China admits to dumping chemtrails for weather modification. What do they look like??

It is pretty easy to define the difference, they DO look similar.

Contrails, the result of the aircraft heating the atmosphere around it, are trails of vapor that are visible trailing off the wingtips of the aircraft, being vapor caused by the friction in the air, they dissipate as the temperature returns back to it's previous state and as a result you will still see the aircraft that produced them as they disappear.

Chemtrails, the result of the aircraft releasing chemicals into the atmosphere, typically hang in the air for quite some time and do not dissipate as easily since it is an added ingredient not already present in the atmosphere.

So contrails, disappear while the aircraft is still present. Chemtrails hang for hours to days after the aircraft has passed.

reply to post by bsbray11


Didums boo hoo - you got the comments exactly about the photos you provided - you provide photos with planes, you get comments about photos with planes.

Originally posted by Uncinus
The photo is not from the ground.

I couldn't find any taken from the ground. Maybe you'll have better luck looking than me? Or will you even try to find one?

In your photos it's very different to a contrail: A) it starts at a point on the plane, and B) it is not shooting backwards at 2000 mph, so has visually a very different initial turbulent flow.

You have not shown a photo of cloud seeding that looks like a contrail.

Both of your points use the plane itself for your cue.

This was the original question:

Let me give you an example.

A photo is posted of "clouds," all in straight lines across the sky, all at a relatively low altitude, and there are no planes to be seen.

Poster "A" says "Contrails!"

Poster "B" says "Chemtrails!"


How in the hell can you tell the difference just by looking?

Like I told the poster above....


The only reason I showed pictures that include the planes, is because otherwise you would question whether or not it was cloud seeding in the first place!!!!

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Didums boo hoo - you got the comments exactly about the photos you provided - you provide photos with planes, you get comments about photos with planes.

Then you admit you wouldn't be able to tell them apart from contrails if the planes had already passed?

Seriously, if you can keep track of what we are talking about for more than 1 thread page at a time, maybe we would actually get somewhere.

reply to post by bsbray11


this would be a very effective weapon, capable of taking a countries rain from them to force a surrender.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Uncinus
The photo is not from the ground.

I couldn't find any taken from the ground. Maybe you'll have better luck looking than me? Or will you even try to find one?

I've tried to find one for several hours in the past.

In your photos it's very different to a contrail: A) it starts at a point on the plane, and B) it is not shooting backwards at 2000 mph, so has visually a very different initial turbulent flow.

You have not shown a photo of cloud seeding that looks like a contrail.

Both of your points use the plane itself for your cue.

My second point used the start of the trail. Every single thing we can see in those photos looks different to a contrail.

This was the original question:

Let me give you an example.

A photo is posted of "clouds," all in straight lines across the sky, all at a relatively low altitude, and there are no planes to be seen.

Poster "A" says "Contrails!"

Poster "B" says "Chemtrails!"


How in the hell can you tell the difference just by looking?

Like I told the poster above....


The only reason I showed pictures that include the planes, is because otherwise you would question whether or not it was cloud seeding in the first place!!!!

So you've totally failed to show a photo of cloud seeding that looks like a contrail.

Every photo of cloud seeding either of us know to exist looks nothing like contrails.

Sure, maybe there are secret trails that look like contrails but are not. But you've not shown any evidence of any. And no, we would not be able to tell the difference by looking.

Normal cloud seeding though, we can tell the difference - unless you have a photo?

Originally posted by Hijaqd
It is pretty easy to define the difference, they DO look similar.

Contrails, the result of the aircraft heating the atmosphere around it, are trails of vapor that are visible trailing off the wingtips of the aircraft, being vapor caused by the friction in the air, they dissipate as the temperature returns back to it's previous state and as a result you will still see the aircraft that produced them as they disappear.

That is one type of contrail.

another is when the hydrocarbon fuel is burned, creating large amounts of water, which freezes in the atmosphere behind the aircraft. Depending upon atmospheric conditions (primarily temperature and relative humidity) this will disperse over tiem - AFAIK the longest known time is 17 hours.

Chemtrails, the result of the aircraft releasing chemicals into the atmosphere, typically hang in the air for quite some time and do not dissipate as easily since it is an added ingredient not already present in the atmosphere.

Plenty of chemicals do disperse quickly though - for example those used for airshow visibility trails, cloud seeding, even rocket trails.

which ones do not disperse quickly?

So contrails, disappear while the aircraft is still present. Chemtrails hang for hours to days after the aircraft has passed.

Easily proven untrue - clouds are water vapour at low level or ice crystals at higher altitude and hang around for hours, so why shouldn't contrails that are also almost entirely water crystals do the same if conditions are right?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Didums boo hoo - you got the comments exactly about the photos you provided - you provide photos with planes, you get comments about photos with planes.

Then you admit you wouldn't be able to tell them apart from contrails if the planes had already passed?

dunno - why don't you show me some and we can find out?

I did mention that there was 1 visual aspect to the trails that was completely different to contrails - you ignored it of course, but I'm used to that

I believe the photos above of cloud seeding were actually using the CO2 method - meaning they would very quickly dissipate in a blue sky.

Cloud seeding using silver iodide and acetone looks more like this:

www.abc.net.au...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/41dda927fbdf.jpg[/atsimg]

So no trail.

With silver iodide flares it's more like:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a8f7a5666f61.jpg[/atsimg]

So a bit of extra smoke, which would likely dissipate as quickly as smoke does.

There is zero to suggest any of these techniques would ever produce a trail that looks anything like a persistent contrail.

reply to post by weedwhacker


and there are many other scientific advances that are talked about, and others that aren't

they talk about planes and jets everyday, but not the secret ones. Helicopters too. there are many techs that are openly discussed, at certain levels, and kept secret at others.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by adeclerk
Congrats, you successfully have framed an argument in such a way that you were correct on a certain aspect of it. Still wrong about the 'chemtrails', though.

You mean still wrong about calling chemicals dumped into the air in an effort to manipulate weather patterns, a chemtrail?
That must be some fine line you're drawing.

Part of the problem is that you insist on referring to cloud seeding as "dumped into the air," when that is an inaccurate representation. It fits with your unstated agenda and internal beliefs, but not with the mechanics of cloud seeding.

Planes do not "dump" anything into the "air" for weather modification (i.e., cloud seeding).

You've been to the sites, others have provided pictures of planes, flares and rockets. You know that silver iodide is
NOT "dumped into the air," but injected directly into cumulus (low-altitude, rain-producing) clouds.

Your allegation that China admits to "dumping chemtrails" is false, and you know it.
Your assertion that cloud seeding chemicals are "dumped into the air " is false and you know it.
Your allusion to cloud seeding as "chemtrails" is false, and you know it.

What are you really trying to accomplish? (As if I gave a rat's ass.)

Deny ignorance.

jw

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by bsbray11
I couldn't find any taken from the ground. Maybe you'll have better luck looking than me? Or will you even try to find one?

I've tried to find one for several hours in the past.

So I guess pictures of verified cloud seeding from the ground are pretty rare, apparently.

My second point used the start of the trail.

After it's been out of the plane for a few seconds you wouldn't be able to notice your second observation anymore.

Every single thing we can see in those photos looks different to a contrail.

I don't agree with that. It's a white cloud, that looks exactly like a contrail. Depending on different atmospheric conditions and altitudes it can even take on different characteristics, just like contrails. And after it's out of the plane, and you are photographing after the fact, all the cues you just used to tell it was cloud seeding, would be gone. It would be indistinguishable.

Originally posted by jdub297
Part of the problem is that you insist on referring to cloud seeding as "dumped into the air," when that is an inaccurate representation. It fits with your unstated agenda and internal beliefs, but not with the mechanics of cloud seeding.

Planes do not "dump" anything into the "air" for weather modification (i.e., cloud seeding).

Did you see the photos posted on previous thread pages? They show planes that are not in clouds, yet they are spraying/dumping/injecting/shooting/whatever you want to call it, chemicals into the air, and they are leaving trails. Those trails are indistinguishable from contrails after the planes have left the area.

Your allegation that China admits to "dumping chemtrails" is false, and you know it.

Not according to the article in the OP that says they were putting chemicals into the atmosphere for weather modification purposes. They also used trucks on the ground, armed like anti-tank rockets. If you don't like the word "dumping" then big deal, call it whatever you want.

Your assertion that cloud seeding chemicals are "dumped into the air " is false and you know it.

For the same reasons.... above... nope. You have this article, you have photos of planes not in clouds (albeit not in China) dumping cloud-seeding chemicals... I mean I don't really know where you're getting this crap that 'it's false and I know it.'

I have heard a lot of people talking about these innocent and easily explainable 'contrails' being water vapor that CAN hang in the air for hours because of atmospheric conditions, just like clouds do.

Let's go with that theory a minute. With the grid patterns of these 'vapor trails' from jets all over the US expanding into what the debunkers are comparing to clouds (as the contrailers insist on comparing them to), wouldn't that still bring us to a problem? That's a heck of a lot of water vapor....How many jets are in our skies at any given time? So either way, whether those grids in the sky are chemtrails or contrails, as the debunkers keep insisting, they are indeed creating clouds with airliners, right? The debunkers have all but admitted it in all of these threads.

I mean we would be talking about an almost incomprehensible amount of 'water vapor' being released from jet exhaust and a heck of a lot of clouds. Ya think that just might affect weather patterns? Ya think maybe it would add to the humidity and dew point already in the atmosphere on humid days and cause monsoonal downpours/flooding? Gees, I thought this was basic science, you know the water cycle?

If debunkers are claiming that this much water vapor is being released into the atmosphere every single day, 24 hours a day, they may want to think of diverting flights over high humidity/dew point areas. You know, the water cycle? But these are probably the same people who swore that there was no way COREXIT would make it into the water cycle. They all believe the convenient truth. How about some pics of COREXIT being sprayed over the gulf and we throw those into the comparison as well. After all, we KNOW chemicals were being sprayed out of those planes, don't we?

I'm trying to imagine right now how much water vapor I would have to spray into the air to cause a trail in the sky four to five times bigger than the stream of mist I was spraying, even in a cold, thin atmosphere. So tell me, debunkers, how much 'water vapor' would you have to expel into the air to create clouds? What debunkers are admitting here by comparing contrails to clouds is that they are indeed creating the clouds, albeit inadvertently.

Further more, I would suggest that the comparison between contrails, chemtrails and exhaust from a car is ridiculous. Pretty sure the accepted law is gravity. My car's exhaust isn't falling onto grass, plants, tress, oceans from several thousand feet in the air, and again my car's exhaust does not produce a trail that lingers in the air for hours, no matter what temperature or altitude I have been, although I admit I have never driven my car at 30,000 feet

Anyway, something to think about.

reply to post by indigo25

I would suggest that the comparison between contrails, chemtrails and exhaust from a car is ridiculous. Pretty sure the accepted law is gravity. My car's exhaust isn't falling onto grass, plants, tress, oceans from several thousand feet in the air, and again my car's exhaust does not produce a trail that lingers in the air for hours, no matter what temperature or altitude I have been, although I admit I have never driven my car at 30,000 feet

Have a guess what this is from:



Car exhaust.

Do you get this from chemtrails or contrails?

Originally posted by Chadwickus
Have a guess what this is from:
...
Car exhaust.

Not that I don't think car exhaust is bad in its own right (and I've seen worse in photos and videos from places in California and India) but that has to also be including some industrial smog (looks like its over the West side of Manhattan but maybe I'm mistaken) and possibly even the weather conditions. Do you have a link for that pic or something?

reply to post by bsbray11


Pulled it from wikipedia page on smog.

It's taken from the WTC looking over Brooklyn bridge, 1988.

Weather does play a big part in smog formation and length of lingering.

And just to throw this up there, I know it's kinda off topic of cloud seeding but it is interesting to see...

upload.wikimedia.org...

This is a pair of photos taken in Beijing (aka Peking) by me during a trip to the People's Republic of China in August 2005. I was in Beijing twice over a period of a week and a half, both times at the same hotel and in approximately the same room. The photo on the right was taken during a sunny, otherwise clear day on my first visit. The photo on the left was on my second visit, after it had rained for approximately 2 days. Both of these photos were taken in the morning around the 07:00-08:00 hour. The difference is staggering. I can say that during the day that I took the photo on the right, the air made walking around (and I did for miles) rather difficult.

Where do you suppose the smog went when it rained?

reply to post by Chadwickus


Well, I would use your same debunking theory against you....Prove it. Prove that the smog/pollution in the photo you just posted can be directly correlated to car exhaust. Prove that it's not a combination of both air traffic pollution and car exhaust. Can you bring me a sample in a container? Have you had this tested in a lab and can post the results on this thread proving that those are auto emissions alone? I am assuming that in a close vicinity to these photos there is air traffic? I also made a lot of points in my post, but you responded to only one, the fairly insignificant one. Seems to be a habit with debunkers. They tend not to want to touch the most valid points. They could easily be accused of seeing only what they want to see and ignoring the evidence, the claim they so diligently place onto the other side.

Didn't take long for some VERY pissed off people to reply..What's wrong? All I know is, when I was lil growing up, those criss cross lines in the sky were not there. What they are i'm not sure. But they were not there before.


Deebo

reply to post by indigo25


So you're denying that car exhaust doesn't contribute to smog?

And no, you're not using my techniques against me.

What I've asked for in the past is actually obtainable, what you're asking of me is not, the photo is 23 years old, of course I can't provide samples of it.

You've also missed my pointy completely, smog, be it from car exhaust, factory emissions, or bush fires can affect the health of people on the ground, it's all impossible to miss when it's round.

So, why don't we see this when chemtrails are overhead? You're saying gravity is at work here, yet you can see the chemtrail still in the sky and not on the ground...

Have you bothered to ask yourself why?