Chem trails photographed tonight with long exposure over Northern Austin

page: 3
38
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


I would like some evidence as to the pic you posted. What type of plane. humidity, and altitude. Oh... and time of year along with location.




posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

So the answer is no basically. Thanks.

ETA Why do people (like the one below me) say "If you mean contrails, then yes...". Look at the thread title folks.
edit on 31/1/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 


If you mean contrails, they have been researched thoroughly for decades. The reasons they form and the conditions required for them to be either short lived, persisting, spreading, or not even form at all, are well understood by meteorologists, pilots etc.

If the trails in the sky look and behave exactly as we know contrails do, and exist at heights and in conditions where we know contrails do, then it is reasonable to conclude they are contrails. There would need to be a reason to conclude they are something else, that is what is completely missing.

Patents prove that people have considered such applications and thought enough about it to protect their idea, but there are thousands and thousands of patents for things that were never actually made or used, so while they show intent, we still need to find the 'smoking gun'.

Other evidence has been offered in the form of defoliant ops in Vietnam and secret spraying ops in the UK and USA in the 50's, but actual study of these shows them to be utterly different, being at low level and sometimes from ground based vehicles, never high altitude, and that these relatively short lived experiments left traces that could be analysed, something else no Chemtrail has yielded in 15 years or so.

Would the govt lie? Yes.

Would the govt spray the populace if they though themselves justified? Yes again and they would do worse, we're not idiots.

Is it technically feasible to spray? Yes, but the actual potential results are debatable, for example, imagine all the kids that have urinated into the ocean over the centuries, yet the ocean is not yellow, it is so vast that it makes no difference. The atmosphere is much vaster than the ocean. Imagine an aeroplane spraying in relation to the size of he planet and the depth of the atmosphere........it's like emptying a salt shaker onto a beach.

Which still leaves with the undeniable fact that every single trail matches what we know about contrails.

So why are people so utterly convinced that they are not? All of the theoretical hypotheses and speculative reasoning are just that, they don't actually demonstrate anything real and factual. Yet people utterly believe it. It's not unreasonable to ask why.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
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.


contrails are consistent with every "chemtrail" picture I have ever seen, and no-one has ever been able to give me any evidence that something that looks and behaves just like a contrail is anything other than a contrail.

Contrails are well known, why and how they form is well known at least in general terms.

Why are contrails not a satisfactory explanation for you?


It seems to have become progressively worse in the last few years. A ramping-up effect almost.


There's a lot more aircraft flying, and they are using engines that are more conducive to forming contrails

How many more aircraft? According to Boeing there are about twice as many large jets in 2008 as there weer in 1990 -



how much more conducive are the engines to forming contrails? A bit harder to quantify - but generally more efficient engines will start generating contrails at slightly higher ambient temperatures than older engines - see this paper - from which comes this very interesting photo -



New engines on left (A340), old engines on right (B707)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   


A rocket?? What has that got to do with contrails??
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


The Patent states "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 "

Creating ion clouds in the upper atmosphere with barium using a rocket. The point being that they are putting barium in the upper atmosphere, and what goes up must come down.

I'm sure they have been able to use this technology for jet aircraft as well as rockets. What rocket do you know that goes up in the atmosphere these days and then comes right back down without reaching outer space? The patent was for 1972.

Please note the following patents: " Laminar microjet atomizer and method of aerial spraying of liquids United States Patent / 4,412,654 Yates / November 1, 1983" and "Liquid atomizing apparatus for aerial spraying United States Patent / 4,948,050 / Picot"

Aerial spraying. Aerial, as in AIR. Spraying, as in SPRAY. They're not spraying this crap in space, but in our atmosphere.

Sorry if you don't understand this, and I am sorry for you that all your posts try to debunk chemtrails, because you and your family have to breathe it too.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

I don't know if you guys are deliberately missing the point (I strongly suspect so but that aside), the difference between a chemtrail and a contrail for us "believers" is that one is hanging around for hours forming grid, box or X patterns, when another is gone within a matter of minutes or sometimes even seconds and that is not due to weather, height or speed as the mixed "phenomena" have been observed on the same day, with the same type of planes flying at the same (apparent) height and speed. Hope it clarifies.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by FissionSurplus



A rocket?? What has that got to do with contrails??
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


The Patent states "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 "

Creating ion clouds in the upper atmosphere with barium using a rocket. The point being that they are putting barium in the upper atmosphere, and what goes up must come down.


do you know how much barium they have put up, how often, and to what altitudes??

Usually it's about 3-4 lbs, to altitudes of 90-160 km - if it ever comes down then it is spread all over the globe in completely minuscule amounts perhaps years or decades or even centuries later!


I'm sure they have been able to use this technology for jet aircraft as well as rockets.


I doubt it - there are nice simple mechanisms for spraying stuff from aircraft - why bother with a complicated rocket based one that is designed to make a noctiluscent cloud for observation from telescopes??



What rocket do you know that goes up in the atmosphere these days and then comes right back down without reaching outer space? The patent was for 1972.


did you bother to take notice that it is releasing it's payload of barium into the upper atmosphere? Or are you proposing that it gathers it all up again??
Google "sounding rockets barium" & see what you come up with - they've been doing this since the early 1960'ds and it has nothing at all to do with aircraft trails of any variety!


Please note the following patents: " Laminar microjet atomizer and method of aerial spraying of liquids United States Patent / 4,412,654 Yates / November 1, 1983" and "Liquid atomizing apparatus for aerial spraying United States Patent / 4,948,050 / Picot"

Aerial spraying. Aerial, as in AIR. Spraying, as in SPRAY. They're not spraying this crap in space, but in our atmosphere.


Yes indeed - people have been spraying into the atmosphere since the 1920's - agricultural, insect control, military smoke, etc.

It's not new, it's rarely secret (some of the military stuff has been of course)

Why is this a surprise for you??



Sorry if you don't understand this, and I am sorry for you that all your posts try to debunk chemtrails, because you and your family have to breathe it too.


You have yet to show that the trails from airliners at 30-40,000 feet and thereabouts are anything other than contrails.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   
OK...geo-engineering does exist. But it isn't done by commercial pilots and commercial planes. I do believe attempts to control the weather exist, but to do it using commercial aircraft is not only impracticable, but pretty much impossible.

The sheer weight of the chemicals alone to continually spray would prevent or severely limit the numbers of passengers. Then add to that the added weight of the spraying equipment and the ability of passenger planes to be the culprits is absurd. The number of supposed chemtrails out there would suggest huge fleets of planes. Someone surely would have noticed this many extra planes.

These are normal contrails from normal planes.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

I don't know if you guys are deliberately missing the point (I strongly suspect so but that aside), the difference between a chemtrail and a contrail for us "believers" is that one is hanging around for hours forming grid, box or X patterns, when another is gone within a matter of minutes or sometimes even seconds and that is not due to weather, height or speed as the mixed "phenomena" have been observed on the same day, with the same type of planes flying at the same (apparent) height and speed. Hope it clarifies.


That is just untrue.

contrails are ice crystals - as are cirrus clouds. Cirrus clouds hang around for as long as atmospheric conditions allow - so why wouldn't contrails do exactly the same?

Are clouds chemtrails because they last a few hours??

Persistent contrails, even spreading out into cloud sheets, have been documented as far back as 1940.

And when aircraft making contrails cross paths then of course you get an "X", and if there is a wind at altitude blowing the contrails sideways then you get the "tic tac toe" or "#" - there's nothing surprising or complicated about any of it.

Unless you believe the lie that contrails cannot last more than a few minutes.

Even Michael J Murphy, one of the makers of "What in the World are they Spraying" doesn't believe that any more - he now says that the only way to differentiate contrails from chemtrails is by chemical analysis, and AFAIK no one has done that:




posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by webpirate
 

Actually it is more then cost effective to send a payload up on commercial flights.





16We estimate a total cost of lifting mass into the stratosphere on wide-body commercial aircraft to be
~$0.3/pound, whereas the current cost of putting a pound-mass of payload into low Earth orbit by– 6–
microscopic scattering particles of anthropogenic
17
and natural
18
origins is comparable to the halfdecade residence time of its molecular components,
19
so that appropriately fine-scale particulate
loadings of the middle stratosphere will persist for five-year intervals. However, the stratosphere
is a chemically uncongenial location due to the high flux of ultraviolet radiation from the Sun and
the presence of oxygen, particularly in the more reactive form of ozone


www.chemtrails911.com...



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 


Actually, that is exactly why I think we end up arguing about this so much. You see, contrails do all of those things, but Chemtrail believers don't seem willing to accept that, or even to find out themselves if, that is true. So the myth of contrails being short lived and not in grids etc perpetuates endlessly, which is a shame as I genuinely believe that clinging to this could actually stop someone finding evidence for a real Chemtrail, because they are looking at it all wrong.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

Why would multiple versions of the same event exist in identical conditions if it really was the same event? Con, chem and none.

As for clouds that's not a good comparison, clouds are naturally formed.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


Rofl. Most flights can't even take full fuel loads if full of passengers, or have full passengers with full fuel loads. There's no way they can add extra weight.

Next time quote me a credible source.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by webpirate
 


I'm going to guess that you did not read the link. Credible source indeed.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


Yes they are proposing using commercial aircraft for this - but it would be dedicated aircraft carry large payloads of specific materials that would probably be scattered mechanically rather then through the engines.

And it is a proposal - an ideas paper.

There is no evidence that it has actually being put into use over the last 15 or so years.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

Why would multiple versions of the same event exist in identical conditions if it really was the same event? Con, chem and none.


I have no idea what that means.


As for clouds that's not a good comparison, clouds are naturally formed.


how they form is irrelevant - if they are the same materials in the same conditions then you must expect the same behaviour.

And since contrails are the same materials as cirrus clouds - ice crystals - why do you expect them to behave differently?
edit on 31-1-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 


Clouds, at contrail height, are frozen water ice crystals, which is exactly what contrails are, so the comparison is valid.

Atmospheric conditions are not uniform, and aircraft do not fly in close proximity at the same heights, this is why some will leave a lingering trail and others don't. Somedays the sky is completely clear and blue, sometimes it is totally overcast with cloud cover and other days you get a Simpson sky, as my son calls it, with patchy clouds in a blue sky. On these days you will be more likely to see different types of trail, the patchy cloud tells you already that the conditions above vary a lot in a small area



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

Multiple versions of the same event, ie contrail, chemtrail and little or no trail all visible in the same sky, on the same day with the same conditions.

And...because I doubt that clouds are formed naturally as a result of aircraft exhaust. Well, at least I think we had clouds before aircraft but I can't be 100% sure as I wasn't around before the airplane.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


I suggest the evidence is right above our heads. Pay attention to the language within Tellers proposal. Then add that link to all of the other evidence of intent such as patents, Air force statements, eyewitnesses and systematic testing of water and soil, then you tell me and everyone else here that has had to combat the confusion and ridicule that you and others use to kill these threads and their debate that chemical plowing of the skies can't possibly be happening.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

Multiple versions of the same event, ie contrail, chemtrail and little or no trail all visible in the same sky, on the same day with the same conditions.


They don't - do you know of a case where that happened? That would be very suspicious indeed.

But I suspect you cannot show that the conditions for the various aircraft making short, long and no-trails are the same in order to support the claim.

"Looking up" simply does not tell you anything about the atmospheric conditions that aircraft are flying in.


And...because I doubt that clouds are formed naturally as a result of aircraft exhaust.


the clouds formed from aircraft exhaust are clearly of artificial origin - no one questions that.

But once the water is in the atmosphere the physics are exactly the same regardless of how it got there.





top topics
 
38
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join