Chaff and Chemtrails

page: 1
5

log in

join

posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   
It is often hard to distinguish exactly what a chemtrail is meant to be, as proponents of the theory have varying ideas on what they are and what they are meant to do. But the general chemtrail conspiracy seems to involve a massive spraying operation that has been going on for over a decade. The evidence of this spraying occurring usually involves images or videos showing large white trails behind high altitude aircraft that look and behave like persistent contrails, such as the following. Note that one of them shows aerodynamic contrails formed over the wings as well as typical exhaust contrails, and one of them involves bomber formations from WWII.





However, in many threads involving the discussion of contrail/chemtrals, some posters present chaff as evidence that the chemtrail theory is in fact real. This thread attempts to describe exactly what chaff is, and why it is not related to the general chemtrail theory.

Chaff was originally made of thin aluminium strips, but is also made from paper or glass fibres coated in aluminium. Chaff usage as a radar countermeasure is well known, and has been used since the inception of radar during WWII. The purpose of chaff is to create a cloud which produces false radar echoes, to jam enemy radar. This was initially used to hide aircraft from ground radar stations, but more recently it is used to defend against radar guided missiles. Modern military aircraft often combine chaff with flare dispensers which are intended to fool infra-red guided missiles as well.

The following diagram details the AN/ALE-29A which has been used on many Navy aircraft. It uses both chaff and flare shells which are dispensed as a countermeasure against incoming missiles.


When a chaff and flare dispenser is fired from an aircraft, it showers bursts of both flares and small aluminium coated fibres to hide the aircraft from enemy missiles. Chaff dispensers are also utilised on ships as a missile counter measure. Here are some examples of chaff being deployed.
C-130 Hercules

V-22 Osprey

Navy warship chaff dispenser


As you can see, this looks nothing like the large and sometimes persistent trails left behind high altitude airliners which are often labelled as chemtrails. To include chaff usage as evidence of chemtrails would require expanding the definition of chemtrails to include a wide variety of things which are completely unrelated to the general chemtrail conspiracy. This only obfuscates the topic, and can confuse those unfamiliar with chaff into thinking that chaff are the same thing as contrails, which clearly, they are not.
edit on 23/7/12 by Curious and Concerned because: missed a word the post




posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   
I'm not sure those images are even really of chaff, it's more the flare and the flare's smoke that you are seeing. Actual chaff by itself would be pretty much invisible. I've been unable to find a photo of any modern chaff being dispensed without a flare - probably because you'd not see anything.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Curious and Concerned
 


The information you present is basically a WWII obscurant redux. The pictures you show could also apply to aerial cloud seeding using flares or ignitable pots. IMO, chaff, as in obscurants, and chemtrails and cloud seeding are joined at the hip. So I'm strongly disagreeing right off the bat with any statement that they're not.

They are, today, imo, just three different names for one operation. Modern day obscurants are, for the most part, a classified area, for understandable reasons. It's only the blast from the past chaff that we get to see. Cloud seeding (and I include a lot of weather modification including moving radioactive clouds in that) and chemtrails and chaff and military obscurants in general have some things in common. They all obscure. For astronomers, chemtrails obscure the night sky. They create global dimming. Military obscurants are intended to obscure at different levels, some levels not really in the visible range without special equipment. Cloud seeding, as it is practised today, also obscures.

The other thing that they have in common is that, like GMO, and because of military and/or trade secrets, contents are not necessarily made public.

Just a couple of links to illustrate one area of modern day obscurants:

Obscuran ts and the Future Warfighter

One top area of interest is the use of carbon nanotubes to increase reliability and effectiveness of infrared obscuration by as much as a factor of 10 over current technologies.


Doug DuFaux, director of innovations at Buffalo, N.Y.-based nanotechnology firm Nanodynamics, Inc. told Special Operations Technology that, while the ability is not there yet, the potential for manipulating one-nanometer pellets of carbon to obscure infrared signals is immense.


Here's a company developing metal nanoparticle obscurants - a far cry from yesterday's shredded aluminum which was bad enough:

NanoCompsix

John is currently leading projects that utilize metal nanoparticles as novel obscurants to block visible, near-IR, and mid-IR regions of the spectrum.


Breathing aluminum is not good for us, regardless of how much aluminum exists in the soil. Cloud seeding materials are toxic and have a bad impact on aquatic life. Carbon nanotubes are just beginning to be studied and initial reports indicate that this will be another asbestos. If so, decades will pass before regulation vindicates those with health complaints. The monolith cranks slowly when public safety is at issue. The monolith, the government, will protect corporations from frivolous lawsuits before heeding public health complaints.

Study: Carbon nanotubes mimic asbestos in mouse tests

Because of that uncertainty, the researchers hope to pressure companies developing carbon nanotube-based materials to reveal whether they are using longer strands such as the ones that appear to act like asbestos — which was once a wonder material, too, before its cancerous consequences were discovered.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Contrails obscure the sky, sure. But so do other clouds.

Saying that's somehow the same as radar disrupting (yet visually invisible) chaff, is nonsense.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 





Study: Carbon nanotubes mimic asbestos in mouse tests


Why did you leave this out?


And in research in his labs, in which mice are not injected with nanotubes but breathe it into their lungs — the way people would presumably be exposed — the animals developed inflammation that peaked within seven days of exposure, and returned to normal within one or two months.



"Whether the material is asbestos-like is still a question to be debated," Castranova said. "Having a panic that you have the next asbestos is a little bit premature in my view."


www.usatoday.com...

Did you even read the whole article ?



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   
The thing with chaff is that, by definition, it appears on radar - if it were being deployed on a regular, widespread, basis we'd see it on met radar all the time

There was, of coure, the infamous case where a lot of chaff was used during a NATO exercise over Benelux, appearing on German met radar (casuing confusion since the radar therefore showed heavy rainfall where in fact it was dry) and resulting in a complaint being made to the German govt. I think there's also a video somewhere on youtube of chaff being shown on a US met radar. But these are very isolated incidents.

Edit: As Uncinus says, chaff is not visible to the eye (but appears on radar); "chemtrails" are very visible to the eye, but do not appear on radar .....
edit on 24-7-2012 by AndyMayhew because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 



Originally posted by Uncinus
I'm not sure those images are even really of chaff, it's more the flare and the flare's smoke that you are seeing. Actual chaff by itself would be pretty much invisible. I've been unable to find a photo of any modern chaff being dispensed without a flare - probably because you'd not see anything.

Indeed, that is a valid point. I think in the video of the osprey you can see "puffs" which don't seem to be due to the flares, but perhaps this is due to some kind of charge pushing the flares out.

I intended on putting this video in the OP but left it out. It's another view of a warship chaff system which produces a visible cloud, but it's hard to see whether the cloud is the chaff itself or or smoke from the charge which spreads the chaff.

A military aircraft probably wouldn't require as much chaff as a warship, and if a visible cloud is produced it would likely dissipate as it spreads out and become invisible to the naked eye. Unlike the supposed chemtrails we keep hearing about.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 



Originally posted by luxordelphi
The information you present is basically a WWII obscurant redux.

As I said, chaff is an old and well known countermeasure for radar systems. Yet it is the existence of this chaff which is being used to "prove" that chemtrails exist.


Originally posted by luxordelphi
The pictures you show could also apply to aerial cloud seeding using flares or ignitable pots. IMO, chaff, as in obscurants, and chemtrails and cloud seeding are joined at the hip. So I'm strongly disagreeing right off the bat with any statement that they're not.

You could call a lot of other things "obscurants" as well, such as fire works, smog and even banners towed behind a plane. But the existence of one does not prove the existence of another.

For example, planes, helicopters and hot air balloons are known modes of aerial transport. I could also say that a flying carpet is a mode of aerial transport. One could say they're "joined at the hip". But the known existence of hot air balloons does not prove that magic carpets exist.

Of course, I could speculate that magic carpets exist. I could also say that you can't prove that they don't exist, and if you try and tell me that there is no evidence that magic carpets exist you are obviously a disinfo agent trolll shill. Surely you can see the logical failings of this. Yet this appears to be what is happening with chaff being used as evidence that some completely different type of "chemtrail" exists.

If you want to speculate that chemtrails exist, that is perfectly acceptable. But using chaff and cloud seeding as proof that chemtrails (which apparently exhibit completely different charecteristics that are undetectable) exist is ridiculous.


Originally posted by luxordelphi
Breathing aluminum is not good for us, regardless of how much aluminum exists in the soil.

I should be screwed then by the amount of aluminium dust I've inhaled at my workshop when grinding aluminium
Honestly, I'd probably breathe more aluminium grinding through a large sheet of it than you would ingest in a lifetime due to the small concentrations in air at ground level from chaff tests. In saying that, if I was grinding ali all day, I would wear a dust mask, as there could be potential respitory problems, but I don't think it's very toxic.


Originally posted by luxordelphi
Cloud seeding materials are toxic and have a bad impact on aquatic life. Carbon nanotubes are just beginning to be studied and initial reports indicate that this will be another asbestos. If so, decades will pass before regulation vindicates those with health complaints.

They could be extremely toxic, I'm not denying that. But what I'm saying is that cloud seeding does not prove that there are chemtrails. They are different things even if they're somehow "joined at the hip", so the existence of one does not prove that the other exists. Speculate all you like, just don't call it undeniable truth.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Saying that nano size obscurants are invisible to the naked eye is garbled, bizarre and absurd. A naked eye cannot see a nano size particle, however, a release of nano, depending on the size and shape and original material, has peculiar properies when interacting with light. Sunlight, moonlight, starlight, city light, battlefield lights, laser lights...all can be scattered in novel ways.

Saying that a release of nano size particle obscurants would not create a white plume is also garbled, bizarre and absurd. Nano particle reactions with atmosphere and within atmospherically released suspensions should be infinite, or seemingly so.

I'm kind of surprised at this retro discussion. Light scattering and obscuring effects of, for instance, smoke and fog and thin cirrus have been observed by everyone. The release of radar jamming obscurants or obscurants to jam more sophisticated instruments or the use of cloaking particles cannot be used to say that there are no visual effects. Really - you all are too literal or you all are just walking obscurants yourselves.

Effects of Obscurants

Placing obscurants between the target and the viewer will degrade the performance of these sensors. Target acquisition and identification depend on the contrast between the target and its background and the brightness of the target. Smoke and dust will decrease this contrast and brightness by attenuating light reflected from the target. Rain, snow, fog, and haze will also degrade the performance of these systems. To use an obscurant against these sensors, place the obscurant in the line of sight between the target and the observer. Obscuration use in moonlight can also degrade the contrast of target and background. We can further degrade the contrast of a target with its background by the light from the sun that fails directly onto the obscurant and is then scattered into the line of sight. The amount of degradation depends on the position of the sun and the depth of the obscurant cloud. Degradation is greatest when both sun and target have about the same line of sight to the observer or viewer. Considerable degradation can also occur when the sun is directly behind the observer or viewer.


Just a bit about surface plasmons:

Nanomaterials: It's a Small, Small World

Nanomaterials are not simply another step in miniaturization, but a different arena entirely; the nanoworld lies midway between the scale of atomic and quantum phenomena, and the scale of bulk materials. At the nanomaterial level, some material properties are affected by the laws of atomic physics, rather than behaving as traditional bulk materials do.


Nanomaterials have actually been produced and used by humans for hundreds of years - the beautiful ruby red color of some glass is due to gold nanoparticles trapped in the glass matrix. The decorative glaze known as luster, found on some medieval pottery, contains metallic spherical nanoparticles dispersed in a complex way in the glaze, which give rise to its special optical properties. The techniques used to produce these materials were considered trade secrets at the time, and are not wholly understood even now.


The most energetic research probably concerns carbon nanotubes.


Nanocomputers based on carbon nanotubes have already been demonstrated.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
I'm kind of surprised at this retro discussion. Light scattering and obscuring effects of, for instance, smoke and fog and thin cirrus have been observed by everyone. The release of radar jamming obscurants or obscurants to jam more sophisticated instruments or the use of cloaking particles cannot be used to say that there are no visual effects. Really - you all are too literal or you all are just walking obscurants yourselves.


That's beside the point, Chemtrails are not visible on radar. They cannot be chaff in the same way an elephant cannot be a chocolate motor car with a V8 engine capable of doing 0-200mph in 12 seconds.
edit on 24-7-2012 by AndyMayhew because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 



Cloud seeding (and I include a lot of weather modification including moving radioactive clouds in that) and chemtrails and chaff and military obscurants in general have some things in common. They all obscure.


Hi! Remember me? The idiot you sent to the back of the class? I have a really stupid question for you: How does seeding a cloud in order to make it precipitate act as an obscurant? If it works, the cloud goes away, right? Stops obscuring whatever it is that They are trying to hide? Please explain.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
There's like 2,000,000 threads about chemtrails and contrails. At this point....who cares! Let them do what they must do, because we're not going to stop them anyway. Them, being "TPTB". Who cares if they destroy our planet? We certainly don't!!!



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


Originally posted by luxordelphi
Saying that nano size obscurants are invisible to the naked eye is garbled, bizarre and absurd.

The thread is about chaff, the same chaff which we know exists and is used by some people as proof of chemtrails. This chaff does not consist of nano particles. The links you posted mention the potential future use of nano particles as an IR obscurant, but that is not chaff.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Saying that a release of nano size particle obscurants would not create a white plume is also garbled, bizarre and absurd. Nano particle reactions with atmosphere and within atmospherically released suspensions should be infinite, or seemingly so.

Again, the thread is about chaff, which does not leave a visible white plume which can persist and expand for hours.

If you want to discuss the effects of nano particles in the atmosphere, then you could (although that's not the topic of this thread). Nano particles (a known example being soot) do have an effect on the atmosphere, but claiming that their effect is "infinite" would be absurd. I assume you are referring to a particles ability to nucleate ice crystals in the atmosphere, similar to what happens in aircraft exhaust. Yet you still need super saturated regions of the atmosphere for these to form visible and persistent trails though, the same conditions needed for persistent contrails to form.

But this only further highlights that chaff is not evidence that persistent white trails are chemtrails.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Curious and Concerned
 


As usual, any instance of common sense or sound, rational information is met with the loud sound of ignorance being spread like manure. Thank you for providing this information. Perhaps one, mouth breather will see this and have his questions answered. The rest will whine about cloud seeding, chaff, and evil bad men spraying bad juice.

A question for all the "chaff is chemtrails" folks, If we all admit chaff is real and does happen, why are there no deaths or illnesses caused by this insidious beast? Oh yea, because it's foil and fiberglass. nevermind.





new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join