Proof of chemtrail/geo-engineering May 11

page: 22
45
<< 19  20  21   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 23 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by lewtra
I've just come across a video in another thread, what got closed because the poster did not have 20 posts.. Mr Teslaandlyne put a video up which I find intriguing..Here is a grab from the video..

Excluding the orb, what is wrong in the picture ?? Umm.. Since when have engines been placed under the tail wings of a jet plane..That is where the trails are coming from, in my, dont know anything about airplains or atmospheric properties opinion..


no they aren't - even in that picture they are clearly starting "in front" of the tailplane by a short distance.

But in any case that is just an artifact of perspective - if you take a photo from a different position the contrails will appear to be coming from somewhere else on the aircraft - eg is from dead ahead you won't see the characteristic gap between engine and contrail at all.

For a large number of high resolution contrail pictures from various aspects of the aircraft this site is pretty good




posted on May, 23 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

I know where you are coming from, with the distance part.. but them trails are coming out of the arse end of the tail and if that is the case it proves, they (who ever they are, are spraying something) And your link dont work..

edit on 23/5/2012 by lewtra because: to add a commer, cos it looked daft..



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by lewtra
 


No they're not, you can even see the trails begin IN FRONT of the tail of the plane.

How can it be coming from the tail if they start in front of it?

And have you noticed that the trails line up parallel to the engines?

Why do you think this is?



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by lewtra
 




How can it be coming from the tail if they start in front of it?

And have you noticed that the trails line up parallel to the engines?
ot
Why do you think this is?


Too be honest mate I havent a clue about aircraft, I'm just giving my opinion of what I see, and I see them trails not coming from the engines, under the front wings of the plane..They look like they are being dispersed from the rear fins to me.. Also.. The trails will line up, because they are directly behind them. Night all
edit on 23/5/2012 by lewtra because: spelling is crap tonight.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by lewtra
 





Umm.. Since when have engines been placed under the tail wings of a jet plane..That is where the trails are coming from, in my, dont know anything about airplains or atmospheric properties opinion..


Well you got some of that right and that is where it looks like the trails start,but...



Now what you see is that the contrails are not forming from the wing(although they can that is for a different thread) but actually in front of the rear wing behind the jets. Sorry drawings not my strong suit but I do my best.

Nothing out of the ordinary...Look at this just at a different point of view...



It's all about the perspective you see it at....



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by lewtra

Excluding the orb, what is wrong in the picture ?? Umm.. Since when have engines been placed under the tail wings of a jet plane..


They are not, however they sometimes do:

boardingarea.com...


Of course with the ERJ-145/135, the trails would start even further back, behind the tail.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by lewtra
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

I know where you are coming from, with the distance part.. but them trails are coming out of the arse end of the tail and if that is the case it proves, they (who ever they are, are spraying something)


Actually it proves exactly the opposite.

Because contrails are condensed water/ice, and it takes a small amount of time to cool down enough to be visible, contrails almost always have a gap between where they start and the exhaust of the engine they are coming from.

for slower flying piston engined aircraft the gap is usually smaller than for jets, but it is there non-the-less - eg see this video of WW2 B-17's



Or a couple of Mustang fighters tailed by a Bizjet (I think)-

- contrail is sometimes thinner just above/at the rear edge of the wing



And your link dont work..


so it don't - sorry - here it is again...I hope.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Ok guy's I stand corrected, having done some homework on Contrails, they do sometimes look like they are dispersing from the tail wings.. Thanks for the link..



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
So I like to keep an eye to the sky, to be aware of my surroundings I suppose. I'm not decided on what exactly they are doing with "trails" but I do know that I do not remember seeing them when I was younger like I see them now a days, hence the photographs. I try and take pictures whenever I see a lot of them in action or the unmistakeable "clouds" they leave behind. I don't have the time to post my own thread with all the photos nor do I believe one way or another with absolute certainty so I figured this would be a happy medium. I took these particular photos on a trip to the ATM to pay rent one day in San Bernardino, CA (this was in the beginning of this year, I'll update with exact dates).


















posted on May, 27 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by DeLaTierra
 


Sorry, each of your photos depict perfectly ordinary high-altitude contrails. That consist of nothing different than "naturally" formed cirrus clouds....for, that is all that contrails are, a type of cirrus cloud. Induced by the introduction of man-made technological objects (airplanes) yes.....but, merely the result of such technology, and certainly not "intentional".

As to:


.....I do know that I do not remember seeing them when I was younger like I see them now a days....



I would submit that the Human memory is far from infallible. I'd suggest seeking out any number of movies, or TV shows from the time frame of when you were "younger", and looking for the outdoor scenes of the sky.....you will see many examples similar, if not identical, to what is observed "now a days"....


There is one (well, two actually) change(s) since the "before", just in the last decade or so ---- more airplanes is one primary difference. LOTS more.

And, second, the types of power plants (the turbine engines) used today, and in the last several years, have led to a wider range of conducive conditions for contrails, especially persistent ones, to form than compared to over a decade or so ago. It is a direct result of the desire to increase fuel efficiency which alters the engine designs, and tends to result in more contrails over a wider set of preliminary existing atmospheric conditions.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by PluPerfect
 


And just to demonstrate how that works, on the left is an A-340 with relatively modern high bypass ratio engines, on the right a B707 with older technology low bypass ratio:



The paper that looks at this is here for a fuller explanation.

Edit: The difference is, IIRC, that newer engines will create contrails at altitudes a few hundred feet lower than old engines - so it is quite marginal, but with millions of flights around the world each year even a small % change can equal quite a large number.

edit on 27-5-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by PluPerfect
 


And just to demonstrate how that works, on the left is an A-340 with relatively modern high bypass ratio engines, on the right a B707 with older technology low bypass ratio:



The paper that looks at this is here for a fuller explanation.

Edit: The difference is, IIRC, that newer engines will create contrails at altitudes a few hundred feet lower than old engines - so it is quite marginal, but with millions of flights around the world each year even a small % change can equal quite a large number.

edit on 27-5-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



Isn't it funny how you gave a clear explanation of the process at work in creating the different contrails we have seen over the years, with a very clear image showing two planes at the same height, one producing trails, the other, not. You have in essence done everything correctly. And what you have provided CAN be considered proper proof. There is a theory/explanation and an image to cement it.

But of course, this will not be good enough. The chemtrail idiots will STILL say "no, no, they just LOOK wrong to me" or "i KNOW that they are wrong" and provide nothing, not a single shred of proof, theory or image (and no, images of perfectly ordinary contrails do not count as proof)

"But but, we have testimonies from one guy who said that they ARE spraying!!!" ....oh, well i guess thats all the proof you need eh?

On this page is a very clear explanation of why contrails have changed over the years. Stop wasting your lives and move on



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3danimator

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by PluPerfect
 
change can equal quite a large number.

edit on 27-5-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)


On this page is a very clear explanation of why contrails have changed over the years. Stop wasting your lives and move on


Yes!! yes, we must debunk chemtrails non-stop until these poor wretches stop wasting their lives!! You sir are one of my new BFF!! You actually care about the time spent by these poor, misguided souls on this incredibly insane topic, you sir are a saint!



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilot
 


So, are you saying, in a somewhat sarcastic manner, that you don't want anyone to "deny ignorance" regarding this nonsense?

Why would that be?

Unless you really meant it of course.
edit on 30-6-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by Pilot
 


So, are you saying, in a somewhat sarcastic manner, that you don't want anyone to "deny ignorance" regarding this nonsense?

Why would that be?


Not sarcastic at all. I have seen the light. I am a chemtrail debunking success story. As Phage says, get your facts straight first then have a go. (paraphrase) I have converted to the side of reason and science. Kind of like a mascot or male cheerleader, my team is winning!!



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilot

Not sarcastic at all. I have seen the light. I am a chemtrail debunking success story. As Phage says, get your facts straight first then have a go. (paraphrase) I have converted to the side of reason and science. Kind of like a mascot or male cheerleader, my team is winning!!


Well then, good for you. Though I am a tad disappointed that you thought I was having a go. My use of question marks was entirely intended.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


Sorry friend, no disappointment intended, in fact, you are now officially on my BFF list!! Let's kick some chemmie but!!!





new topics
top topics
 
45
<< 19  20  21   >>

log in

join