animals meat products...such as bone meal, blood, & etc...I am very familiar with the dz as I work in the animal field, however I do have an open mind.

Thank You!

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:00 AM
reply to post by mbzastava

Unlike the "chemtrail" crowd, scientists don't really consider visual observation to be very useful data. They are interested in things like the size and quantity of the ice particles that make up contrails and the atmospheric conditions which produce them. Those data cannot be collected by looking at contrails from the ground.

Why would contrails or "chemtrails" not drift with the wind? Are they anchored to the ground?
Are these contrails or not?

Do you have anything to say about the OP? Do you think the testing shown in the movie is valid?

edit on 3/3/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:18 AM
reply to post by Ektar

I don't know anything about BSE other than its horrible effects.

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in