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" advocates and believers, which of you will state your hypothesis?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on May, 11 2011 @ 08:05 AM
reply to post by GoatwolfeWolfgoate

I would say the weather does in fact get impacted by contrails. The fact that the sky can be filled with cloud cover from air travel would have a direct impact on localized weather. But there is no need for "chemtrails" when contrails are what everyone is seeing. the science to explain what they are and why they are is quite simple to see and understand. Sadly, those that can't live a moment more without inventing a boogyman to blame for something, will always find one.

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 10:55 AM
FIXED BBcode tags, and re-posted for Aloysius the Gaul (from previous page, bottom):

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by GoatwolfeWolfgoate
A little food for thought, in 1974 Jacque Fresco was on Larry King and among the many things he was discussing he mentioned controlling the weather. Larry King stopped him, 'wait a minute, controlling the weather!'

'It's very easy to control the weather...' and he continued on with his original point.

Now if you don't know Mr. Fresco, he does not joke around.

So if any "contrailists" would like to explain how the weather is controlled so easily with "primitive" technology from 1974 (and earlier), I'd like to know.

So would we all!

I'm afraid that a one-liner from a "futurist" and the inventor who thinks that a few hundred people were all that was needed to run society in 1974, and who was proposing that society should change to use technology in every way possible doesn't actually comprse proof.

The interviews are available at

His comment about controlling the weather starts about 6.30 with a comment that "cities of the future" will have a computer that controls the environment - including weather. He also phases out business courses and all repetitious jobs.

At 8 minutes Larry King askes "will the computers control the Weather?" His answer is "That is a relatively easy project to manage"

LK: "Easy to control? (yes) You can control the weather?"
JF: "I can go into that with you in a short while"

so he's not actually saying that he can do it there and then at all.

Sorry about that.

So contrailists, if not chemtrails, how DO we easily control the weather with science?

Science thinks we can control it in a number of ways, known as Geo-engineering...and there is a lot of information about that out there, and some ways of doing it are being done right now - it's not actually secret!!

You should watch the video - it's an interesting view of the future, and it sure isn't here yet!!

edit on 11 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 12:57 PM
reply to post by Thermo Klein

Spreading that far and farther is well known. We had the chance to study it during the air traffic shut-down following 9/11. There was a time, on the 12th, that there were known to only have 6 military aircraft in the sky. Their contrails were studied and measured, both in size and persistence. I'll give the link to the entire article, but here is the pertinent information:

The dimensions of these trails, determined from the various satellite images, are summarized in Table 1. Most of the trails spread at 7-8 km h-1 and reached maximum width within 2-4 hours, except for G, which spread at about 5 kmh-1 and peaked after only 2 hours from when it was first detectable. Contrails A, F, and G lasted more than 10 hours, while B dissipated after 5 hours. The contrail areal coverage reached a maximum of 20,456 km2 at 1445 UTC just from six contrails

The conversion of square kilometers to square miles is 7898. Six contrails, lasting 10 hours covering almost 7900 square miles.
What you saw would be just a fraction of this, probably boxed in by mountains.
The rest sounds like weather.

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 01:05 PM

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

One day my friend, one day.


Oh, we are patient. We've all been asking for the same information from many, many different people many, many places, in many, many ways for the same information.
And all we get is rhetoric without real proof. Ad nauseum, but we still do it, to try and steer the curious and the fence-sitters to look to science which has the answers and not "chemtrails" which has......??? Pictures of clouds, videos of contrails, and anecdotes from people who don't understand weather.

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 04:24 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Thanks - much appreciated. I thought I had them almsot right then made 1 more change & posted it & went out - came back 4 hrs & 5 minutes later...

posted on May, 13 2011 @ 10:47 PM

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

contrails spreading is well known, yes.

A contrail spreading (which I saw coming from behind a plane which looked like an all-white L10-11), floating across the sky for an hour, turning a clear blue sky into a haze that covered a good 10 miles by 20 miles... that is not normal.

Actually, it is. And well-studied, too:

Ice-supersaturation in the upper troposphere has long been inferred from the observation of long-lasting aircraft contrails in otherwise clear air [e.g., Brewer,1946], but only recently has instrumentation been capable of accurately measuring ice-supersaturation from aircraft at cold temperatures.

Aircraft measurements made in cirrus during FIRE II show highly ice-supersaturated regions in clear air, placing a lower bound on the RH required for cirrus formation approximately equal to (RHhn–10)%

Heymsfield, Andrew J., Larry M. Miloshevich, 1995: Relative Humidity and Temperature Influences on Cirrus Formation and Evolution: Observations from Wave Clouds and FIRE II. J. Atmos. Sci., 52, 4302–4326.

I have always been outspoken against chemtrails for many reasons. I have changed my mind recently because I want to know some science behind it.

Aside from the foregoing, you could always browse the underlying authority cited in Contrail Science As a former skeptic, do your self a favor and don't just accept the various positions stated therein; look at the underlying authorities as well.

Sometimes ridiculous theories gain in credibility as more information comes into play, this may very well be the situation with chemtrails. We won't know if we stop looking.

Do not make the mistake of confusing "more information" with more facts! They are NOT always the same.


posted on May, 30 2011 @ 02:32 AM
reply to post by jdub297

I forgot to add this peer-reviewed article from the Journal Nature:

Global radiative forcing from contrail cirrus

Contrail cirrus initially form behind cruising aircraft as line-shaped contrails and transform into cirrus-like clouds or cloud clusters in favourable meteorological conditions, occasionally covering large horizontal areas. They have been tracked for up to 17 h in satellite observations. They remain line-shaped, and therefore easily distinguishable from natural cirrus, for only a fraction of their lifetime.
Contrail cirrus form and persist in air that is ice-saturated, whereas natural cirrus often require high ice supersaturation to form. This implies that in a substantial fraction of the upper troposphere, contrail cirrus can persist in supersaturated air that is cloud-free, thus increasing high cloud coverage.


posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 11:39 PM
reply to post by jdub297

allthis time, and still no takers?

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in