Geoengineering - caught in the act?

reply to post by Iwinder


Here's a blue sky for you, after googling "azure blue" I think this surpasses that colour by several shades...

reply to post by Chadwickus


That kind of illustrates the "look up" aspect of blue skies. It's a lot bluer at the top than nearer the horizon.

You also ten to have the deepest blue after rain, when the skies are generally clearer of particulates. Have a look at this mosaic of 360 days of skies in sync:

(best watched on Youtube, full screen)


Notice how the deepest blues are seen on days that have cumulus clouds. Of course that might be some kind of problem with the camera exposure. But then that might also factor into your brain's perception. The sky looks bluer when it's next to a fluffy white cloud.

Originally posted by Uncinus

That kind of illustrates the "look up" aspect of blue skies. It's a lot bluer at the top than nearer the horizon.

You also ten to have the deepest blue after rain, when the skies are generally clearer of particulates. Have a look at this mosaic of 360 days of skies in sync:

Notice how the deepest blues are seen on days that have cumulus clouds. Of course that might be some kind of problem with the camera exposure. But then that might also factor into your brain's perception. The sky looks bluer when it's next to a fluffy white cloud.

Are you guys really trying to argue our skies haven't changed?

That's just silly.

Originally posted by pianopraze

Originally posted by Uncinus

That kind of illustrates the "look up" aspect of blue skies. It's a lot bluer at the top than nearer the horizon.

You also ten to have the deepest blue after rain, when the skies are generally clearer of particulates. Have a look at this mosaic of 360 days of skies in sync:

Notice how the deepest blues are seen on days that have cumulus clouds. Of course that might be some kind of problem with the camera exposure. But then that might also factor into your brain's perception. The sky looks bluer when it's next to a fluffy white cloud.

Are you guys really trying to argue our skies haven't changed?

That's just silly.

edit on 27-3-2012 by pianopraze because: condensed quote

Well, that depending on what you mean. You could say the skies have changed here in LA because they are a lot clearer now with emissions controls. But there is certainly more high altitude cirrus now than there was 100 years ago. It has been steadily increasing since the 1950s. This has been known for 40 years. Here's a 1980 news report on the topic:



But some people seem to be saying the sky was almost always a deep deep blue, and that anything a bit hazy is something new and artificial.

In reality, skies have always been whitish a lot of the time (depending on where you live). There are plenty of days when aviation has nearly zero impact, and the sky is still milky white.

Look at the sky in Russia, 100 years ago. Milky.
www.boston.com...

reply to post by pianopraze


With all due respect...."OP"....

The skies have not "changed".

I've lived long enough on this planet to see that what I observe, today, is little different from what I remember....especially when I began, in my teen years, to pay attention to the skies, and to meteorological principles, as part of the early flying lessons.

Meteorology is a large part of learning to fly.

Go on....I suggest you investigate that aspect, perhaps indulge in just a few flying lessons (if you have not yet, already) and then.....come back and relate your experiences to the "ATS audience".

You have a rapt crowd, already (apparently)....why not use that asset for facts, instead of....well.....for facts??

Originally posted by burntheships
A video for those who wish to keep an open mind, explores several
controversial reasons behind geoengineering aka chemtrails.

Iwinder, this one with you in mind, has a lot you can follow with the
wording.

www.youtube.com...

Thank you BTS for this great video, very good information and I really appreciate it as I am sure all posters here on this thread will.

A side note to Proud Bird, I must warn you there is text here on this video so you cannot watch it without the option of turning down the blather.....:-)

I am deaf by the definition and my doctor but I can still hear a bit, I have two 4 foot sony speaker towers on each side of my puter desk here.

I can only use them when the wife allows and the neighbours are not home.

Thanks again BTS....eye popping stuff in that post of yours.
Regards, Iwinder

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Iwinder

 

Here's a blue sky for you, after googling "azure blue" I think this surpasses that colour by several shades...

Thanks for that picture, not bad at all at the top and I remember that colour from the top down to the ground many years ago.


Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by Uncinus


Your full of poop.

All of us here who've been around more years than we care to remember know the difference.

One milky day from 100 years ago. And one clear blue sky day today does not change anything.

There is more air traffic. They have changed the formulas of the fuels. There is a lot fewer blue skies and a lot more contrail skies.

Do you even believe your own arguement

Originally posted by pianopraze

Originally posted by Uncinus

That kind of illustrates the "look up" aspect of blue skies. It's a lot bluer at the top than nearer the horizon.

You also ten to have the deepest blue after rain, when the skies are generally clearer of particulates. Have a look at this mosaic of 360 days of skies in sync:

Notice how the deepest blues are seen on days that have cumulus clouds. Of course that might be some kind of problem with the camera exposure. But then that might also factor into your brain's perception. The sky looks bluer when it's next to a fluffy white cloud.

Are you guys really trying to argue our skies haven't changed?

That's just silly.

edit on 27-3-2012 by pianopraze because: condensed quote

Right on the money with that one Pianopraze.....

There is no arguement here at all, they have changed and they have changed drastically in the past 15 years.
Regards, Iwinder

Here in the south of the UK we're lucky if we get 3 or 4 days a year where the sky is that lovely pure deep blue colour,the same as I remember going back 40 years now when I first started watching the skies with a critical eye.

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by Iwinder
Those pictures are not of what is called a blue sky, at least not from my memory.

In order to see an azure blue sky you generally have to either look up, or wear polarized sunglasses.

Our fond memories of blue summer skies are often accompanies with us laying in the sun, hence looking up.

The sky has always whitened towards the horizon. That's just physics. Have a look at these photos from 100 years ago. The sky then looks just like the sky now. Variable.

www.boston.com...

Nice pictures and nice colours but the problem is they are not true colour photographs, what you showed in your link is simply not true.....
A quote from the top of the link......



"He used a specialized camera to capture three black and white images in fairly quick succession, using red, green and blue filters, allowing them to later be recombined and projected with filtered lanterns to show near true color images. The high quality of the images, combined with the bright colors, make it difficult for viewers to believe that they are looking 100 years back in time - when these photographs were taken"

If I posted pictures here on this thread using black and white photographs with coloured filters I would be banned.
Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by Iwinder

How can you say they're not true colour photographs when they're photos that are in colour and give a VERY accurate rendition of the colours present at the time the photo was taken? Just because they're made up from three colour filtered monochrome images,why does this not make it a real colour photo? Modern digital images are composed of red,green and blue pixels and if you looked at them individually you could break it down into three similar but different versions of the same image,the same way the 100 year old photo is made up.

reply to post by Imagewerx


You know the thing I find funny is that the question was asked to provide pictures of blue skies and when they are provided they try to dismiss them as not true color pictures. That amazes me that the pictures are being called processed and not true color,go figure.

Originally posted by Imagewerx
reply to post by Iwinder

 

How can you say they're not true colour photographs when they're photos that are in colour and give a VERY accurate rendition of the colours present at the time the photo was taken? Just because they're made up from three colour filtered monochrome images,why does this not make it a real colour photo? Modern digital images are composed of red,green and blue pixels and if you looked at them individually you could break it down into three similar but different versions of the same image,the same way the 100 year old photo is made up.

I understand what you are saying, however the geo engineering threads tend to get technical and they really really use a lot of photographs in this thread.
A very accurate rendition does not cut the mustard here because all the photographs used here are very recent and not 100 year old reproductions.

There were no jets back then and there was no colour film back then.......
The poster of the pictures failed to notify the people on this thread that they were in fact black and white pictures.
This was either lying by omission or it was an honest mistake.
No matter what it was they did not belong in this thread at all.
Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by Chadwickus


Nice pic chad looks very calming and beautiful.

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by Imagewerx

 

You know the thing I find funny is that the question was asked to provide pictures of blue skies and when they are provided they try to dismiss them as not true color pictures. That amazes me that the pictures are being called processed and not true color,go figure.

How can I go figure when black and white photos get posted here as true colour photos?

I think more recent actual colour photos apply to this thread not 100 year old B&W's
Regards, Iwinder

Originally posted by Iwinder

Originally posted by Imagewerx
reply to post by Iwinder

 

How can you say they're not true colour photographs when they're photos that are in colour and give a VERY accurate rendition of the colours present at the time the photo was taken? Just because they're made up from three colour filtered monochrome images,why does this not make it a real colour photo? Modern digital images are composed of red,green and blue pixels and if you looked at them individually you could break it down into three similar but different versions of the same image,the same way the 100 year old photo is made up.

I understand what you are saying, however the geo engineering threads tend to get technical and they really really use a lot of photographs in this thread.
A very accurate rendition does not cut the mustard here because all the photographs used here are very recent and not 100 year old reproductions.

There were no jets back then and there was no colour film back then.......
The poster of the pictures failed to notify the people on this thread that they were in fact black and white pictures.
This was either lying by omission or it was an honest mistake.
No matter what it was they did not belong in this thread at all.
Regards, Iwinder

I stand by those photos. Using three filters is actually the most accurate method of color photography - it's what NASA uses for photos on Mars. The experts who composited those photos for the Library of Congress, using digichromatography, went to extraordinary lengths to ensure that the color was accurate by picking the correct response curves for each color component. That's something that's not possible with color film. The Russian photos of the sky color are actually MORE accurate in terms of color reproduction than most color film photographs. Where there are errors,they are registration errors (lining things up), which does not affect the sky color at all.

Here's an article detailing how they did it:

www.loc.gov...
and
en.wikipedia.org...

The Library of Congress undertook a project in 2000 to make digital scans of all the photographic material received from Prokudin-Gorsky's heirs and contracted with the photographer Walter Frankhauser to combine the monochrome negatives into color images.[22] He created 122 color renderings using a method he called digichromatography and commented that each image took him around six to seven hours to align, clean and color-correct.[23] In 2001, the Library of Congress produced an exhibition from these, The Empire That Was Russia: The Prokudin-Gorskii Photographic Record Recreated.[24] The photographs have since been the subject of many other exhibitions in the area where Prokudin-Gorsky took his photos.[25][26][27][28][29][30]

In 2004, the Library of Congress contracted with computer scientist Blaise Agüera y Arcas to produce an automated color composite of each of the 1902 negatives from the high-resolution digital images of the glass-plate negatives. He applied algorithms to compensate for the differences between the exposures and prepared color composites of all the negatives in the collection.

Here's another photo from the collection showing typical whiteness at the horizon:


So if you are going to claim the sky has changed, then this is an excellent pre-plane reference for what the sky used to look like.

reply to post by Uncinus

You posted those photos and I thank you. but you never said they were Black and White end of discussion here.

By omission or on purpose you posted the above pictures as real colour.
Regards, Iwinder

Originally posted by Iwinder
reply to post by Uncinus

 

You posted those photos and I thank you. but you never said they were Black and White end of discussion here.

By omission or on purpose you posted the above pictures as real colour.
Regards, Iwinder

They are not black and white. They are color. Very accurate color.

All digital images are made up from three monochrome images that make up what you see as the final color image. This is no different.

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by Iwinder
reply to post by Uncinus

 

You posted those photos and I thank you. but you never said they were Black and White end of discussion here.

By omission or on purpose you posted the above pictures as real colour.
Regards, Iwinder

They are not black and white. They are color. Very accurate color.

They were black and white photos and then manipulated with coloured lenses over a hundred years ago for crying out loud, how accurate can they be to todays standards I ask.....
This thread is dated 2012 and you are bringing in photos (B&W) from 100 years ago.......

Regards, Iwinder