Geoengineering - caught in the act?

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Chadwickus

 

I take it you've never heard of the Totalitarian Tiptoe.

Nice one! More on that...

Professor Benford (U.C. Irvine, CA), wrote the following regarding the public in a Reason.com article in 1997: “…But perhaps the greatest unknown is social: How will the politically aware public react--those who vote, anyway? If geoengineers are painted early and often as Dr. Strangeloves of the air, they will fail. Properly portrayed as allies of science--and true environmentalism--they could become heroes… A major factor here will be whether mitigation looks like yet another top-down contrivance, another set of orders from the elite. source credit

Great picture of a front coming in nice to see some good weather pictures at night. You knew it was a front didn't you?

One thing that strikes me about this thread is that those great photos taken by the OP are non debatable with time stamps and the OP's word he can prove that he took them where and when and why.

Yet they still try even calling the moon the sun, saying he moved a great distance between shots, saying the windmill is a photo-shop job.

They keep on a coming here attacking the strongest point (IMHO) of the thread but they are just wasting ammunition.

As they say a picture speaks a thousand words, and in this case is all quite provable that they are legit.

Enjoying the ride here big time.
Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by Iwinder


Yes, there was some of that....people (all of us) make mistakes now and then.

However....while the photos are handsome, and the OP obviously skilled in photography and has a keen eye for beauty in the shots.....the fact is that they really do not show any sort of "geoengineering" underway, at all.

I wish to stress (should have taken it more to heart much earlier) the '?' in the title. So, no need to "gang up" on the OP, based on that solely. But, there have been other assertions that don't meet the criteria for full validity, when examined in more depth. The '?' is the "entree'" to that discussion, and the points of view have been made.


Still, there is a glaring "elephant in the room" RE: the question of actively ongoing airborne "spraying" as a means of "geoengineering" at the present time.

The assertion that is is currently happening just doesn't pass the 'smell test' as yet.

We need evidence. Yes, any of us who demand evidence (not hearsay) would be eager to jump on the "bandwagon", once it is shown. As I've stated, there is/are levels of life experience present in the many ATS members' tool kits that can help bring clarity to these discussions.

Not only do I personally have a set of those particular skills that relate to the aviation aspects, I have also been a long-time fan of science and rational thinking....and facts and evidence.

Also, as a reader of much science fiction in my life (and observer of visual forms of such entertainment) I can easily grasp concepts that may seem "out there", based on other science that is being discussed. But, so far?

No evidence of actual, concerted and wide-spread "geoengineering" activity has been presented.

reply to post by ProudBird

"However....while the photos are handsome, and the OP obviously skilled in photography and has a keen eye for beauty in the shots.....the fact is that they really do not show any sort of "geoengineering" underway, at all. "

The fact of the matter is you cannot prove that they really do not show any sort of geo engineering at all!

The fact is the OP was doing photography of the night sky and was gobsmacked by a sudden change to our atmosphere which happened in minutes...

Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by ProudBird


We all make mistakes but apparently calling the moon the sun and attacking the OP for it whilst parading ones self as and expert in Geo engineering is ok.....
That my friend is not a mistake unless this person posts without even reading the first line in the OP....

I was Photographing at night.....
How hard can it be?
Regards, Iwinder

Originally posted by pianopraze
and anyone with any sense can see that the following picture was not done by the very few planes on that radar over 10-20 minutes (I watched it happened and photoed several of the planes):

I must say, those lines you've drawn on that pic don't look at all like they are individual contrails. I think it's worthwhile to examine your pics immediately prior to this one to see if there is evidence that each of those lines was due to an individual contrail, or if the clouds formed due to other reasons.

Time: 8:54

At 8:54 the sky is relatively clear with a couple of somewhat persistent contrails forming. This indicates that atmospheric conditions were indeed conducive to contrail formation. The next photo presented was at 9:02.

9:02

At 9:02, you can see another persistent contrail, but the entire sky has started to become slightly hazy. The haziness does not appear to be due to the contrails in the 8:54 picture, as there is simply not enough time for those contrails to spread and disperse into the entire sky, not to mention that the contrail with the more Northerly orientation appeared to already be dissipating somewhat. The next photos occur two minutes later.

9:04

9:04

This appears to show part of the atmosphere reaching saturation point with deposition taking place. This is the mechanism of natural cirrus formation, and often precedes weather systems such as storms or fronts, sometimes more than 48 hours in advance. And it was shown that a frontal system and moisture was indeed moving in on the position the photos were taken.

Originally posted by Phage
Here is the water vapor imagery. It matches quite will with the contrail forecast and shows the moisture moving into your area.

All in all, it's not surprising that persistent contrails were seen to form from planes at a certain altitude. And that cloud cover increased as the weather moved in.

The next set of photos are taken after the initial deposition.

Time: 9:06

Time: 9:07

Time: 9:08

This shows increasing cirrus formation, as well as a couple of contrails that are visible. The contrails in these photos appear to be dissipating, not dispersing and increasing in coverage. This indicates that they are likely at a slightly different altitude with slightly different atmospheric characteristics to the rest of the cirrus formation.

During the time between 9:02 and 9:08 there is extensive cloud formation, with no indication that they were made by a fleet of aircraft. This evidence does not support the idea that every one of those lines you drew were due to a fleet of contrail forming planes, but suggest the formation of cirrus due to the approaching weather systems and associated atmospheric conditions. The start of contrail formation is also an indication that the weather conditions were becoming conducive for cirrus formation.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Iwinder

 

Yes, there was some of that....people (all of us) make mistakes now and then.

However....while the photos are handsome, and the OP obviously skilled in photography and has a keen eye for beauty in the shots.....the fact is that they really do not show any sort of "geoengineering" underway, at all.

I wish to stress (should have taken it more to heart much earlier) the '?' in the title. So, no need to "gang up" on the OP, based on that solely. But, there have been other assertions that don't meet the criteria for full validity, when examined in more depth. The '?' is the "entree'" to that discussion, and the points of view have been made.


Still, there is a glaring "elephant in the room" RE: the question of actively ongoing airborne "spraying" as a means of "geoengineering" at the present time.

The assertion that is is currently happening just doesn't pass the 'smell test' as yet.

We need evidence. Yes, any of us who demand evidence (not hearsay) would be eager to jump on the "bandwagon", once it is shown. As I've stated, there is/are levels of life experience present in the many ATS members' tool kits that can help bring clarity to these discussions.

Not only do I personally have a set of those particular skills that relate to the aviation aspects, I have also been a long-time fan of science and rational thinking....and facts and evidence.

Also, as a reader of much science fiction in my life (and observer of visual forms of such entertainment) I can easily grasp concepts that may seem "out there", based on other science that is being discussed. But, so far?

No evidence of actual, concerted and wide-spread "geoengineering" activity has been presented.

Well let me put it this way to you there Proud Whacker .....your flying to wherever from wherever at night.....your co-pilot suddenly states that the sun is wrong......What do you do in this situation? Shoot the co-pilot or grab your parachute?
How many pilots would tolerate an innocent mistake such as the moon is the sun and keep flying with that crew?
Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by Curious and Concerned


Guess I should have been out with my video camera and documented them second by second spreading out... forgive me...

I'll call them and ask them to do it again.

I really get sick of you all calling me a liar. I watched them spread out from the contrails.

Your group both calls them normal contrail formation and then flip flops. You can't have it both ways.

There are tens of people in this thread who have seen the same thing, but did not have the right equipment and data sets to document their experience. This is not a lone example.

I saw what I saw regardless how many times you deny it.

You really look silly with these tactics. Denial does't override data... no matter how many times you repeat it.

Originally posted by ProudBird
Still, there is a glaring "elephant in the room"

Yeah, only its not what you think.

Its the 2 Billion Dollar A Year Elephant in The Room.

2 Billion Each Year

The Government Accountability Office found in its report more than 50 current studies,

totaling slightly more than $100 million, focusing on piecemeal strategies to reverse climate change,

but none directly addresses what would happen if adventurous programs on carbon dioxide

reduction and solar radiation management were put in place.

"Without a coordinated federal strategy for geoengineering, it is difficult for agencies to determine
the extent of relevant research, and policymakers may lack key information to inform subsequent
decisions on engineering and existing climate science efforts,"

the report said, adding that most of the $2 billion spent each year on federal climate science

research could also help geoengineering with better coordination.
www.myfoxmemphis.com...

2 Billion a year, just the U.S. Alone...yeah they couldnt possibly be doing anything...[

Originally posted by pianopraze
reply to post by Curious and Concerned

 

Guess I should have been out with my video camera and documented them second by second spreading out... forgive me...

I'll call them and ask them to do it again.

Wouldn't matter - they'd still be contrails.

I really get sick of you all calling me a liar. I watched them spread out from the contrails.

Yep - so you did. I don't think anyone is actually arguing against cirrus being able to form from contrails.

Your group both calls them normal contrail formation and then flip flops. You can't have it both ways.

What flip flop?

There are tens of people in this thread who have seen the same thing, but did not have the right equipment and data sets to document their experience. This is not a lone example.

I saw what I saw regardless how many times you deny it.

You really look silly with these tactics. Denial does't override data... no matter how many times you repeat it.

I haven't seen anyone denying that you saw what you saw, but you haven't presented anything to show that these were anything other than contrails.

Shrug - you are presenting the same ol' chemmie claims that something that looks and behaves exactly like a contrail is actually something other than a contrail, and then getting upset when the obvious is pointed out.

If you want a different result try finding some actual evidence.

Originally posted by pianopraze
I really get sick of you all calling me a liar. I watched them spread out from the contrails.

I get sick of people in this thread claiming I am saying things I've never said. I had been nothing but courteous in my responses to your posts and have made no such claims against your character. All I have commented on is the evidence you presented, which as I showed, does not show a fleet of aircraft laying down super fast spreading contrails filling the sky. I am not commenting on what you saw, just the photos.

Originally posted by pianoprazeYour group both calls them normal contrail formation and then flip flops. You can't have it both ways.

I am not affiliated with any such group, unless you're deluded into thinking everyone who disagrees with you is a "disinfo agent". I have not flip flopped, nor am I trying to "have it both ways". It's hard not to question the comprehension skills of some people on here, but these allegations made against me are absurd. Why don't you respond to what I post, not what others are posting, and stop making assumptions about people.

Originally posted by pianopraze
There are tens of people in this thread who have seen the same thing, but did not have the right equipment and data sets to document their experience. This is not a lone example.

That's fine, and maybe they did see some form of geoengineering. I have never said that it is impossible or will never occur. All I am commenting on is your evidence, which does not show that there is without doubt a geoengineering operation occurring.

Originally posted by pianopraze
You really look silly with these tactics. Denial does't override data... no matter how many times you repeat it.

Since when was objectively looking at evidence a silly tactic? It is now becoming clear that this geoengineering forum is only willing to accept evidence that fits their theories, instead of forming a theory based on the evidence presented. If you are claiming I have denied anything repeatedly, quote it. I have quoted where others are wrong, you should do the same.

I now realise that you and others who frequent this forum have a deep emotional investment in your beliefs, hence the name calling and lack of comprehension abilities when someone questions them. I thought it was an intelligent discussion for people with an open mind that you wanted, but it appears you want nothing more than a circle jerk of people who will simply agree with you, regardless of the evidence.

You have misrepresented the evidence by posting weather data that is irrelevant to your claims, while ignoring the more relevant weather data. You have underestimated the distance an airliner will travel on your radar images, even after I posed logical evidence explaining why. You refuse to comment on the content of posts, and instead are resorting to ad hominem attacks. At first I thought they were genuine mistakes, but it now appears you are being deliberately disingenuous to further promote your beliefs. Way to deny ignorance.

Originally posted by pianopraze

Those are taken 11 minutes apart. That is not the same plane and even your deny everything friends will tell you that.

Your previous post you say I don't post picture of the skinny lines.. now you just debunked yourself...

Debunk: fail

You show 2 skinny contrails then a massive cloud and say aircraft made it too, but failed to take a single picture of the massive cloud being created by a large number of aircraft in less than 10 mins. I just ask why you didn't take a picture of all those aircraft needed to make such a massive thing. That would be called the smoking gun and you failed to produce it.

You posted pictures of contrails then of clouds....they are not the same. That is what I'm talking about not just 2 contrails as a couple of jets fly over.

Where is the smoking gun my friend?

The cloud formation is highlighted below to see where I'm talking about. Compare that area with you 8:54 picture below it that shows the starting faint formation of your clouds.

Highlighted picture



Your 8:54 picture (hint, look to the right of the moon)

Time: 8:54

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by pianopraze
reply to post by Curious and Concerned

 

Guess I should have been out with my video camera and documented them second by second spreading out... forgive me...

I'll call them and ask them to do it again.

Wouldn't matter - they'd still be contrails.

Let me rephrase that - I have no verifiable evidence that they ARE contrails of course.

so - they would still look and behave exactly like contrails, and there'd still be no verifiable evidence they are anything other than contrails.

While I dont agree with you great post op. You should not resort to preempting things in the future though. Just state your facts and you did great at that. I would like to have seen some comparison from other nights for the temps and dew points though.

Originally posted by pianopraze


Guess I should have been out with my video camera and documented them second by second spreading out... forgive me...

That is not the point...I just ask why didn't you take pictures of the aircraft that made the fingers? The two skinny contrails are still there and skinny, so why not take a picture of the "other aircraft" as you have stated?

I really get sick of you all calling me a liar. I watched them spread out from the contrails.

So you took pictures of those two aircraft that made the contrails and then stood in awe as the other planes made the massed finger cloud? How was that all done in less than 10 mins?

Your group both calls them normal contrail formation and then flip flops. You can't have it both ways.

I see a couple of contrails made by aircraft and I see a large cloud...they are not related....


If you actually took pictures of a large number of aircraft dumping and then had a couple of pictures of it expanding would that not be your proof?

There is a whole lot missing between your 2 contrails and the fully formed cloud...

reply to post by Curious and Concerned


I watched them spread out from the long contrails. Your suggesting this did not happen is tantamount to calling me a liar... no?

There are two sides to this discussion, I'm on one, you are on the other call it side, group or what you will.

To combine answering the two of you... look at 9:08 above the moon to the right... you can right click on the photo and open it in a new tab to see a bigger picture, I uploaded them higher resolution than will fit on the screen... you can see a short contrail from the flight on flight on the radar at the same time you can see several other newly formed long contrails over top the contrails already spreading out.

All those long spreading contrails are from flights that are not on the radar... if you take the time you will see, but its descending to attacks and repetition again in here which I don'' want to take part in. I've said everything over and over if you read my posts I've already explained all this several times. So I think I will step back. The info is there.

Even in phage's worst case scenario, at the time i took those photos it was all black in the direction I was shooting... no evidence for contrails. I posted the weather data using the data from the correct time when PB pointed out my initial time mistake, in the format the website said to, which would get the plains around 30k feet, phage presented the data for other levels against what they suggested, and none of them show anything but black... no contrails conditions.

If you disagree you disagree. I've proven my point to those who look.. even phage admitted there were more than he could account for.

If you disagree fine. I've presented my argument to the best of my ability and repeatedly answered the questions you are bring up from my point of view.

reply to post by burntheships


AND again (PLEASE, everyone, DO link to the post that In am replying to)....

The source cited has NOTHING to do with so-called "Geoengineering"!!!!!

Over, and done.

Sorry.

WHY is this still going on? This deception? Are some of you really "denying ignorance"?? Or, just "promoting confirmation bias"???

Look deeply, into your agendas..........

You MAY 'think' you are 'revealing' something....but, in essence, you might simply be pawns, being played for.....well, no disrespect intended....but, played for "fools''....no shame in that, and no pejorative implied. We can all be fooled, now and then. NO shame attached....ONCE you take the effort to learn, and realize that you've been played.


AGAIN.....where is the REAL evidence??? Stop with the hearsay crap (sorry, but this is me being blunt!).

Bring the real stuff!!!! I (personally) am tired of repeating myself. I've seen it over and over and over again.

REAL evidence. PLEASE!!!!

reply to post by ProudBird


Op is right. You are wrong. I've been watching you lie and finagle to move threads into foreign territory as long as I've been reading ATS. I also wonder how many accounts you have here to get any stars at all. I'm sick of it.

Personal Testimonial is the backbone of civilized society. Frankly, you have no right to demand ANY "proof". I do not believe you, never liked you, and I definitely will not be back to this thread, even though the OP made an outstanding thread and deserves recognition for it.

You "doth protest too much", Bird. It's the most obvious quality you have of being disingenuous. That's all the "proof" I need. (I'm not the only one who feels this way, you know). Good bye.

reply to post by ProudBird


If we're going to begin SHOUTING, and placing confused faces everywhere I will chime in.

I think rather than demand EVIDENCE!?!! Such as some posters do, I am going to DEMAND DISCLOSURE from whoever is spraying our skies!!!

You are asking the wrong people for evidence Proudbird. I think you should be asking somewhere else.