Geoengineering - caught in the act?

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by tsurfer2000h

 

He can call them whatever he wishes. Since we aren't able to test them, they may have been persistent contrails or they may have been chemtrails, we just don't know yet. Maybe we're seeing a nice mixture of chemtrails and contrails being laid at the same time, but who am I to say?

Many times than not, the terms are becoming more interchangeable. As they decide what to call the different types of geo-engineering, we'll discover more and more and know how to call each one. I'm still waiting to hear if they've decided whether or not to put cloud seeding under the geo-engineering umbrella. I believe they are at odds about this because if they did consider it geoengineering, they would be bound by certain treaties and wouldn't be able to use cloud seeding as a type of weather warfare. See how complicated things are becoming?

edit on 10-3-2012 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)

They have included cloud-seeding under the rubric of geoengineering:

Seeding such cirrus with very efficient heterogeneous ice nuclei should produce larger ice crystals due to vapor competition effects, thus increasing OLR and surface cooling.

Modification of cirrus clouds to reduce global warming

They have also admitted they don't have to get into stratosphere to spray for SRM

A potential delivery mechanism for the seeding material is already in place: the airline industry. Since seeding aerosol residence times in the troposphere

climate sensitivity is very sensitive to upper tropospheric cloud cover and humidity, making cirrus clouds a logical candidate for climate modification efforts. Cirrus clouds also affect OLR more than other cloud types, with their modification directly addressing the radiation imbalance imposed by greenhouse gases

Airlines can do it, and they couldn't put it in the jet fuel

Since commercial airliners routinely fly in the region where cold cirrus clouds exist, it is hoped that the seeding material could either be (1) dissolved or suspended in their jet fuel and later burned with the fuel to create seeding aerosol, or (2) injected into the hot engine exhaust, which should vaporize the seeding material, allowing it to condense as aerosol in the jet contrail.

This paper is a nightmare to those talking against geoengineering.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Afterthought

 

What the OP has is photos of things that look and behave exactly like contrails are known to look and behave like, in a sky for which he has provided misleading atmospheric information, and drawn obviously incorrect conclusions from the flight radar plot.

So give that the observed phenomena match something that is known, and his attempts to show they can't possibly be that are incorrect, the answer to the thread title question is obvious:

Nope.

Prove it.

I gave all the pertinent data, Those contrails could not have formed by the planes on the radar, besides there were a great many more than were listed on the radar, the pics prove that also.

All I hear from your camp is denial. A portion of those reading will fall for the trap, those that want to be secure in their beliefs... the mainstream media does the same thing night after night. Those that want to look at the data will see a different picture.

reply to post by pianopraze


Your radar image shows SIX planes flying parallel paths within a few minutes of each other. That seems exactly like what you saw.

reply to post by pianopraze


No, sorry.....I have previously addressed that VERY paper extensively, in another thread. I grow weary of repeating.

Suffice to say, it is an IDEA, a concept....and it is tremendously flawed in its assertions and assumptions.

Airlines can do it, and they couldn't put it in the jet fuel

Since commercial airliners routinely fly in the region where cold cirrus clouds exist, it is hoped that the seeding material could either be (1) dissolved or suspended in their jet fuel and later burned with the fuel to create seeding aerosol, or (2) injected into the hot engine exhaust, which should vaporize the seeding material, allowing it to condense as aerosol in the jet contrail.

This paper is a nightmare to those talking against geoengineering.

No, not a "nightmare" at all.

Firstly, they (authors) suggest a type of Bismuth, in particle form. Option (1) cannot work, as I think you agreed above.

Option (2) is something that would require extensive modifications, and testing, and FAA approval......processes that take years to develop.

I will try to find my older post on this very issue.....


Well, well, well....was searching, and recall now that you posted that same study and information in this thread.

In this post on Page 6.

Even the same sentence near the bottom:

This paper is a nightmare to those talking against geoengineering!!!

The flaws in its (and your) assumptions were pointed out. Repeatedly.

Yet, here it is again, in your own thread? After it has been shown to be untenable? Usually one learns from what others have explained, and educated about.

reply to post by pianopraze


Here's the basic story i found to tell the tale of chemtrails from beginning to end!
:syzygyastro.hubpages.com...

reply to post by pianopraze


If they were smart though they'd build some mirrors or sun blockers in space instead of #ing up the earth's atmosphere, but what do you expect from some non-fundamental thinking dolts!

Originally posted by pianopraze

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Afterthought

 

So give that the observed phenomena match something that is known, and his attempts to show they can't possibly be that are incorrect, the answer to the thread title question is obvious:

Nope.

Prove it.

You are the one claiming that aircraft are conducting geoengineering - I am pointing out that you have no actual evidence of that, and that what you saw matches known chemtrail behaviour.

so how about you prove it, since you are the one claiming something is happening?

I gave all the pertinent data, Those contrails could not have formed by the planes on the radar, besides there were a great many more than were listed on the radar, the pics prove that also.

Rubbish - the pics show a couple of handfuls of planes, which is entirely consistent with the computer plot.

All I hear from your camp is denial.

Again rubbish - you have had a great deal more analysis offered than you yourself gave - all you have done is said "planes in the sky = geoengineering?" - without even bothering to count how many!!

A portion of those reading will fall for the trap, those that want to be secure in their beliefs... the mainstream media does the same thing night after night. Those that want to look at the data will see a different picture.

Those that actually look at data see you have none for your case.

reply to post by Abduct3d


They spray the #, but it just falls to the ground and ocean and blows away in the wind, what if its keeping the heat in and keeping it from escaping, what if they are wrong on what they are doing? Doesn't look like they are doing over the oceans, and its just going to blow away anyway! Doesn't aluminum help cause Alzheimer's too! Great future these #s have given us and are creating for us!

www.youtube.com... pretty interesting news report on contrails/chemtrails

Originally posted by Abduct3d
reply to post by Abduct3d

 

They spray the #, but it just falls to the ground and ocean and blows away in the wind, what if its keeping the heat in and keeping it from escaping, what if they are wrong on what they are doing? Doesn't look like they are doing over the oceans, and its just going to blow away anyway! Doesn't aluminum help cause Alzheimer's too! Great future these #s have given us and are creating for us!

What if there's actually no spraying going on at all?

reply to post by Abduct3d


That site is the same old garbage, being repeated. Factually inaccurate, and loaded with the same old confimation biases.

Even as far as to include that Rosalind Peterson video.....the one where she makes a fool of hersele, talking about things she doesn't understand.

I'd say, if anything, the site is serving its masters --- the main people behind the continuation of the myth and hoax of "chemtrails", in order to rape the gullible who buy their books and DVDs and other assorted snake oil nonsense.

reply to post by Ikari


NO, sorry. That is the famous "KSLA video". Long, long ago debunked:


Barium Chemtrails on KSLA

Great post Piano.

This is how it has become almost every full moon around my parts for the past few years. The haze that is induced by these mystery aircraft are solely concentrated at an angle from our metropolitan area to block out the sun/moon. Did you notice that at the moons brightest point is when the 'trail' attack began?

The result is a luminous haze much like was described by the scientists of the SRMGI video posted by Burntheships.

What was just 15 years ago the sunniest place in Canada, now clear skies are a rarity. My logical guess is that preliminary testing has been taking place up here for MANY years and has been intensified in the past few. Possibly because of our northern proximity and the thinner ozone layer near the polar caps.

Originally posted by Uncinus
reply to post by pianopraze

 

Your radar image shows SIX planes flying parallel paths within a few minutes of each other. That seems exactly like what you saw.

The only plane on that list that would be visible in the photos in 5.

And where are all the others that went north and East?

reply to post by pianopraze

I have not changed my story no matter how many words you want to try to put in my mouth.

I did not put these words in your mouth.

Conditions were not right for contrail formation.

If, as you claim, conditions were not right for contrail formation, what did you take pictures of?

Your deny everything and obfuscate. You have not rebutted my OP.

I deny that the data you presented precludes the formation of contrails and show my evidence. That does not constitute obfuscation.

Until you can explain the large number of planes flying overhead that were not on the flight aware radar and why ONLY those planes were leaving these persistent spreading contrails we have nothing to discuss.

OK, let's talk about that. I do not see large numbers of planes in your images. But it is difficult to explain the contrail at 8:54 (no plane visible) which appears to run from the northwest to the southeast (or vice versa, roughly). No such flightpath appears on the Flightaware shot. The location you've indicated seems to be between Lackey and Mousie on 550. Is that right? If you were closer to Emmalena the Flightaware shot would make sense.

Did you see a lot of planes on that NW-SE(or vice versa) track? It seems that if you had they should have shown up in the pictures since you were shooting in that direction. A single plane could be a military flight which didn't show up on Flightaware.

reply to post by pianopraze

The only plane on that list that would be visible in the photos in 5.

I explained this to you earlier.

ALL of the airplanes that Uncinus tagged with numbers passed over your location. Look at the scale of the Flight Aware screen shot in the lower left corner. Jets cruising at about 8 miles per minute, at altitude.

Think on it. That is how it works, in real life.

reply to post by ProudBird


Doesn't line up with the direction. Sorry. There were a lot going North/South and north west/south east, southeast/northwest... there were many many more planes than showed up there...

reply to post by pianopraze


I'm totally on the fence on this subject, but I must say - this is the most compelling post I've read on this subject. If everyone posted like this, ATS would be AMAZING. (Thanks!)

i have seen this happen in the canadian rockies and in new brunswick, beautiful clear morining @10am and by 1030 11 it was all overcast covered, no blu skies, i have a thread made of the experience here in ats!

Nice post pianopraze! I see our main disinformation agent is trying to muddy the waters yet again! I have added a link with some factual information on this subject. It talks about patents for spraying devices and etc, and their purposes. Again, nice post!


theintelhub.com...
theintelhub.com...