You can call them chemtrails or contrails but what is that thing flying between them?

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


So Aloysius have you ever gone to therapy for your problem with denial? The actual evidence is posted all over this website. Just cause you deny it does not mean it doesn't exist. Do you have any actual evidence they are just contrails?

Here's a good webpage with a lot of chmetrail evidence
The Blanket Effect

Here's a document that details the cost and possible method of delivery
Aurora Report

reply to post by luxordelphi

.....the mysterious non-trailing orbish item.

The "orbish" appearance is what happens when a poor quality digital video is taken of an airplane that is a long, long distance away. It is the failure of the pixels to resolve, because it is beyond their ability to discern detail, at that distance.

You can research how this works....there i also the added problem of image compression and further loss of detail when a video is uploaded to YouTube.

Hop on over to the "Aliens and UFOs" forum, to get an education on all things related to the limitations of digital video photography.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

So Aloysius have you ever gone to therapy for your problem with denial? The actual evidence is posted all over this website. Just cause you deny it does not mean it doesn't exist. Do you have any actual evidence they are just contrails?

Here's a good webpage with a lot of chmetrail evidence
The Blanket Effect

And this isn't even contrails -

That's where the Western Kansas Weather Modification Program and other cloud-seeding operations across the western U.S. come in. The WKWMP is among about 10 programs that tinker with the weather — either by trying to cut the size of hail or boost rainfall and snowpack. They do it largely by shooting up storm clouds with silver iodide or dry ice mixtures.

Is this what you consider proof that chemtrails exist??? Cloud seeding - are you back to saying hat persistent contrails from airliners are cloud seeding??

Here's a document that details the cost and possible method of delivery
Aurora Report

Well done Matty - you are right - if someone wanted to do "it" they could possibly do it like this.

Got any actual evidence that anyone actually is doing this??

Originally posted by adeclerk

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

Sham doesn't mean unofficial, it means false, ie lying. You posted a quote, I posted something that proved that quote to be a lie. If that offends you then it shows you aren't interested in truth.

So thats that then.

Why do "chemtrail" supporters get mad at debunkers for pointing out actual facts and inconsistencies, but not at the charlatans who are lying to them about "chemtrails"?

Hi...you got 3 stars for name calling. Off-topic namecalling. Let me swing you back in the right (on-topic) direction - go to the video in the opening OP and view the two trails. Here's some name calling for you: cirrus aviaticus. That's what those clouds are called. In jet-talk they're persistant contrails. In cloud talk (meterology) they're cirrus aviaticus. In all other talk they're 'what's that??!!' It is sad that people become so desensitized to anamolies that are seen everyday, not only in the sky but in TV skies and internet skies and magazine advertising skies that it's all so normal we can even name a cloud after them and go on our virtual way.

reply to post by luxordelphi


I thought it had been well covered on here why they are called cirrus aviaticus? They are cirrus clouds (in all respects) but they were promulgated by aviation activity, hence cirrus aviaticus. Why do you find that disturbing or suspicious? Do you think that cirrus clouds generally are threatening in some way?

I gave my own thoughts on the video earlier.

And you didn't yet get round to explaining why a scanned Paper database going back a century is not a credible source and also what it is about pro-Chemtrail sources that mean they are credible, or at least moreso, would you care to respond?

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by luxordelphi


Yours is bigger than mine? Give it a rest. Websites etc. on the internet are proof of nothing.

There are physical books too, lots of them. That issue of Flight can probably be found in a library somewhere. Or on eBay. But there are hundred or similar examples, printed on decades old paper.

I like history. I like etymology. I like ancient documents. I also like the moment. I like looking up. You never know what you'll see. I don't like constructed construed chains of events in order to explain a current anomaly. Terms, names, labels, useages develop in cultures through languages in a natural sort of rythm. This one, the one you're proposing, stinks. It's not right. There's something contrived about it. It was artificially constructed in order to explain observational evidence. It doesn't flow. It sticks. There's more to this story and alot of people have passed beyond 'what's that?' to 'what's it for?'

reply to post by luxordelphi



Is that a 'no' then?

reply to post by waynos

Did you read that? the bit above? Correct me if Im wrong but are you suggesting Flight spent time going back through 100+ years of paper copy manually inserting fake chemtrail debunking?

That's an interesting thought but no it wasn't mine. I'm an Ian Fleming fan and I don't believe in coincidence. My questions here would be: why now? And, how convenient. Persistant Contrails are pretty words and they seem to say something and seem to explain something but, frankly, their definition has no resemblance to the reality I see in the skies. This is my dilemma but thank you for your concern.

reply to post by luxordelphi


I'm surprised you don't see anything in the skies that LOOKS LIKE a "persistent contrail" - not even anything that looks like what a persistent contrail might look like if, just for the sake of the discussion, they existed??

Again just for the sake of discussion, if a contrail did persist, what is it you think it would look like that is different from what it is you do see? Surely it would be a white line that sticks around for a while?? (Ignoring whether or not it might spread out, again for the sake of the discussion)

But isn't that also exactly what "chemtrails" look like?? Long white lines that stick around?? If that is the case then surely you HAVE seen "something" that "looks like" a "persistent contrail" - it's just that you believe it is not actually a contrail at all??

And before you or anyone else starts accusing me of playing word games - remember this is in response to your words about terminology......

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Websites etc. on the internet are proof of nothing. .

So what evidence do you have of chemtrails that isn't on or hasn't come via a website??

I have dogs. Everyday I take them out any number of times and while we're out, I look up. So to answer your question that would be visual evidence. I'll add tactile - globs fell from the sky. I'm in no way discrediting all the subsequent dis-information I've received from websites in my quest to answer the question, 'what is that?'

reply to post by luxordelphi


What exactly is the coincidence? What precisely do you mean by this and the phrase 'why now?'

If you can clarify what you are referring to then it might provide an opportunity for a two way conversation because the post I am replying to and the one before it do smack of obfuscation. You have typed quite a bit without referring to anything at all directly.

This may be no more than an oversight on your part, or it may be a manifestation of having nothing solid or supportable to say. I leave it with you to demonstrate which it is.


I don't want a video or a link I am asking, nicely, for you to explain your viewpoint to me so that even if I am going to disagree with you, I a least know where your coming from.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
It was artificially constructed in order to explain observational evidence.

Much of language was "artificially constructed in order to explain observational evidence". Should we just pick arbitrary names for everything? Instead of contrail (condensation trail, another artificially created name), we should just call them bonoboos? Or kiriaki?

Descriptive names exist because the things exists. Windshield? Brake? Headrest? All artifically constructed names. Great Falls, Montana? Cedar Rapids? Lands End? What's the problem exactly?

And what definition of persistent contrail are you using?

Originally posted by luxordelphi

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Websites etc. on the internet are proof of nothing. .

So what evidence do you have of chemtrails that isn't on or hasn't come via a website??

I have dogs. Everyday I take them out any number of times and while we're out, I look up. So to answer your question that would be visual evidence.

Fair enough. So you see white lines - do your eyes also tell you what hte a/c are, what is generating the white lines, what they consist of?

I'll add tactile - globs fell from the sky.

As they do from time to time - do you get samples, and show that they come from a/c, etc??

I'm in no way discrediting all the subsequent dis-information I've received from websites in my quest to answer the question, 'what is that?'

not quite sure what that means sorry

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

.....the mysterious non-trailing orbish item.

The "orbish" appearance is what happens when a poor quality digital video is taken of an airplane that is a long, long distance away. It is the failure of the pixels to resolve, because it is beyond their ability to discern detail, at that distance.

You can research how this works....there i also the added problem of image compression and further loss of detail when a video is uploaded to YouTube.

Hop on over to the "Aliens and UFOs" forum, to get an education on all things related to the limitations of digital video photography.

When you're talking photography and pixels you're actually talking about something I know about. Luckily for us, the limitations and potential for error inherent there don't apply to direct observation. Just to be clear: I wasn't trying to infer UFO by calling 'the thing in the middle' an orbish item. That's just what it looks like on the picture. For my part - what riveted me was two planes trailing and one in the middle not trailing and then the trail within a trail - what's that all about? Strange sight for even a persistant contrailer I would think.

reply to post by luxordelphi


Not really strange at all, no. Even a 1,000-foot vertical change can result in the difference between *no* contrail, and *yes* contrail.

When the jets are travelling directly overhead, they are 5 1/2 statute miles (at 30,000 feet) to 7 1/2 SM at 40,000 ft.

So, that 1,000 feet vertical distance (the minimum vertical separation standard nowadays) is very hard to discern at that distance, when talking about an object the size of a commercial airliner.

And as pointed out, in terms of relative speeds, not unusual for them to be approximately "neck and neck" in that brief clip. It was a chance that the videographer captured that moment with the camera, but by no means something out of the ordinary. Many things, and coincidences, can occur when no one is looking or filming.

reply to post by ProudBird


It's even possible they were at the same altitude, and just had different engines.

reply to post by Uncinus


I was judging them (speaking of the three in a "triangle" formation) to be too near each other laterally to be at same altitude.

5 (6 to 10 sometimes) nautical miles lateral separation, in a radar environment is(usually) the minimum outside of terminal area airspace. Distance from the radar antenna makes a difference, though.

Often, Air Traffic Control will sometimes prefer 20 miles for flights "in-trail" of each other along the same course, same altitude....this is usually at the request of a down-line controller if he/she has a lot on his/her 'scope to handle already, so to be better able to accommodate more incoming traffic.

For in-trail along same route, even if at different altitudes, that is compounded for the poor over-loaded controller, if the two airplanes have the same destination...so, action is taken to space them for easier handling. Either by speed restrictions, or radar vectors off course.

No "chemtrail" has ever been shown, supported, or proven to have come out of an airplane. It's hilarious that you have lapped up what the charlatans are selling you, though.

Just an add to the outrage ... are you unaware of how many British have been sprayed? Gulf War syndrome? Agent Orange in world war two? Please watch your absolutes, and don't spread disinformation. Yours, a capable lie.

reply to post by Northwarden


Agent Orange was the Vietnam war, and AFAIK nothing has been shown to be "sprayed" on allied troops in Iraq.

there is no doubt that chemicals get sprayed from aircraft for a variety of purposes - agricultural (incl Agent Orange), fire fighting, air show smoke trails, aerodynamic testing, cloud seeding, etc.

However the "chemtrail" theory is most commonly that what appear to be contrails are actually a secret programme being sprayed by high flying aircraft for some unknown purpose. Most of the high flying a/c are civilian - but there are also parts to this theory that state that those that make chemtrails are actually "fake" wearing civilian markings but operated by some secret agency, and that actually it is only military ones that make chemtrails.

And they are being sprayed worldwide.

Others have tried to prove that chemtrails exist by expanding the definition to include everything that is ever sprayed by an aircraft, regardless of purpose and altitude, secrecy or any other consideration. It doesn't work, because none of those other things look or behave like persistent contrails from high flying jetliners.

waynos: Cirrus aviaticus is a term made up to describe chemtrails. By naming a cloud after them they became more normal and accepted and non-threatening i.e. "Oh, yeah, that's just cirrus aviaticus." Similar to, "Oh, yeah, that's just persistant contrails."

IMHO internet websites are neither credible nor not credible anymore than you, from my perspective, are credible or not credible - just virtual.

Regarding your comments on obfuscation: go outside and look up. Nothing is hidden. It is all perfectly clear.

Aloysius the Gaul: I've seen contrails which we used to call jet exhaust. I've never seen anything like the current skies except in the photo you linked in another thread from WWII skies over Britain.

Dis-information on both sides of the fence is as useful, for different ends, as credible information. That's why I don't discredit it.

Uncinus: Regarding your statements on how language is artificially constructed: you're kidding right? You're going to tell me you don't have a vested interest in getting the term contrail and persistent contrail into common useage?

ProudBird: You assume that those are the heighths and speeds and distances from the observer of those planes because that is what fits with your theory. I'm not assuming that.