It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

EXCLUSIVE "What in The World Are They Spraying" Chemist talks to ATS about Geoengineering.

page: 12
53
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by survivalsurfer
reply to post by pianopraze
 


I am highly interested in the whole chemtrail business,what I would like to know is; has anyone flown through the chemtrails with some sort of spectographic analytical equipment so that it could be analyzed right where it is being dispersed? Might answer a lot of questions or raise a bunch of new ones...


Good point survivalsurfer.

We raised this earlier in the tread. Network dude originally and me adding my 2c.. earlier in thread link.

The question arises ... who would everyone trust to do it. I don't trust much of anything NASA says anymore, the've proven themselves liars in my book (my opinion everyone, if yours differs, fine don't draw us off topic please). phage or weed suggested a neutral third party... but neutral is a loose term when someone is being paid. Also it's been proven over and over the government lies and covers with threats or bribes. So this degenerates into a very hard topic quickly.




posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Off the subject of chemtrails, lets talk about contrails..

The fact that we see all these persistent contrails that form clouds and it has been studied and shown they may add to global warming..That all OK so far??

Now we also know that a mere few thousand feet difference may mean the trails do not persist or possibly even show any noticeable contrail at all..

So why don't planes alter their altitudes to conform with areas that are NOT conducive to contrails.??

I know of the fuel issue but is it really that much difference?
Is it worth blocking out our clear blue skies?


Excellent point
and one which has been raised before. I think the main issue is increased fuel and the fact that this in turn means increased carbon emissions. See:

Climate change and the future of air travel

Longer airline fights proposed to combat global warming

Nighttime flights 'boost' warming

Telescopes 'worthess' by 2050


Edit: it's perhaps worth highlighting a comment made in the first link above (press release from the Imperial College, London):


As well as the seasonal variation in atmospheric conditions, which the team estimated would require a general ceiling on flight altitudes (summer: 31,000 feet, winter: 24,000 feet), they also found significant day to day variations, so any contrail reduction strategy would work better if it were reactive on a daily basis. They also found days when the atmospheric conditions made it almost impossible to avoid contrail formation.




edit on 7-3-2011 by Essan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


Thanks for that Essan..
Was a good read..
I'm always amazed that here in Melbourne Australia we see few or no persistent contrails..
Like the last few weeks has been very humid but still none..



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Melbourne, and in fact most of Australia has very little contrails because we aren't underneath flight paths like Europe or the USA are.

This is a pretty informative site about contrails (and the lack of) over Perth:

www.lifeonperth.com...

I've seen many contrails out in the middle of the desert where I used to work too, international flights to Asia was my guess due to their Northward direction.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by backinblack
 


Melbourne, and in fact most of Australia has very little contrails because we aren't underneath flight paths like Europe or the USA are.

This is a pretty informative site about contrails (and the lack of) over Perth:

www.lifeonperth.com...

I've seen many contrails out in the middle of the desert where I used to work too, international flights to Asia was my guess due to their Northward direction.


True but I mentioned once before that I often go to Albury..
That's on the Melb/Syd flight path which is arguably the busiest flight path in the world..
I've seen 8 planes in the air and only small trails..Maybe 5 mins max...



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 

You continue to say that I don't answer your questions. I have addressed where the "high levels" in the snow probably came from. I have also pointed out that without full spectrum testing there is really no way to determine if the levels found represent anything unusual. All they tell us is there was a certain amount of contamination in the snow. Why must it be either "Gobi sand" or "spraying". What's wrong with local sources?

We know there is aluminum in the local soil. We know there is barium in the local soil. We know that neither exists at unusual levels. They apparently didn't test for strontium in the soil but if they had it would be expected to be found, it makes up .04% of the Earth's crust.

Strontium is always present in air as dust, up to a certain level. Strontium concentrations in air are increased by human activities, such as coal and oil combustion. Dust particles that contain strontium will settle to surface water, soils or plant surfaces at some point. When the particles do not settle they will fall back onto earth when rain or snow falls. All strontium will eventually end up in soils or bottoms of surface waters, where they mix with strontium that is already present.

www.lenntech.com...

Dust. Look at the dates on the tests. The area was in the midst of a drought at the time of the testing. I posted links showing that, links with pictures of large areas of the lakebed exposed and dry. Here's another link.

A rollicking rampage by VW bus in the dust bowl of Northern California, February, 2009, during one of the driest and dustiest Snow Trips in the nine years since its inception.

vimeo.com...

Dust is easily carried to high altitudes. Particularly in a mountain environment where thermal and orographic lifting occurs. The dust does not have to come from far away.

Many different types of wind system are involved in dust transport, including small-scale dust devils (whirlwinds), mountain and valley winds, trade winds, thunderstorm downdrafts, monsoonal winds, and winds associated with mid-latitude depressions. Localized dust blowing may be caused by any set of conditions that produces steep thermal or pressure gradients.

science.jrank.org...
Pressure gradients; low pressure areas, fronts. The same things that bring rain and snow. Dust gets pulled up into the clouds where the rain and snow form. Dust is in the air the rain and snow fall through. As a hang glider pilot I've seen first hand the dust that is carried aloft. The dust and even pieces of grass and other debris I've seen floating around me thousands of feet above the ground did not fall out of the sky, they came from the ground.

Dust gets carried to those "pristine" slopes. Dust which contains aluminum, and barium, and strontium. Of course they found those things. They couldn't help but find them because they are everywhere. They didn't bother to test for things like calcium and iron and copper, the things that might have shown the contamination to be dust. They were only interested in the "good stuff". The scary stuff. The stuff that is supposed to be being "sprayed". They weren't doing science.

Another unmentioned consequence of global warming (that all spring BC riders can see with our own eyes) is an increase in the transport and deposition of dust in our snowpack.

www.wildsnow.com...

The dust is found in fresh snow, even in Greenland.

Air-to-snow mineral transfer of crustal species on the Greenland Ice Sheet was studied at Dye 3 during a full annual cycle (August 1988–August 1989) and at Summit during a summer campaign (May 1991–September 1991). At Dye 3, continuously sampled aerosols (54 filters) show a clear seasonal cycle of insoluble mineral elements (Al, Fe, Ca) with strong concentration peaks in April. The simultaneous collection of fresh snows (32 precipitation events) reveals the same seasonal picture. Furthermore, a comparison of metal concentrations in both aerosol and snow indicates that the transfer of crustal elements (Fe or Al) from air to snow seems to occur without fractionation. This one year seasonal cycle is recovered in snowpits excavated at Dye 3 (1 yr) and at Summit (3 yr) exhibiting no major post-depositional changes of crustal elements in aging snow. This suggests that the insoluble fraction of crustal elements, such as Fe or Al, in Arctic snows accurately reflects the seasonal atmospheric signal of mineral aerosols.

Source

Aluminum and other crustal elements get into rain and snow, even fresh snow, without help from above. There is no need to invoke "spraying". I've also pointed out the illogic of the "spraying" scenario. "Spraying" only affects the snow? It only affects the water? Somehow those "high levels" are not seen in the soils samples. Why would that be? Can you explain that? The supposed "spraying" started 15 years ago. Where did all that metal that settled to the ground go?

Re: the visual effects of aerosols. The composition of the particles is of much less significance to the scattering properties than their size. Any particle smaller than the wavelength of light will have similar effect. I take it you didn't see, or don't remember "Pinatubo sunsets". They bore no similarity to "normal" sunsets, including those in Hawaii. Hawaiian volcanoes do not throw aerosols into the stratosphere but they do create a nasty low level pollution called vog.

Re: aerosols and persistence. There is no reason to expect persistence to be affected by aerosols. The sublimation of the ice particles into water vapor is a function of temperature and pressure.
edit on 3/7/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Well that comes down to atmospheric conditions.

Certain conditions need to be met for contrails to form, then others need to be met for contrails to persist.

The Appleman chart is a good base for establishing ideal contrail conditions.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 



I've seen many contrails out in the middle of the desert where I used to work too, international flights to Asia was my guess due to their Northward direction.


Hey, I may have flown over you..
I took that flight path about once a month for 15 years...
The desert gets pretty boring to look at after a few flights...



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


At least your destination was nice.

My flights flew over the desert to land...in the desert!



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by backinblack
 


At least your destination was nice.
My flights flew over the desert to land...in the desert!


LMAO, that's sad Chad..
Yeah, I guess I landed in nicer places...



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by pianopraze
 

You continue to say that I don't answer your questions. I have addressed where the "high levels" in the snow probably came from. I have also pointed out that without full spectrum testing there is really no way to determine if the levels found represent anything unusual. All they tell us is there was a certain amount of contamination in the snow. Why must it be either "Gobi sand" or "spraying". What's wrong with local sources?
*snip*
[/url]

Aluminum and other crustal elements get into rain and snow, even fresh snow, without help from above. There is no need to invoke "spraying". I've also pointed out the illogic of the "spraying" scenario. "Spraying" only affects the snow? It only affects the water? Somehow those "high levels" are not seen in the soils samples. Why would that be? Can you explain that? The supposed "spraying" started 15 years ago. Where did all that metal that settled to the ground go?

Re: the visual effects of aerosols. The composition of the particles is of much less significance to the scattering properties than their size. Any particle smaller than the wavelength of light will have similar effect. I take it you didn't see, or don't remember "Pinatubo sunsets". They bore no similarity to "normal" sunsets, including those in Hawaii. Hawaiian volcanoes do not throw aerosols into the stratosphere but they do create a nasty low level pollution called vog.

Re: aerosols and persistence. There is no reason to expect persistence to be affected by aerosols. The sublimation of the ice particles into water vapor is a function of temperature and pressure.
edit on 3/7/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Phage you ignored my question for 3-4 posts then went back and retyped a post and answered it.

Dr. Thyme has said that the samples were taken above the atmospheric cap so lower level contaminates such as trucks etc would not have contaminated the snow sample. It would take a atmospheric phenomenon such as the Gobi or spraying. Just quoiting the MA Forester there... I don't know. Forester will be on Saturday, why don't we ask him then?

Also it does not address the sharp rise in pH in the last 5 years. Per a chat I had with Dr. Thyme Aluminum Barium and Strontium can raise the soil pH as he stated on the video here is how:


only if the mass balance was such that there was enough to make a difference - pH in water is quite different than pH in soil. The form of each species is determined by the pH, rather than driving the change of pH. It's easier to get with a compound like calcium hydroxide - also known as lime. The dissolution of the material creates hydroxide which increases pH. All these three elements go to hydroxides at high pH - the form will alter the reactive chemistry - the oxides form at high pH and are inert
-Dr. Lenny Thyme.


I'm not sure I understand... but there you go, that is how they can raise the soil pH.

Hawaii has some of the most beautiful sunsets I've seen... I can not speak to the exact composition and I'm busy working on a video project so I'm not going to have time to look in next few days.

Good post, glad to see your back to this form of post/argument, it is much appreciated


We are now back to where we started in the other post... Dr Thyme can you answer this? Or ask your friend the forester?



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   
This is interesting, US Air Force KC-10 filmed spraying:

republicbroadcasting.org...

Can anyone translate what's here:

www.tankerenemy.com

Somebody actually filmed Chemtrails being sprayed..neat.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Pervius
 


Oh, dear me!!! Someone starred that post? (So, we STILL have people not up to date on that hoax??)

:shk:

The title on that version of the video is A LIE!!! The airplane in formation is ANOTHER KC-10 tanker.

The video was filmed by a Flight Engineer, in the USAF. He posted it, and called it a "chem"-trail, AS A JOKE!!

The rabid "chemmies" of YouTube, though, were all too happy to accept it, they fell for it hook, line and sinker.

All of the text that was added, was done by a "chemmie" idiot....someone with absolutely NO knowledge f airplanes, aviation, science, meteorology....or, apparently, how to reason rationally.....


Nothing is being "sprayed"!!
You see a combination of contrails, from the engine exhaust...it comes and goes, since the air is changing as they move along. Also, some cirrus cloud decks are being flown through, which gives that effect off the tops of the wings, briefly.

Normal airplane, normal atmosphere, normal cirrus clouds, normal contrails...NO "chem"-trails!! Hilarious, that monkey dropping video is still floating in the pool.......

contrailscience.com...


edit on 7 March 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 

Atmospheric cap? Does he mean an inversion layer? A permanent inversion layer? Is he a meteorologist as well as a chemist? I showed you information on dust transport. I told you I have seen dust and other stuff thousands of feet above the ground with my own eyes. There is no way to rule out the possibility of local dust contamination.


Me:

The movie implies that geoengineering efforts are causing increasing pH levels in the Mt. Shasta area (and presumably elsewhere). Are you aware of any studies which demonstrate a widespread increase in soil pH levels? Is there any basis for the claim that the alleged elevated levels of aluminum account for the alleged increase. Is it possible that the amount of barium found in the soil (81.4 mg/kg) could account for the rise in pH?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Dr. Thyme:

I do not think that the spraying drives the pH in either water or land - just not enough mass present.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

His opinion seemed pretty clear to me.







edit on 3/7/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by pianopraze
 

Is he a meteorologist as well as a chemist?

Funny, they keep asking you the same question.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



I told you I have seen dust and other stuff thousands of feet above the ground with my own eyes. There is no way to rule out the possibility of local dust contamination.


How high is your "thousands of feet" ?
How high is Mt Shasta and where were the samples taken?

What were the weather (winds) conditions in the preceding days and especially after the snow fall.??

I think they are a few questions that need answering...



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by pianopraze
 

Is he a meteorologist as well as a chemist?

Funny, they keep asking you the same question.


You know the rules..

ATS older members do not need to show their qualifications..
It's their facts you should judge them on...
Qualifications are irrelevant..

Anyone else, well they want the works..
DOB, schooling,qualifications,work history and pet cat's name..


Me? I think it should be a "one size fits all"



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by pianopraze
 

Atmospheric cap? Does he mean an inversion layer? A permanent inversion layer? Is he a meteorologist as well as a chemist? I showed you information on dust transport. I told you I have seen dust and other stuff thousands of feet above the ground with my own eyes. There is no way to rule out the possibility of local dust contamination.


Me:

The movie implies that geoengineering efforts are causing increasing pH levels in the Mt. Shasta area (and presumably elsewhere). Are you aware of any studies which demonstrate a widespread increase in soil pH levels? Is there any basis for the claim that the alleged elevated levels of aluminum account for the alleged increase. Is it possible that the amount of barium found in the soil (81.4 mg/kg) could account for the rise in pH?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Dr. Thyme:

I do not think that the spraying drives the pH in either water or land - just not enough mass present.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

His opinion seemed pretty clear to me.


I don't know what the forester means, please do ask him Saturday. I started all this because I did not know the answers and wanted to get them into answer them. They are good questions


Dr. Thyme is quoting the Forester (quote marks original from his post):

Originally posted by lemmehowdt
"The snow melt sample that had 61,100 ug/l Al,Ba,Sr in it was collected 3/4 mile above the upper ski bowl parking lot, which is a mile above Panther Cr. meadows, which is about 8500' elevation. This is way above any motorized or casual tourist influence. We wanted it CLEAN! Well, it wasn't.

And mtn climbers drink that aircrap. Good thing they are young and healthy sorts. Sorry about the side effects of a hefty shot of aluminum, barium, strontium, boron and some arsenic. We have no idea whether it is going into our groundwater or not. "

That is the extent of my knowledge. Please ask the Forester as I believe he will be on Saturday. That is the whole purpose of this thread, to get original sources.

I took the meteorologist question to be rhetorical.

But I have posted (borrowed from BTS) two meteorologists saying that they are seeing aluminum reflections on their radars from military chaff (both, former military, say this is Aluminum).
Let's examine this meteorologist:

Now let's pause that picture and see where this Aluminum chaff falls:

Hmm... Looks familiar... here's google earth:

ETA... scroll this picture right to see the push pin...

So maybe we have the source of the Aluminum on Mt. Shasta.

ETA I outlined the county border so it is easier to see and reduced it so it fits without scrolling...





edit on 8-3-2011 by pianopraze because: added photo note

edit on 8-3-2011 by pianopraze because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by pianopraze
 

Atmospheric cap? Does he mean an inversion layer? A permanent inversion layer? Is he a meteorologist as well as a chemist? I showed you information on dust transport. I told you I have seen dust and other stuff thousands of feet above the ground with my own eyes. There is no way to rule out the possibility of local dust contamination.


Yes. Saharan dust often ends up falling in Britain. It's also a contributory factor in the formation of Atlantic hurricanes.

It's highly likely that industrial pollutants may on occasion be carried and deposited a considerable distance from source.

However with chemtrail spraying (assuming a geoengineering origin) we would expect to see similar quantites deposited in all parts of the world. Maybe someone should do a soil check in the Simpson desert or test Antarctic snowfall?

edit on 8-3-2011 by Essan because: added comment



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 

I saw what Dr. Thyme said about the sample. I don't see anything about a "cap" in that quote but I get the impression he could be talking more about foot, ski, or snowmobile traffic than transported dust (which they couldn't really do anything about).

Interesting though, the snow melt sample posted on line is 368 μg/L.

Probably not chaff. Chaff comes in the form of fibers 0.3 to 2 inches long. If it had been present in the snow melt it probably would have been noticeable as such.
www.globalsecurity.org...



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join