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.

 

'Contrails' Visible 22,300mi Above Earth - With Contrail Enhanced Imagery

page: 1
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2011 @ 05:12 AM
link   
Hi folks, this is the first thread I will have authored on AboveTopSecret, so before I begin, an impromptu introduction if I may: Hi! I have been a member here since 2010, and have found this website and it's community to be one of the best around the internet. The professionalism and passion demonstrated by it's members and moderators here in my opinion is simply bar none the best of public forums I have ever come across. With that said, please do not move me to the introduction forum as I hope that I have been able to introduce myself somewhat already through various post comments while I've been a member, and creating a new introduction post now would be a bit awkward, so on to the meat.

Regarding 'chemtrails', I have been following the debunker's comments here for some time now, and they seem to be pretty adamant about what they do and that I respect. They also seem to know enough about how contrails work to back it up most of the time so props to them there.

I wonder though, if at this point in time we know that at least some rudimentary weather modification can be done, and do exist in the form of commercial businesses such as Weather Modification Inc. for some time now, what makes you think that any organization would not want to step it up to a larger scale?

On Sunday, May 1st I was at Point Reyes, CA and noticed off the coast there were a decent concentration of contrails off the coast. From my viewpoint, there were enough to spark my curiousity later on and cause me to dig into some satellite images from that day, via a NexSat (military) website.

Here's what they looked like in an unenhanced format


And here they are, in a contrail enhanced format

Quite a few there, as you can see, and these do look somewhat normal in that they appear to be many departing flights from airports such as KSFO, and KLAX heading northwest, west, etc.

Since then I have been reading about and looking at photos and satellite imagery of contrails (or chemtrails, if you must:lol
.

At daybreak on May 6th, the contrail situation off the west coast seemed little bit different, a little bit odd.

If your train of thought is anything like mine, you may be thinking "X marks the spot".

Anyone care to guess the width of contrails such as these, nevermind the length? This is from 22,300 miles above earth, mind you - They began forming late the night before.

So then, knowing we have access to satellite imagery with cool contrail enhancing features, our X will be sure to stand out, since of course they should be normal, high altitude contrails, right? Note the many small contrails radiating out from the Bay Area.

But the X pattern 'contrail' does not get enhanced. Why not? Not high altitude, nor cold enough? The rest of the contrails are clearly seen.

While I could be coerced into believing what most people see are indeed contrails, and I do not want to believe 'chemtrails' are being sprayed on any sort of large scale, to flatly state that such weather modification (or 'chemtrailing') operations stops at small single engine aircraft (or do not exist at all) seems a bit... Unimaginative if you will.

For now I am only left with more questions than answers, despite heroic attempts by some people to rationalize what some of us think we may be seeing. The more I see the more I wonder, and ever since the Japan Nuclear Disaster I have believed that one of the best course of actions our country could have taken in defense of it would be to attempt to make it rain on a large scale over the pacific - and I wonder if our Government had the same thoughts.

Have you witnessed 'contrails' out of the ordinary, remember the date/time that you saw them, and would like to take a look? Here are some links to great Satellite Imagery websites where you can. If you find anything interesting, come share it! Hope you enjoyed the read.

GOES Project Science - NASA
NexSat - Navy
MODIS Today - SSEC

End note disclaimer: This thread was created with the sole intent and purpose to share my personal observations, findings, and thoughts regarding contrails and not to prove the existance of so-called "chemtrails".




posted on May, 8 2011 @ 05:29 AM
link   
IMO they use the contrail with the haarp but good post on how they hide them



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Sek82
 


Good post.

If anything, it shows again that the contrails that are considered normal, caused by commercial aviation, are in effect a form of geo engineering.

I mean just look at the size of this artificially induced cloud cover. It must have some effect.

I know that debunkers occassinally admit to this, but it´s not much of an issue. Both sides focus on chemtrails.

Funny how they hide the X´s, using that program.

The X´s, or actually grid patterns, always spark my interest when I see em in the sky.

I just don´t get why I always see them in the vicinity of the sun, when that doesn´t make sense.

You get 4 or more different trails that intersect at a precise 90 degree angle, and it can be anywhere in the sky, it just doesn´t make sense for flight corridors to be set up in this way, and seems a deliberate attempt at covering a certain area, especially when you see it al hazed up a few hours later.



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sek82
At daybreak on May 6th, the contrail situation off the west coast seemed little bit different

That's not daybreak, that's nightfall. Hence the clouds getting darker from east to west.

Which brings us to:

Originally posted by Sek82
But the X pattern 'contrail' does not get enhanced. Why not?

That image was taken at the end of the animated image where the sun was setting, and thus the clouds were darkened. That's why the "X" isn't being highlighted.

Now, I don't know if you did it on purpose to create a conspiracy, or just weren't paying attention to the terminator (the transition from daylight to darkness).



Originally posted by Sek82
The rest of the contrails are clearly seen.

The terminator is clearly seen as well, and your "X" is on the dark side of the terminator. That's why it isn't being highlighted. The other contrails in northern California are on the daylight side of the terminator.



Originally posted by Sek82
I have believed that one of the best course of actions our country could have taken in defense of it would be to attempt to make it rain on a large scale over the pacific

I want to make one thing abundantly clear for everyone reading this: Weather modification is not "chemtrailing". Whatever they "spray" is totally separate from the contrail.

Most everyone should know by now that a contrail is frozen water vapor. Clouds are frozen water vapor. Clouds and contrails are the exact same thing.

Most chemicals and elements are heavier than water. Any chemical that is being sprayed will fall back to earth while the contrail will stay in the sky, just as clouds stay in the sky. You will never, ever see the "chemtrail" in the sky. The chemicals will fall back to earth while the contrail still stays in the sky like they have for 70+ years.


Taking a look at your animated image, you can see how the "X" contrails are spreading out and getting bigger as the clouds move. You can also see that they are moving with the rest of the clouds. Clouds and contrails are the same and they will act the same. They will both spread out, move with the jet stream, and dissipate when the temperature/humidity change.


Many "chemtrailers" claim the "X"'s are signs of "chemtrails" and that they're "spraying" in cross-patterns. But one only has to look at flight patterns to see that is not the case:






Taking a look at that image, one can make a comparison to something else: roads. The roads that we drive on criss-cross just like flight patterns. Just because there is any sort of "X", has absolutely nothing to do with anything but the flight patterns.

The movie "What in the world are they spraying" implied that the elevated aluminum and barium in the ground are from "chemtrails". So, if they really were "spraying", those chemicals would be all over every single thing outside. That includes your house, lawn, pool, cars, dog house, bushes, everything. That means that anyone could get swabs of anything outside and have those swabs tested in a lab to prove once and for all that there was spraying going on.


But nobody is jumping at the opportunity to shut the debunkers down. Thus, "chemtrails" will always only be disinformation and fear-mongering until such time that there is real scientific evidence established.






edit on 8-5-2011 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 




And finally, if they really were "spraying", those chemicals would be all over every single thing outside. That includes your house, lawn, pool, cars, dog house, bushes, everything. That means if they really were spraying, anyone could get swabs of anything outside and have those swabs tested in a lab to prove once and for all that there was spraying going on.


That doesn´t make sense. you could swab anything, but it would not prove where it came from.

Where did you get that flight pattern pic? Could you direct me to a similar one, but above the Netherlands?



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by UrgentInsurgent
That doesn´t make sense. you could swab anything, but it would not prove where it came from.

I edited my post above. What I meant was you could swab anything outside and have it tested for aluminum and barium since the movie "What in the world are they spraying" implied that those elements were coming from "chemtrails". That means anything outside under the sky will have aluminum and barium on them if there were any real spraying going on. Not just a few ground samples like was done in the above movie.



Originally posted by UrgentInsurgent
Where did you get that flight pattern pic? Could you direct me to a similar one, but above the Netherlands?

I got it from another post here on ATS, but they got it from here:

www.dailymail.co.uk...



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   


I edited my post above. What I meant was you could swab anything outside and have it tested for aluminum and barium since the movie "What in the world are they spraying" implied that those elements were coming from "chemtrails". That means anything outside under the sky will have aluminum and barium on them if there were any real spraying going on. Not just a few ground samples like was done in the above movie.
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Jeah....about that...still doesn´t make sense. I see you use this little part of your debunkofolio quite often around here....you should scrap it.

You are always the one who´s bringing that up, without others talking about that movie or al or barium, and it still doesn´t prove or disprove anything.

About the pic, I can see that the UK has some distinct intersection points that could cause these grids with 90 degree angles, I still don´t get how I can see those grids in random places in the sky, with 90 degree angles above my country, I would love to see some flight pattern data, but don´t know where to look.



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
What is sinister about aircraft trails crossing at angles that appear to be 90 degrees? Would you be happier if those were changed to be 60 degrees?



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by UrgentInsurgent
Jeah....about that...still doesn´t make sense. I see you use this little part of your debunkofolio quite often around here....you should scrap it.

Jeah, I don't think that's going to happen. If "chemtrailers" are going to continue to insist that there's some sinisiter plot to spray the whole sky with some chemical(s), then whatever they're spraying will be all over every single thing outside. I don't know what part of that you don't understand.



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
You may want to check your numbers; 22,000 miles above the Earth? How do contrails form in space exactly? Weather forms within the troposhere, which is only extends to about 10 miles above the Earth.



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ledzeppelin489
You may want to check your numbers; 22,000 miles above the Earth? How do contrails form in space exactly? Weather forms within the troposhere, which is only extends to about 10 miles above the Earth.


I think he meant visible FROM 22,300 miles...



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   


Jeah, I don't think that's going to happen. If "chemtrailers" are going to continue to insist that there's some sinisiter plot to spray the whole sky with some chemical(s), then whatever they're spraying will be all over every single thing outside. I don't know what part of that you don't understand.
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Whatever is found or not found on the ground is still no proof whatsoever of what goes on in the sky. I don´t know what part you don´t understand about that.

If people claim that they are spraying a certain chemical, but you can´t find large amounts of that chemical on the ground, doesn´t mean the chemical was not sprayed.

The point is, you keep bringing this up in threads where noone is actually talking about spraying Al or barium. it seems like you are always the first and only person to bring this up, and you complain about chemtrailers talking about the very same stuff.



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sek82

At daybreak on May 6th, the contrail situation off the west coast seemed little bit different, a little bit odd.

If your train of thought is anything like mine, you may be thinking "X marks the spot".

Anyone care to guess the width of contrails such as these, nevermind the length? This is from 22,300 miles above earth, mind you - They began forming late the night before.

So then, knowing we have access to satellite imagery with cool contrail enhancing features, our X will be sure to stand out, since of course they should be normal, high altitude contrails, right? Note the many small contrails radiating out from the Bay Area.

But the X pattern 'contrail' does not get enhanced. Why not? Not high altitude, nor cold enough? The rest of the contrails are clearly seen.


The "X" shaped trails are not contrails, they are ship trails. They are different from contrails in that they are much lower in altitude, and they are usually clouds made from water droplets, rather than ice droplets.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

I suspect though that they were not highlighted because they were so wide. The computer algorithm used is designed to highlight thin white lines. The ship trails just look like a white area to the algorithm, like the snow on the mountains in the center of the image.



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot
What is sinister about aircraft trails crossing at angles that appear to be 90 degrees? Would you be happier if those were changed to be 60 degrees?


I see, I have to break it down for some.

If one would want to lay a grid to cover an area, it would make sense to have intersections at 90 degree angles.

It seems that flight paths are somewhat straight lines from A to B for the biggest part.

It is a bit coincidental if locations A/B ,C/D, E/F and G/H have paths between them that intersect at 90 degree angles.

Especially when I see them at different parts of the sky at different times.



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by UrgentInsurgent

Originally posted by firepilot
What is sinister about aircraft trails crossing at angles that appear to be 90 degrees? Would you be happier if those were changed to be 60 degrees?


I see, I have to break it down for some.

If one would want to lay a grid to cover an area, it would make sense to have intersections at 90 degree angles.

It seems that flight paths are somewhat straight lines from A to B for the biggest part.

It is a bit coincidental if locations A/B ,C/D, E/F and G/H have paths between them that intersect at 90 degree angles.

Especially when I see them at different parts of the sky at different times.


Why would you want a grid anyways? Do you think cropdusters spray in grids? Do you think insect control is done in grids? No actual spraying with aircraft like those uses a grid system.

All you are doing with your "grids" is leaving big open spaces

Flight plans are not neccesarily all straight lines, unless ATC grants a direct clearance to destination, and you have a GPS to get you there.



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


How did they get the sattelite to stay still for so long whilst it orbited the Earth?

I mean that is a time-lapse photo right? Or is it a photoshopped photo? Before mentioning the sattelites that are fixed, keep in mind that the entire planet rotates as well. So if that is a time lapse photo where are the other celestial objects? (Sun, moon, etc)

Also I notice that the planes did alot of moving, (or cars if that was a shot of roads) but that cloud off to the left, it must have been sleepy! (Takes 3+ hours to fly across US, that cloud didn't move for that long!)

Anyway, pretty picture!

And I am with the OPer, the "X" contrails are highly suspicious to me. Of course, I am just a foolish fool. (I don't have any photoshopped images to help my case...)

--EDIT
Not American ignorance, I promise! I was referencing the picture from memory, and my American ARROGANCE caused me to assume the pic was America. Upon re-looking tis Great Britain (If not, THAT is my American ignorance)
edit on 5/8/2011 by adigregorio because: Foolishness



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by adigregorio

How did they get the sattelite to stay still for so long whilst it orbited the Earth?

I mean that is a time-lapse photo right? Or is it a photoshopped photo? Before mentioning the sattelites that are fixed, keep in mind that the entire planet rotates as well. So if that is a time lapse photo where are the other celestial objects? (Sun, moon, etc)


The pic of the UK flight paths is computer generated, based on recorded GPS data. It's from this BBC series:

www.bbc.co.uk...

The animation of ship trails is from a geostationary satellite (one that stays above a fixed point)



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


THANK you for that information!

Makes me trust the photo the same amount as before.

Though I will apologize about the photoshop comment, another computer progam influenced that image! Anyway, was just flexing my critical thinking muskles (yep muskles, like Popeye has) Thank you for the prompt foot-to-the-face!


...(Boot-to-the-head?)



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   


Why would you want a grid anyways? Do you think cropdusters spray in grids? Do you think insect control is done in grids? No actual spraying with aircraft like those uses a grid system.
reply to post by firepilot
 


Your examples have the intention to cover the entire ground area.

For weather modification they could spray in grids, because these trails waver out and fill in the open areas. It´s not the same thing, and you know it.



Flight plans are not neccesarily all straight lines, unless ATC grants a direct clearance to destination, and you have a GPS to get you there.


So you are saying that planes go out of their way, and make large detours, just so they can fly these corridors that interect at 90 degree angles, even if it´s not really the direction they need to be going in?

Btw, Bonez and you, as usual. Only that Stars dude now, and the team´s complete. You guys are really passionate about what others think.



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
The animation of ship trails is from a geostationary satellite (one that stays above a fixed point)

Oops, missed this part.

Can you explain why clouds didn't move in the picture then?

I say it is a static photo, period. The photo proves this by having stationary clouds, moving sattelite or not the clouds would have moved/dissipated/formed...

Maybe I should stick around? Passing off static photos as evidence, doesn't seem very above board...



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join