My first atempt at using weather cams to capture chemtrails in time lapse

Originally posted by SoymilkAlaska
]

i completely disagree.

contrails (normal aircraft trails) fade away quickly.


Chemtrails ( the chemical trails ) linger and sometimes puff away/ turn into clouds.

i had a flight captain tell me the difference once.

This is completely wrong. You have no hope at all of ever uncovering a conspiratorial plot centred on aerial spraying activities if you cannot grasp just how wrong this is.

For people who believe that water vapour contrails always dissipate quickly there are a couple of questions I have;

Why do you think that clouds exist and last?

Why is this different from the water vapour in contrails?

I get that people don't remember persisting trails so much from the past, and it is true that thick persisting trails are far more prevalent nowadays, but nobody ever seems to just ask why this should be, with an open mind. There is a sound reason why this is the case. It is sad that the people who don't know much about aircraft, and often freely admit this, leap to assumptions instead of actually finding out.

Does no Chemtrail believer out there ask themselves why aviation professionals and amateur enthusiasts like myself dismiss chemtrails as nonsense? Why do they think that a lack of technical and scientific knowledge and understanding on a particular subject means they have a deep insight? The notion is ridiculous, isn't it?

Hey!

A chemtrail thread! I don't have anything very important to say, but my bff are here and I am here to cheer them on
yay debunkers
boo chemmie- you are delusional!
chemtrails don't exist. Videos prove nothing.
debunkers win!

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by SoymilkAlaska

Originally posted by nkultra
Some of them take hours to dissipate

yup.

Contrails take hours to disperse if the conditions are right for contrails - just like clouds. Both are water or ice droplets, and are totally reliant upon atmospheric conditions for formation and dispersal.

i saw some youtube videos where people were upset with high aluminum levels in their soil on their property, very strongly pointing towards chemtrails, because the levels were higher after it rained.

Oh...well....faced with well supported evidence like that who could argue??

Did you know that the earth's crust is about 8% aluminium? and that almost all soils contain aluminium? About 60% of soil is a feldspar of one type or other - which always has aluminium as part of its chemical makeup.

soils of 1-2-10% aluminium are normal and always have been.

im not sure why some people defend and reject so strongly "no way chemtrails are fake"

That would be because there is not one single piece of verifiable evidence, EVER, supporting the idea that there is some sort of secret spraying programme going on like chemtrails supposedly are.

nobody is going to convince us, as in the people who know that there are chemtrails, that they do not exist, because they are up there all the time.

Really? You are up in the atmosphere among the chemtrails? well how come no one ever takes a sample sand shows that there's something in them that is unexpected?

Why don't you do that?

we don't know whats in them, chemtrails is just a name for them. we know they are artificial, and we know the difference.

Certainly contrails are also artificial.

But he idea that they always dissipate quickly is nonsense - you've seen YT vids of people with aluminium in their gardens and think that is evidence even though they do not make any actual attempt to show that it has come from an aircraft spraying it? and you think that is good evidence?

Well how about this vid of long lasting contrails:

or this montage of stills of long lasting contrails:

we wont be convinced they are "not real", we wont change our mind. we know that whatever those things are, they are up there, no matter how much someone denies it.
.

Interesting - so you are not actually interested in evidence at all - you're just sticking your fingers in your ears, singling "la la la la can't hear you" and shutting your eyes to reality.

Well I'm not like that.

If you can show me some actual verifiable evidence that "chemtrails" exist as postulated then I will change my mind.

I guess that makes me open minded, and you...well....you're something else entirely!

i disagree, the planes in your video are those types that always have that trail behind them, those old planes do that normally, and probably even used a different fuel, and definitely had very different engines.


i can tell the difference between a contrail and a chemtrail.



chemtrails linger, contrails fade away much faster.

peace.

Originally posted by waynos

Originally posted by SoymilkAlaska
]

i completely disagree.

contrails (normal aircraft trails) fade away quickly.


Chemtrails ( the chemical trails ) linger and sometimes puff away/ turn into clouds.

i had a flight captain tell me the difference once.

This is completely wrong. You have no hope at all of ever uncovering a conspiratorial plot centred on aerial spraying activities if you cannot grasp just how wrong this is.

For people who believe that water vapour contrails always dissipate quickly there are a couple of questions I have;

Why do you think that clouds exist and last?

Why is this different from the water vapour in contrails?

I get that people don't remember persisting trails so much from the past, and it is true that thick persisting trails are far more prevalent nowadays, but nobody ever seems to just ask why this should be, with an open mind. There is a sound reason why this is the case. It is sad that the people who don't know much about aircraft, and often freely admit this, leap to assumptions instead of actually finding out.

Does no Chemtrail believer out there ask themselves why aviation professionals and amateur enthusiasts like myself dismiss chemtrails as nonsense? Why do they think that a lack of technical and scientific knowledge and understanding on a particular subject means they have a deep insight? The notion is ridiculous, isn't it?

edit on 3-7-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)

please don't tell me im wrong by completely evading my statement, while at the same time trying to discredit me by answering everything with more questions....


quote"This is completely wrong. You have no hope at all of ever uncovering a conspiratorial plot centred on aerial spraying activities if you cannot grasp just how wrong this is. For people who believe that water vapour contrails always dissipate quickly there are a couple of questions I have; Why do you think that clouds exist and last? Why is this different from the water vapour in contrails? end your quote"

so, are you saying that its reversed? that chemtrails dissipate quickly and its the Contrails that linger?

either way, ya still got a distinct pattern discriminating a Chemtrail from a Contrail, which ever one of each other they may in fact be.



as for the flight captain reference, that was a joke.


peace.

reply to post by SoymilkAlaska


with such a closed mind, you deserve all the fear and panic your delusions will bring to you.

Please, continue to ignore science, ignore common sense and believe in fantasy.

It's much easier than living in the real world.

Originally posted by SoymilkAlaska

please don't tell me im wrong by completely evading my statement, while at the same time trying to discredit me by answering everything with more questions....

My reply specifically addresses your statement. If I missed something then please point it out. My questions are entirely genuine, its all part of seeing if you have a wider understanding from which your opinion is formed, or not.

so, are you saying that its reversed? that chemtrails dissipate quickly and its the Contrails that linger?

No, I'm saying that contrails can and will linger for many hours if the conditions up there are right for them to do so. You cannot prove, or even convincingly or consistently argue your case for chemtrails when you begin from a patently false premise, such as the 'contrails don't linger' lie.If you are not offended by it, can I ask how, or from where, you really formed that opinion?

either way, ya still got a distinct pattern discriminating a Chemtrail from a Contrail, which ever one of each other they may in fact be.

But that's exactly the point, you haven't got any such distinction given that the premise is false, and if ya dont got that, then whatcha got in its place?

However, YOU have the power to rectify this misunderstanding through learning and research. its in your hands

as for the flight captain reference, that was a joke.

No, it wasnt even that.


peace to you too, you see, I dont mind debate and I dont mind questions. If you want to ask me for my own explanation I'll give it, or you can look elsewhere, its up to you.

reply to post by SoymilkAlaska


You can pretend like you didnt see and ufo in the first few seconds.

There are those of us who know that theres a UFO in that video and there are those that deny it. I dont care what you say because i know its a UFO.

Im tired of people like you pretending you dont see the UFO. /laugh at chemtrailer fools.

Originally posted by SoymilkAlaska


i disagree, the planes in your video are those types that always have that trail behind them, those old planes do that normally, and probably even used a different fuel, and definitely had very different engines.


i can tell the difference between a contrail and a chemtrail.


chemtrails linger, contrails fade away much faster.

peace.

Do they always have the 'trail' behind them. Really? Would you care to go onto an professional aviation forum such as PPRuNe or an aviation enthusiast forum and make that claim? Are you sure that it has nothing to do with the altitude or the atmospheric conditions at height? in your world these old planes just do that normally. There are still a good few WW2 aviators around. Explain to me why none of the WW2 aviators will agree with you that their aircraft always produced a 'trail'. Explain to me why ground observers didn't notice your version of events during WW2?

See link posted and note the observations in Flight Magazine from 1939 onwards. The increase in aviation during the build-up and period of WW2 brought about an obvious marked increase in the observation of contrails; both persistent and non-persistent. Follow the timeline at the links posted and see that persistent contrails didn't suddenly appear in the late 1990s.

Explain to me why test pilots didn't note this trail that you are suggesting was always there?

Geoffrey de Havilland, Jr, test pilot, wrote in Flight Magazine in June 1942

VAPOUR TRAILS Views of Well-known Test Pilot I WISH to correct the various erroneous statements that have appeared in the correspondence columns of Flight concerning the origin of aircraft vapour trails. The trails referred to are, without doubt, due to the condensation of the water vapour content of the engine exhaust gases; this condensation will always occur under favourable conditions of humidity and temperature at high altitudes. I have myself frequently observed these trails from the cockpit of a high-flying aircraft in the very act of formation at the exit of the exhaust pipes. The formation of a short trail, or, as Mr. Dixon has expressed if, a trail "like the wake of a boat," is merely the prelude to the formation of the familiar "permanent" condensation trail which will occur when the aircraft in question runs into more favourable atmospheric conditions. Another type of trail which may be induced by the passage of an aircraft through air of high relative humidity may well be termed an " adiabatic trail," since it has its derivation in the adiabatic cooling of the air concerned to below its dew point

Follow the timeline at the following link.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Full timeline at following links.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

P-51 Mustangs producing contrails. In your world they have nothing to do with favourable conditions of humidity and temperature at high altitudes? In your world they would still be producing the trails at 10,000 feet?



P-51 Mustangs escorting B-29s. Why are there no 'trails'? In your version of events they should be producing a trail.



Footage of B-17 and fighters. Note contrails and periods of none forming. Surely in your world they would be leaving a trail at all altitudes?



Note at 01:16 the B-17s. Note the B-17 producing no contrails while the B-17s at higher altitude producing contrails? Conditions for those higher B-17s are favourable for the production of contrails. If the B-17 was to climb up to that formation then it would be producing contrails.

Is it beginning to set in that your interpretation of 'trails' is flawed?