Chem trails photographed tonight with long exposure over Northern Austin

page: 2
38
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 


Nobody here denies the existence of contrails. They have been a common sight since I was a kid in the early 60s.

Contrails behave different than chemtrails, the jets spray them at a lower elevation, and I have seen them start spraying, and then stop, something a contrail doesn't do.

Here is a webpage with a list of patents related to chemtrail spraying: www.lightwatcher.com...

This page includes such gems as:

Method and apparatus for altering a region in the earth's atmosphere, ionosphere, and/or magnetosphere United States Patent 4,686,605 / Eastlund / August 11, 1987



NASA: BARIUM - Chemical Formulas/Suppliers source: gisgaia ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This is the "Description of Preferred Embodiments" link in the NASA Barium Patent listed above. Astounding that this information was generated in l969 and now,30 years later, there is evidence of Barium saturation in our atmosphere. The Barium/Fuel mixtures are listed below along with the suppliers. Description of Preferred Embodiments: Referring now to the drawings and more particularly to FIG. 1, there is shown a segment of a suitable carrier vehicle 10, such for example a rocket motor. Vehicle 10 is employed to carry fuel tank 11, insulated oxidizer tank 13 and combustion chamber 15, along with the necessary instrumentation, from earth into the upper atmosphere or into interplanetary space. Fuel tank 11 is in fluid connection with combustion chamber 15 and oxidizer tank 13 is in fluid connection with combustion chamber 15 by way of respective conduits 17 and 19. A pair of valves 21 and 23 are disposed within the respective conduits 17 and 19. Valves 21 and 23 are adapted to be selectively and simultaneously opened by a suitable battery-powered timing mechanism, radio signal, or the like, to release the pressurized fuel and oxidizer from tanks 11 and 13. The fuel and oxidizer then flow through conduits 17 and 19 and impinge upon each other through a centrally positioned manifold and suitable jets (not shown) in combustion chamber 15 where spontaneous ignition occurs. The reaction products are then expelled through the open ends of combustion chamber 15 as plasma which includes the desired barium neutral atoms and barium ions as individual species. The fuel utilized in fuel tank 11 is either hydrazine (N2 H4) or liquid ammonia (NH3) while the oxidizer employed is selected from the group consisting of liquid fluorine (F2), chlorine trifluoride (ClF3) and oxygen difluoride (OF2). When using hydrazine as the fuel, barium may be dissolved therein as barium chloride, BaCl2, or barium nitrate, Ba(NO3)2, or a combination of the two. When using liquid ammonia as the fuel, barium metal may be dissolved therein. The combination found to produce the highest intensity of Ba° and Ba+ resonance radiation in ground based tests involved a fuel of 16 percent Ba(NO3)2, 17 percent BaCl2 and 67 percent N2 H4 ; and as the oxidizer, the cryogenic liquid fluorine F2 and in which an oxidizer to fuel weight ratio was 1.32. Other combinations of ingredients tested are set forth in Table I below: TABLE I ______________________________________ System Optimum O/F Percent Ionization Calculated ______________________________________ 16.7% BaCl2 - 83.3% N2 H4 /ClF3 2.36 68.0 26% BaCl2 - 74% N2 H4 /ClF3 2.08 70.0 50% Ba(NO3)2 - 50% NH3 /ClF3 1.52 - 42.9% Ba(NO3)2 - 57.1% N2 H4 /ClF3 1.19 50.0 16.7% BaCl2 - 83.3% N2 H4 /F2 1.95 68.8 26% BaCl2 - 74% N2 H4 /F2 1.71 70.6 21% BaCl2 - 9% Ba(NO3)2 - 70% N2 H4 /F2 1.57 68.5 17% BaCl2 - 16% Ba(NO3)2 - 67% N2 H4 /F2 1.31 68.1 13% BaCl2 - 21.5% Ba(NO3)2 - 65.5% N2 H4 /F2 1.34 63.7 9% BaCl2 - 30% Ba(NO3)2 - 61% N2 H4 /F2 1.04 63.7 42.9% Ba(NO3)2 - 57.1% N2 H4 /F2 0.976 43.0 42.9% Ba(NO3)2 - 57.1% N2 H4 /OF2 0.694 46.9 26% BaCL2 - 74% N2 H4 /OF2 1.22 52.8 ______________________________________ The conditions under which each of the combinations listed in Table I were tested were ambient and the percentage ionization was calculated by equations set forth in NASA Contract Report CR-1415 published in August 1969. The chemical supplier and manufacturers stated purity for the various chemicals employed are set forth in Table II below: ______________________________________ Chemical Supplier Purity ______________________________________ N2 H4 Olin Mathieson Chemical Technical Grade Company, Lake Charles, 97-98% N2 H4 Louisiana (2-3% H2 O) NH3



ROCKET HAVING BARIUM RELEASE SYSTEM TO CREATE ION CLOUDS IN THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE United States Patent: - US3813875 / Issued/Filed Dates: June 4, 1974 / April 28, 1972



Laminar microjet atomizer and method of aerial spraying of liquids United States Patent / 4,412,654 Yates / November 1, 1983



Liquid atomizing apparatus for aerial spraying United States Patent / 4,948,050 / Picot




posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 

Your science can "prove" anything, as you should very will know, it depends upon what people choose to believe.
Your science is junk science, and your colleagues don't know #.
How is that Tsurfer? I will trust my sources, thank you very much. And, I will continue to support people that trust their own ability to discern information, make observations, and come to their own conclusions.
You are a troll.

edit on 31-1-2012 by SurrealisticPillow because: Chemtrail lurkers and schmucks



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by SurrealisticPillow
 


Did you say something about crossing planes and contrails....





I'm sorry for you I mean chemtrail...
edit on 31-1-2012 by tsurfer2000h because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by robwerden
 


If your pics are hosted elsewhere, like photobucket or tiny pic for example, you can embed them by adding img tags at either end of he URL.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 

You are polluting the thread.
Your tactics are transparent. You have nothing to add. Move along.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


Care to give us the low down on that favorite pic of yours? What type of plane? Altitude? Humidity?



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by SurrealisticPillow
reply to post by miniatus
 

No, you ARE a troll. You adamantly state that these crisscross lines in the sky are normal, when in fact, I have never in my relatively long life seen the phenomenon.
You are disputing my power to observe and draw conclusions based upon my on research. You pretend to dispute it with science.
There is absolutely NO good reason that all chemtrail threads are polluted by your presence. Obviously, you are failing.



I think it is painfully obvious to anyone with half a brain in this thread that certain shills/trolls are persisting unnaturally long for people without an agenda. Don´t feed the trolls please, thats what they want. I am sure they will find someway to sneak some "debunking" comments in anyway, which just makes it more obvious they have an agenda


Just ignore them. Chemtrails are real, i have seen plenty of evidence of that. Anyone saying otherwise is an obvious troll.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by SurrealisticPillow
 


So far all you have done is insult another member because he disagrees with you, so maybe you should think before you post a comment like this.


I will post what can be of relevancy to this thread and have already so you can contribute anytime you please, thank you....



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by robwerden
 


Curious... in your second photo shown, bottom right about 3/4" above the tree... wonder what that is??? It looks to be far above the contrails... maybe a jet flying 40k or above?



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by SurrealisticPillow
 





Your science is junk science, and your colleagues don't know #.


So you say youtube videos and sites like carnicom and infowars are where you would rather get your info from or maybe rense?


Talk about junk science.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 





Just ignore them. Chemtrails are real, i have seen plenty of evidence of that. Anyone saying otherwise is an obvious troll.


Well then feel free to share this evidence that is out there I am sure you can get rid of debunkers that way. BTW good luck.....



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 

While we may not be certain about its name, function or composition, it could surely at least be termed an unexplained aerial phenomenon. By unexplained I mean explained satisfactorily. It seems to have become progressively worse in the last few years. A ramping-up effect almost.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 


miniatus.... you live next to WP? I luv that place... been there several times... so have you sneaked over the fence and investigated any of those 'purported' secret underground bunkers... lol.. other than the normal utility tunnels I mean...



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Is it at all possible at the Chemtrail believers can debate their viewpoint without trying to bully people who disagree with them out of the threads?

This is not humorous banter, it is cynical and far closer to trolling than anything they are responding to.
edit on 31-1-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by NeoVain
 





Just ignore them. Chemtrails are real, i have seen plenty of evidence of that. Anyone saying otherwise is an obvious troll.


Well then feel free to share this evidence that is out there I am sure you can get rid of debunkers that way. BTW good luck.....


If you had a genuine interest to find this evidence, you would use the search function or google. This thread is not about proving chemtrails to be real. If you do not believe chemtrails to be real, why are you here? That´s right....



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by spoonbender

don't breath the vapors



How would you breath the "vapors" when they are clearly thousands of feet up in the sky and you are on the ground??


To the OP - what is it about these that identifies them as chemtrails?



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 

Has anyone actually seriously tried to research them? I'm not talking about ATS users here. I'm talking government agencies. Given the lies we have been told down the years by our governments, would we believe non-independently verified evidence?

The earth is flat, the stars and planets rotate around the earth, the king is god's representative on earth are just a few of the older ones that come to mind...

ETA Since 9/11 just about all airports worldwide have enjoyed much tighter security on the ground. No one may get close to any thing they don't need to. The substance they are spraying can only be in 2 places as far as I can see. The fuel or some separate tank. Separate tanks would be hard to keep quiet about I think, especially on commercial aircraft. I'm going with the fuel. Possibly not across the board and every gallon but pre-determined for certain flights. The criss-cross patterns don't seem to be logical either. Too...whats the word...? Too...coincidental. Perfect squares everywhere? Or gridlines like a network? Something isn't quite right with this I think.
edit on 31/1/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by robwerden
 


lol Damn! I was thinking JUST THAT on the way home from work this eve. Up around 6pm I looked up and starting thinking about various posts here about chemtrails. Then I get on here and not only are you in Austin as am I, but such the same topic come to mind.


Very cool!



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by FissionSurplus
reply to post by miniatus
 


Nobody here denies the existence of contrails. They have been a common sight since I was a kid in the early 60s.

Contrails behave different than chemtrails, the jets spray them at a lower elevation,


What is the evidence for that??



and I have seen them start spraying, and then stop, something a contrail doesn't do.


That's just silly - of course contrails start and stop - otherwise aircraft would be making them all the time including takeoff and landing!!


Here is a webpage with a list of patents related to chemtrail spraying: www.lightwatcher.com...


Aer there any on there that I did not address in this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Because I went through a long list of so-called "chemtrail patents" showing that many of them were completely irrelevant - devices for spreading seeds for example, or sending radio signals to rockets along their exhaust trails are 2 that spring to mind.

Here's 2 that were in your post:


This page includes such gems as:

Method and apparatus for altering a region in the earth's atmosphere, ionosphere, and/or magnetosphere United States Patent 4,686,605 / Eastlund / August 11, 1987


Nothing to do with aircraft.....


ROCKET HAVING BARIUM RELEASE SYSTEM TO CREATE ION CLOUDS IN THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE United States Patent: - US3813875 / Issued/Filed Dates: June 4, 1974 / April 28, 1972


A rocket?? What has that got to do with contrails??


edit on 31-1-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
reply to post by waynos
 

Has anyone actually seriously tried to research them? I'm not talking about ATS users here. I'm talking government agencies.


Has anyone tried to research contrails?? Certainly. Chemtrails - not that I am aware of.

Here's a couple of papers relating to contrails:

Propulsive efficiency and contrail formation - which concludes that newer more efficient engines are more prone to making contrails

Predicting contrail persistence - can mathematical models be used for this purpose?

Contrails and aircraft induced cloudiness - from the IPCC

These are serious - "proper" - science


Given the lies we have been told down the years by our governments, would we believe non-independently verified evidence?

The earth is flat, the stars and planets rotate around the earth, the king is god's representative on earth are just a few of the older ones that come to mind...


There are also plenty of examples of truth being told by governments all around the world about all sorts of things - why not evaluate each piece of information on its merrits?

BTW in western civilisation the world hasn't been thought of as flat since the Ancient Greeks decided it was round about 600 BC...........the rest...well they've come and gone in some places and times too...





top topics
 
38
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join