Geoengineering - caught in the act?

reply to post by pianopraze


RE: those photos, more thoughts:

Amongst all of the data and tools to use, another is to look up the winds aloft, at that time. The spreading of the contrails is indicative of the mixing going on, due to normal atmospheric forces, such as winds, and horizontal wind shears. Also, the "spreading" is not just the original contrails "thinning out" .... what you see are more cirrus being formed, due to the very presence of the contrails!

They, by just being there, act as triggers.....the air mass was already ripe for cirrus to form...it just took the passage of the airliners to provide the stimulus.

Try to understand......Evenif some sort of "particulates" were being intentionally "sprayed"....there still has to be a physical atmospheric mechanism to cause a spreading effect. There is simply no way there could be enough mass of "material" to "spray" and lead to that much as observed. It HAS to be the water vapor that was already present, and was invisible, until it condensed out and formed the tiny ice particles that comprise cirrus clouds.


See? This thread, your photos, prove nothing about "chemtrails". Since really...."chemtrails" simply do not exist in the first place; this is known. However, the images are indicative of what is observed frequently, and well understood by many, of contrails.

I don't understand your comments about "never" having seen this before. When I lived just about in your area (well, in Northern Virgina) I saw it frequently. But, I know how to interpret what I see, based on life experience.

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
Remember sound travel the same speed as light, Geeez!! (you know of whom I speak)

of course sounds travel at the speed as light,
when you're using radio Geeez

That was an inside joke abut a thread yesterday made by a person that thinks that sound literally travels thorough the vacuum of space at 300,000kM/sec!! Not talking about radio wave propagation.

Tom

Since these trails didn't cause it to rain and the sun wasn't out, we can eliminate SRM and cloud seeding right away. So, I have to wonder what their purpose is. Are they designed to conceal something in the sky? Are they designed to drop particles into the soil and water?

reply to post by Xtrozero


X....it is the Moon in the photos.

Peace.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I'm going to suggest something here...

Looking at the pictures I see the sun is the lowest in the first pictures the ones with the eariler times (like 8:35 and 8:41), and highest in the later pictures (like 9:06)

The OP (by mistake maybe) got the pictures in the wrong order. What I see if you follow the pictures backwards, treating the last ones as actually the first, you see a sky that is hazy and breaks up into fingers then into a clear night sky.

The contrails in the first pictures were being formed after all the hazy fingered clouds had already dissipated. (and not the other way around as the OP suggests with the contrails first then the fingers)

The sun doesn't lie my friends..... so look at the pictures in reverse...

What are you smoking? That's the moon... and I was PURPOSEFULLY making the halos in the first photo with my camera setting. The second photo shows the clear night sky. A camera shooting at night is goings to have that huge halo of light around the moon. I really don't want to get into camera function as that is way off topic.

Like I said I was shooting in RAW, it stamps all the info.

You go from objective inquiry in one post which i enjoy responding to... to techniques of disinformation that I see around ATS which I hate responding to and end up ignoring people who post like that.

reply to post by Xtrozero


are you...?:shk:

that's the moon, not the sun!

or is this some sort of mind control technique?

the reason i ask
is cause i noticed weed*cough* proudbird using his svengali technique earlier

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

X....it is the Moon in the photos.

Peace.

starred

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger


I am going to bypass all of the laughing heads.

Since you did not get past #1:
Do you, as "chemtrail" proponent even know what WITWATS is?

If you do than go and get the money that was spent on that "factual" documentary and instead use the fund as suggested in #2 through 10.

Get back to me on that.
Tom

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger

You know, after reading the rest of your post, you really are not a "chemtrail" proponent.
Tom

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by pianopraze

 

RE: those photos, more thoughts:

Amongst all of the data and tools to use, another is to look up the winds aloft, at that time. The spreading of the contrails is indicative of the mixing going on, due to normal atmospheric forces, such as winds, and horizontal wind shears. Also, the "spreading" is not just the original contrails "thinning out" .... what you see are more cirrus being formed, due to the very presence of the contrails!

They, by just being there, act as triggers.....the air mass was already ripe for cirrus to form...it just took the passage of the airliners to provide the stimulus.

Try to understand......Evenif some sort of "particulates" were being intentionally "sprayed"....there still has to be a physical atmospheric mechanism to cause a spreading effect. There is simply no way there could be enough mass of "material" to "spray" and lead to that much as observed. It HAS to be the water vapor that was already present, and was invisible, until it condensed out and formed the tiny ice particles that comprise cirrus clouds.


See? This thread, your photos, prove nothing about "chemtrails". Since really...."chemtrails" simply do not exist in the first place; this is known. However, the images are indicative of what is observed frequently, and well understood by many, of contrails.

I don't understand your comments about "never" having seen this before. When I lived just about in your area (well, in Northern Virgina) I saw it frequently. But, I know how to interpret what I see, based on life experience.

You fail to factor in there were two sets of planes... one set making these and one set not. The set making them was not on the radar.

I have seen contrails form clouds, i do not deny this is possible if the conditions were right. The conditions were not right by the data I see coming from NOAA. Also the planes on the radar behave according to what they should given the NOAA data.

I have seen contrails form clouds and haze, I have never seen this many aircraft fly over so quickly and so rapidly form these clouds. Look at the pics... the heaviest part of this was 10 minutes and it is a different sky...

Sorry I didn't take constant pictures of it, my goal was to enjoy the beautiful night and make art pictures. I was taking pictures of other things, but I watched this happen and took a lot of pictures of it.

You are looking at data for the wrong period and the wrong altitudes.
9:00 PM EST is 2:00 AM (March 8) UTC.

200mb represents an altitude of about 39,000 feet. That's pretty high for traffic in that area. 250mb is about 35,000 feet, a little more realistic. Here's the RUC model output. Please note that this is not actual data, but a computer model. The model shows moisture moving into your area, if a bit delayed. But remember, it's a computer forecast, not hard data.


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.

reply to post by tomdham


oh i read your entire post
unlike you bypassing mine

youtu.be...

reply to post by pianopraze

You fail to factor in there were two sets of planes... one set making these and one set not.

That is simple.....this happens because they are at different altitudes.

Sorry but, I have to repeat this over and over again.

You see the flights, but you don't know their exact altitudes until (or if) you check on Flight Aware. If you had logged very carefully each and every flight, and compared what you observed to the facts about each one, then you could begin to see a relationship and it will make better sense.

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
reply to post by tomdham

 

oh i read your entire post
unlike you bypassing mine

youtu.be...

What are you talking about? San Juan?
And what does what I posted have to do with your YT insert?
Forget it, you are way off topic.
Tom

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger


???

youtu.be...

Sorry, but that YT video shows perfectly ordinary contrails. Not "chemtrails".

It is a video indicative of the tragic lack of education and experience that so many have, that they fall for this myth and hoax.....and now, every "line in teh sky", to them< is a so-called "chemtrail".

Originally posted by Phage
You are looking at data for the wrong period and the wrong altitudes.
9:00 PM EST is 2:00 AM (March 8) UTC.

200mb represents an altitude of about 39,000 feet. That's pretty high for traffic in that area. 250mb is about 35,000 feet, a little more realistic. Here's the RUC model output. Please note that this is not actual data, but a computer model. The model shows moisture moving into your area, if a bit delayed. But remember, it's a computer forecast, not hard data.

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.

edit on 3/10/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Ahh the phage arrives as I am about to log out and goto eat... so sorry, but even if you massage the data, the direction I was shooting is that clear dark patch of all the maps Phage...

Your saying so does not change the clear facts... and I am using the recommended settings from the bottom of the page where that map comes from. I posted the quote from it in my OP. YOU are the one manipulating data our of proportion here...

There was NO conditions for contrails.. and EVEN IF THER WERE... it does not explain the TWO SETS of planes... I'm sick of dealing with your manipulative techniques from all the other threads we've been in. You arrive already doing them. It is sad people fall for your ... junk.

You can spin all you want... but it holds no water.

So go ahead and spit your normal techniques. I'm off to dinner.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by pianopraze

 

You fail to factor in there were two sets of planes... one set making these and one set not.

That is simple.....this happens because they are at different altitudes.

Sorry but, I have to repeat this over and over again.

You see the flights, but you don't know their exact altitudes until (or if) you check on Flight Aware. If you had logged very carefully each and every flight, and compared what you observed to the facts about each one, then you could begin to see a relationship and it will make better sense.

Sorry no.

There were many many more planes in the sky... all at high altitude. If you want to argue they were military... that I can believe.

Deny Ignorance... not Deny Everything...

I'm off, check back in later,

piano

reply to post by pianopraze

There was NO conditions for contrails.. and EVEN IF THER WERE... it does not explain the TWO SETS of planes

There were conditions for contrails. I showed them to you. You had a weather system moving in. Along with it contrail conditions moved in. That's the way it works.

You used the contrail forecast for the wrong time and an extreme altitude. I used the right time and the right altitude (250mb).

Select a pressure value between 200 and 250 mb for the best estimate.

If you had been a bit more diligent with your data gathering by trying to determine the altitudes at which the planes were flying you may well have found the reason for the "two sets". An altitude difference of less than 1,000 feet can make the difference between contrails forming or not.

reply to post by pianopraze

There were many many more planes in the sky... all at high altitude.

That they were at high altitude is not in doubt. That is the only way to make the contrails.

But, you aren't being clear on the number. You say "many many"....how many? Specifically.

Recall that I counted at least 8 or 9 possibly candidates, just in that one Flight Aware screen grab. We really needed a video, of both the Flight Aware info, and also the sky. But, 8 or 9 in a few minutes' time is not unusual.

reply to post by ProudBird


contrails that persist for five hours?
pull the other one proudwhack
[the point of changing identities is to change oneself,
i could give you pointers, being an expert of sorts in the art of Metamorphosis, but i digress]

also it was in reply to our seemingly naive abudahbian friend's statement
re me not being a proponent of CT'S
thus i didn't embed it, so as to not detract
from thread

sigh so how many u2u's have you sent out?
i'm up to 10
sucks that everybody's offline don't it
so i knew phage was online and on HA's "shocking thread"
took him long enough

reply to post by ProudBird


Yes PB, that is what I said in the post above yours!
Why do you and Unicuss and firepilot (not here any more) and x keep repeating the same old, same old??
They do not listen, want to listen or are just trolls.
Why do you keep feeding them?
You lectured me and Al yesterday about not doing this.

Just ask them for the proof of the contents of the trails...that is all there is to it.

Really, I've star you guys every time for your diligence for a long time.
Class is over. Ask for the evidence.
We all know how cirrus clouds are formed and if they don't, GOOGLE it!!

How long did you try to instruct that idiot about HAARP and "chemtrails"??? Sound travels at the speed of light?
How much more time are you going to waste with useless instruction?

Tom