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 these chemtrials or contrails?

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 03:51 AM
The obvious point the 'Chemtrail' cult tends to overlook, is that contrails persist in conditions that are conducive to cloud formation. As you would expect from dumping large quantities of water vapour into an area ripe for clouds to form. Naturally therefore, as well as the contrails persisting and becoming manmade clouds, there is also a good chance that natural clouds will be forming by themselves.

Thus we get these 'amazing proof' pictures where 'OMG, THE CONTRAILS MADE THE ENTIRE DAY CLOUDY!!!1'. Forgetting that the contrails are only persisting because the conditions are suited to cloud formation. They merely give it a jumpstart.

It also isn't an on/off thing, that is one of the big clues that there is no difference between contrails and chemtrails.

There is no clear delineation between contrails and 'chemtrails'. These trails left by aircraft do not form two distinct groups.

Sure if some trails dissipated quickly, and some formed clouds, and all trails fell into one of these two categories, there would be a more solid case for there being a distinct difference. But this is not the case.

What happens to the water vapour being pumped out of the jet engines depends entirely on the atmospheric conditions. At one end of the range we have the case that if the air is dry enough it will dissipate almost immediately, forming no discernable trail at all. At the other end of the range we have the most ripe cloud forming conditions. Conditions where clouds would form anyway, the contrails merely give it an additional boost of water and a gets it all off to a good start.


That seems to be what everyone forgets. The example pictures we are always shown are either no contrails, or cloud forming. The contrails can do anything in between. They might hang around a little, while, or a long while yet still dissipate. They might only just hang around and become wispy clouds. They might hang around and become clouds, and become a nucleus for bigger clouds. Yet there isn't quite enough moisture in the air to become overcast. If there is enough overflights, these clouds could eventually join and end up becoming cloud cover. Here is the real concern about excessive contrails, but I'll come back to that.

You see, there is no clear distinction that would seperate contrails from 'chemtrails'. Everything that the cultists claim are symptoms of 'chemtrails' are exactly what we would expect from contrails in the given conditions.

Now, to come back to the real concern about excessive contrails. The real concern is in cases where there is very heavy traffic, on major routes and near major airports. There is concern that the average amount of sunlight reaching the surface is dropping because of the sheer amount of water being dumped into the atmosphere above them. While it might only be extremely slight, this does lead to an overall increase in the amount of cloudy days, turning days that might have only had a slight amount of cloud cover into overcast days, and so forth. The deeper ramifications of this are still unknown, they may be nothing, they may not. But they do need to be looked at and dealt with if it is found to be a problem. Meanwhile running around like chicken little with no particular reason to do so will not help anything.

posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 06:35 AM
Why are they called "contrails"?

Because they are trails made by the condensation of the water vapour in the air.
The picture that showed the trails being made by the tips of the wings reminded me of what can be seen with a Formula 1 car.
Today there is a race in Spa, where almost every year rains, and probably we will see little plumes of condensation on the sides of the back wing of the cars.
As the temperature and air pressure are not the same as at 10000 m, the condensation plumes do not reach a point where they can stay in the air, but dissipate as quickly as the pressure of wing against the humid air at 300+ Km/h disappears.

There is one good way to see if something is a contrail or a chemtrail: go there and get a sample.

posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 06:33 PM
Photographic evedence of chemtrails might not be that convincing.
But when you watch for over 2 hours aircraft fying across the sky back and forth creating a chequerboard pattern of con/chem-trails you would have no doubt something is going on.
I've seen this on 2 different occasions in Califronia.
Both times 2 white A/C, one going east/west the other north/south.
Working together back and forth across the sky untill it was coverd in trails that disapated and formed clouds.
I don't think they're trying to poison us, it's probably something to do with weather control.

posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 10:34 PM
Chemtrails? How about wasteofyourtimetrails?

Lots of air traffic anymore so on days where the conditions are right, I think you could see clear days become hazy or overcast. Those days should be perfect days for someone to "get a sample". Can't they use some kind of spectrometer and see what the chemical makeup of the clouds are from the gound?...Wouldn't some hint of a foreign substance show up in this?

To me this whole chemtrail thing should be easy to prove and on front page news if it was real.

posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 12:00 AM
I agree with Howard Roark. They are contrails at dusk. Pretty.
Can't be chemtrails. Enviromentalists would be up in a furor if they were.

[edit on 1/9/04 by Intelearthling]

posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 12:40 AM
I remember, that there was a report issued that the lack of air traffic after 9/11 actually changed weather throughout the US. This was do, in part, to the lack of contrails the planes make during regualr flight. Cant remember specifics though.

posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 02:11 AM
I do not think there are such things as chemtrails but anyways, I did happen to come across these pictures.

posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 04:17 PM
I'm pretty sure the top one is a fuel dump.

The bottom one is the waste vent.

posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 04:56 PM
It's safe to say that chemtrails don't exist. After reading a post on chemtrails that contained 20+ pages of arguments it appears that Howard won. Good job on keeping these chemies straight.

posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 12:07 AM
Why are you guys so quicke to say chem trails don't exist?
Do you have some stake in keeping them quiete or something?
Do you know something the rest of us don't?
Do you have contact with aliens who are telling you everything?
Does God talk to you?
Do you talk to yourself?
I'd like to know what you know.
C'mon spill the beans, these aircraft just fly around all day creating chequerboard patterns of CONtrails because they have access fuel they need to get rid of because they got more comming and need to make room, right? jeez!
Open your mind and be sceptical, or close your mind and be ignorant.

posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 01:17 AM
By denying ignorance we prove something to be true or false. To blindly believe that any long lasting contrail from an aircraft is a chemtrail would be ignorant.

Howard asked for proof. We have the scientific information for why and how contrails form and persist. Now we ask for the scientific proof of at least 1 of those contrails being a chemtrail. Thus denying ignorance.

posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 01:45 AM
These so called chemtrails do not act the same way in the air as regular contrails do. You can't realy tell from a picture, it's something you have to watch as it happens over period of time to really see how different they are. I've seen this being done, on two occations.
I was also an aircraft engine mechanic in the Navy, so I've seen a lot of contrails in many different places and situations. Land and sea.

Who's knows what they're doing, some say it's an atemp to cool the earth down. You know because of global warming, loss of ozone layer, all that other weirdo conspiricy stuff

It could be something totaly innocent.

All I say is something is going on and it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

[edit on 2-9-2004 by ANOK]

posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 01:54 AM
Please re-read Kano's post. He explains some of the science behind persistent contrails.

Nobody is trying to win or lose. I believe things are being sprayed. There were articles in the paper in the Twin Cities talking about it years ago. But just looking up in the sky and seeing a persistent contrail that spreads out does not mean its a chemtrail.

To me, its not a stale-mate as you say. I am skeptical, but open to all possibilities. I just ask that opinions be proved before they are shoved down my throat.

posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 01:59 AM
as I'm not a pro in the Chem-Contrail field but this is one resone I believe we are being sprayed not to mention watching them checkerboard the sky
anyway Barium has been found, well this is what has been claimed to be in the air from Chemtrail


A series of qualitative chemical tests and deductions now confirm without doubt the presence of significant amounts of barium within atmospheric samples. Citizens may now begin the process of collecting the sample materials for formal submission to public environmental agencies and private labs for identification. The testing process can be done at modest expense and the results from laboratory analysis can now be qualitatively and independently verified without great difficulty. Any testing service employed will need to be able to demonstrate no vested interest in the outcome of the results, accuracy of method, and the willingness to have the testing process independently monitored.
The material under analysis has been collected by a plate ionizing filter; it may also be collected with conventional fiber filtration over a longer period of time. HEPA filter collection and subsequent electrolysis of the filter material placed in distilled water has also proven successful. Extended time periods may be required to collect a sufficient volume of material for electrolytic processing and external testing preferences. Readers are referred to previous articles1,2 for two methods of collection. The use of electrolysis is significant in producing a final compound for testing purposes. The solid materials (powder/ crystals) collected by the plate ionizing filter, assuming they satisify the test procedures described on this page, will be sufficient for laboratory analysis. Qualitative chemical tests and flame tests positively establish the significant presence of barium compounds within the atmospheric sample.

Barium Oxide

Safety (MSDS) data for barium oxide (anhydrous)

Synonyms: barium monoxide
Molecular formula: BaO
CAS No: 1304-28-5
EC No:
Physical data
Appearance: white to cream powder
Melting point: 1923 C
Boiling point:
Vapour density:
Vapour pressure:
Density (g cm-3): 5.72
Flash point:
Explosion limits:
Autoignition temperature:
Water solubility: appreciable

Stable. Incompatible with strong acids, water. Protect from moisture.
Ingestion is harmful, and chronic exposure may lead to damage of CNS, spleen, liver, kindey or bone marrow. Harmful if inhaled. Contact with skin or eyes may lead to severe irritation or burns. Respiratory irritant. Typical TLV/TWA 0.5 mg m-3.
Toxicity data
(The meaning of any abbreviations which appear in this section is given here.)
SCU-MUS LD50 50 mg kg-1
Risk phrases
(The meaning of any risk phrases which appear in this section is given here.)
Transport information
Personal protection
Safety glasses, good ventilation.
Safety phrases
(The meaning of any safety phrases which appear in this section is given here.)
[Return to Physical & Theoretical Chemistry Lab. Safety home page.]

This information was last updated on August 29, 2003. We have tried to make it as accurate and useful as possible, but can take no responsibility for its use, misuse, or accuracy. We have not verified this information, and cannot guarantee that it is up-to-date.
Data for Barium oxide

mix Barium Oxide with water and you get Barium Hydroxide


1. Product Identification
Synonyms: Barium hydroxide octahydrate; barium hydrate; barium hydroxide, 8-hydrate
CAS No.: 17194-00-2 (Anhydrous) 12230-71-6 (Octahydrate)
Molecular Weight: 315.47
Chemical Formula: Ba(OH)2.8H2O
Product Codes:
J.T. Baker: 1006
Mallinckrodt: 3772, H425

2. Composition/Information on Ingredients

Ingredient CAS No Percent Hazardous
--------------------------------------- ------------ ------------ ---------

Barium Hydroxide 17194-00-2 90 - 100% Yes

3. Hazards Identification
Emergency Overview

J.T. Baker SAF-T-DATA(tm) Ratings (Provided here for your convenience)
Health Rating: 3 - Severe (Life)
Flammability Rating: 0 - None
Reactivity Rating: 1 - Slight
Contact Rating: 2 - Moderate
Storage Color Code: Blue (Health)

Potential Health Effects

Inhalation of dust cause irritation to the nose, throat, and respiratory tract. Symptoms include sore throat, coughing, and shortness of breath. Systemic poisoning may occur in sensitive individuals with symptoms similar to those of ingestion.
A systemic poison that competes with potassium in the nervous system. Causes severe irritation of the gastrointestinal tract, tightness in the muscles of the face and neck, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, muscular tremors, anxiety, weakness, labored breathing, cardiac irregularity, convulsions, and death from cardiac and respiratory failure. Estimated lethal dose lies between 1 to 15 grams. Death may occur within hours or up to a few days. May cause kidney damage.
Skin Contact:
Solutions are strongly alkaline, highly irritating and may cause burns.
Eye Contact:
Dusts cause eye irritation. Solutions may cause burns and damage.
Chronic Exposure:
No information found.
Aggravation of Pre-existing Conditions:
Persons with pre-existing skin and nervous system disorders or impaired respiratory or kidney function may be more susceptible to the effects of this substance.

[edit on 2-9-2004 by Sauron]

posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 02:33 AM
Here is a thought and think of this logically, Why would a Chemtrail stay around longer in the air? If the government was actually letting a chemical go in the atmosphere, wouldnt they want it to spread out and dissipate into the atmosphere quickly? What is the sense of dropping a chemical if it stays in the air a long time??

Now some people will say its meant to help the ozone. ok GREAT! FANTASTIC! help the ozone! I know that if I was to do something to help the common good of man then I would want to take some credit for it! some of you are really trying to tell me that there trying to repair the ozone or control weather and then they do not want people to know that they are trying to help? That is really naive to think that!
I am one person who will try to find the truth about things before I say they are not real, but there is no reason to produce a chemical that remains in the sky and in relatively small trails if it is meant to do something to the public or the anything on the planets surface for that matter.

If you want to lay a chemical over a certain area, you want it to dissipate and drop fairly quickly to cover the area that is trying to be covered. Example: a crop duster doesn't just fly over a field in a general large area in hopes that it covers the particular field. It goes closer to the area and make sure it covers what it needs to!

posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 11:36 AM
In response to the carnicom article about barium:

Carnicom's Barium Conclusion Found in Error
Interesting note about the spectroscopic analysis...

When Clifford Carnicom directs his spectroscope skyward, he receives light emissions, which the spectroscope, using a prism, breaks up into it's different component wavelengths. His observations are presented in tabular form here. He says that he has detected wavelengths specific to the element barium(Ba) at these wavelengths and intensities:

516 nanometers- intensity not shown
578 nanometers- intensity not shown
712 nanometers- intensity of 2400
728 nanometers- intensity of 3000


Examination of the known barium emission wavelengths in the database shows distinct peaks at the following:

455 nanometers- intensity of 65,000
493 nanometers -intensity of 20,000
614 nanometers -intensity of 20,000
649 nanometers -intensity of 12,000

These emissions are shown graphically here. In the graphic for barium, note that the spectra specific for barium includes different wavelengths, denoted by color, and intensity, noted by width of the lines. Specifically, note that the broadest line for barium is known to be at 455 nanometers and an intensity of 65,000(broadest dark green line), and the highest wavelengths are shown at 712 and 728 nanometers(narrow red lines at right).

If in fact barium were detected at Santa Fe at the relatively faint intensity of 2400-3000, the much more intense peaks at 455, 493, 614, and 649 should be detected as well, since their intensities are from 65,000 to 20,000. For this reason, the spectroscopic data displayed by Clifford Carnicom DOES NOT show barium at all, and in fact shows quite the opposite, barium is not detected.

Interesting, barium is not in the sample? This is one of the reason why you want to get as many conclusions on a subject as possible, standard scientific practice.

In conclusion, Clifford Carnicom has been shown to be in error in his conclusion that his spectroscopic analysis affirms or confirms the presence of barium in the air over Santa Fe, New Mexico. Large amounts of barium are naturally found in the soils of the US southwest, including the Santa Fe area. Large amounts of barium are emitted by industries across the US and specifically in States to the windward of Santa Fe, New Mexico, such as Arizona and Nevada.

Also, some more info about barium from Handbook of Chemistry and Physics

Barium is emitted into the atmosphere mainly by the industrial processes involved in the mining, refining, and production of barium and barium based chemicals and as a result of combustion of coal and oil.

Have there been any tests immediatly after a "chem"trail has been sprayed? For instance, the trail itself?

Also, DrpKeeGTZ makes a great point. Spraying a chemical to get to the population, you would want a quickly dispersing trail, something that falls to the ground quickly. Hey wait, maybe these trails we are seeing are the true contrails, and the quickly disappearing ones are the chemtrails!!!! AAHHHH Run for the hills!!!!

Between what science says about cloud forming and condensation, and what industry does on a yearly basis, I still see nothing that lends credit to chemtrails.

posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 03:03 PM

Originally posted by Sauron
as I'm not a pro in the Chem-Contrail field but this is one resone I believe we are being sprayed not to mention watching them checkerboard the sky
anyway Barium has been found, well this is what has been claimed to be in the air from Chemtrail

You only hurt your argument by quoting anything from Carnicom. This is a man who gave himself a home root canal!!!

Seriously. Carnicoms so called scientific analysis has more holes than the Chicago Bears defensive line.

His methodology is sloppy and kitchen sink at best. He makes no effort to establish controls or test for cross contamination, his conclusions are not supported by his data, his QA/QC is non-existent. I could go on and on. The thing is, he could have a sample (water, filter media etc) analyzed at an independent laboratory using proven, acceptable methods (Atomic Absorption) for a relatively low fee (~$30.00 to $40.00 per sample), but he doesnt. I wonder why.

No, I know why, it is because he doesnt really want to know that he has wasted the better part of the last 5 years chasing a hoax.

posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 04:48 PM

Originally posted by crayon
Please re-read Kano's post. He explains some of the science behind persistent contrails.

Nobody is trying to win or lose. I believe things are being sprayed. There were articles in the paper in the Twin Cities talking about it years ago. But just looking up in the sky and seeing a persistent contrail that spreads out does not mean its a chemtrail.

To me, its not a stale-mate as you say. I am skeptical, but open to all possibilities. I just ask that opinions be proved before they are shoved down my throat.

Wow you must have read my reply right as I posted it. 2 mins later after re-reading your post I edited it.
I read Kano's post, prooves nothing to me. Contrails are not formed the way clouds are, pls re-read my post on how contrials are formed.
And then read Saurons post.
I agree not all trials you see in the sky are chemtrails. Just the ones that are done in an obvious patern by usualy 2 aircraft over a period of time.
Nobody is shoving anything down anybody's throat, (except our government hehe) just asking you'all to be more open minded about this.
During WWII there were Germans who refused to believe the rumours that their government were exterminating people (some didn't know the truth till the war was over).
Some things are hard to prove unless you see them for yourself.
How about you go out and try to disprove this for yourself instead of trying to get people to prove it for you.
Just because it can't be proved here on a website forum doesn't mean it's not happening.

posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 05:47 PM
Howard, I fail to see how a man who gave himself a home root canal is somehow crazy? You know, there are alot of people in the US a little pissed off about the ridiculous costs of health and dental, and often choose or opt for home proceedures, as home medicine is becoming quite popular.

Back to the subject. We had a spate of chemtrails over the skies here in the northwest. The weather conditions were hot, we were held by a high pressure system, the sky and air were bone dry. The only clouds were these weird trails that formed intercrossed whips. The got wide, the lingered well past dusk. They were doing them for a few days. Not a friggin cloud or weather system commin our way.

I have seen enough contrials to know what they look like. Up here, for starters, they almost always follow the same are in the sky. They follow the flightpaths commonly seen from Mc Chord airbase and Sea Tac airport. I watch them being made, the jet producing it. They pretty much follow an angular path.

When you see the planes flying around in a whip type formation, then it looks pretty odd. Under conditions not right for cloud formation.

But I have a better question. And I am seriously looking for a good answer. Why do some planes form the trails, others dont, when observed flying about during the same day, same altitude? i have observed plenty of planes take off from Mc Chord. Some create the trails. Some dont. And often, Ill see alot of trails created from Mc Chord, but none comming from Sea Tac. Id like to know the explaination for that.

If they are indeed chemtrails, Id bet its weather modification. Remeber when they used to experiment with dry ice, to form clouds, to help bring rain in drought areas?

The whole west has suffered a draught, perhaps they are experimenting with some new form of drought relief, artifical cloud formations and such.

I think the best form of evidence to support either side would be a movie picture of it being made, showing how the plane flies, how long the trail sits there, and even show other planes in the area for comparison. if anyone has a digital movie cam that can make a moving picture, do show. it would certainly setlle some questions.

posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 05:52 PM
Why is this posted under Aliens & Ufo's?
Everybody knows thse chemtrails are a government funded program. What they're spraying for, I dont know.
Maybe this is how they are getting folks to vote for Bush.

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in