Are these Chemtrails?

page: 8
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 




It refutes that it is from WW2, it refutes that it is anything like the supposed chemtrails that have supposedly being happening since the late 1990's.


I see. Makes no bit of never mind to me whether it's from WWI or II or III or anytime before or in between or after. Why should it?


For me it speaks a bit to the knowledge of the person posting it as to whether or not they even recognise what they are looking at, and can manage an honest commentary....but I guess if your are not concerned about the honesty and knowledge of the person you are asking your information then I can see why you would not be bothered by it.


It looks exactly like the chemtrail clouds we all were talking about not 6-7-8 months ago or less.


Really? they looked like smoke and dropped straight down to the ground in a few seconds?

I'd like to see some evidence of that - 'cos the smoke curtains in the video look nothing at all like the modern supposed chemtrails coming from airliners at all.



The threads that were named something like '...cloud tops touching earth...' etc. Looked exactly like this.
By all means search out the thread ...



In fact, I, myself, viewed one of these experiments in real time from my location. Sorry you missed it. And 'curtain' is an apt name because it was like a curtain drawn on a specific section of sky.


I'd love to see the photos some time


True, we've moved on to bigger and greater things - monster dust storms and all the wonderful modifications that originally modifying for drought allow.


Except for those poor New Zealanders - their chemtrails bring too much rain - did you forget that??

How come theirs are different from yours??
edit on 21-8-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Curious and Concerned
 


The clouds in the photo you put up don't look like morse code to me. Is it me or is it you?

The clouds display varying 'pockets' of increased relative humidity, something which you have attempted to say there is no evidence for. You were wrong. Of course the clouds don't look like morse code, as the atmosphere is a dynamic environment that exists in 3 dimensions.

An aircraft however, flies in a straight line (relatively, and suitably for this discussion). As the aircraft flies, it can hit varying 'pockets' of the atmosphere with different properties, just like the clouds, and sometimes these variations will cause contrail formation to vary. This can sometimes cause a 'morse code' effect.


Originally posted by luxordelphi
Listen to yourself. '...ignoring what you have been told repeatedly...'

Lighten up. If you're seeking the truth, you're amongst friends.

I would happily lighten up if you started accepting that you have been wrong or misled, but you haven't acknowledged that once in this thread. Instead you've condescendingly accused everyone else of "having nothing" or "making stuff up" without providing any evidence to support your claims.

Your posts have been shown to contain many, many untruths, so clearly I'm not going to find the truth by simply accepting what you have posted. It would be ok if you were simply asking questions or stating something as your opinion instead of undeniable fact. But you have repeatedly stated something as fact, even when shown to be wrong. I could list all of them in this thread and explain why, with actual evidence or logical reasoning, but I would probably exceed my character limit in this post.

So maybe instead of telling others to lighten up, you could do so yourself and accept that you've been wrong instead of pretending you're not, and not bothering to figure out why. Because you're certainly not going to find the truth like that.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by tommyjo
 




Yes by all means have a little fun but you see this misconception bandied about on 'Chemtrail/Contrail' threads. The misconception that some people can't understand that the temperature at ground level, even during Summer, is not the same at 30,000 feet.


By all means, let's clear this up: NOW HEAR THIS - the temperature at ground level is much warmer than the temperature at 30,000 feet.

While we're at that, let's mention that at 30,000 feet it's a dry cold because there isn't much atmosphere up there. We might also mention that humidity and relative humidity are two completely different things - not interchangeable at all.

And as we talk about dry cold and thin air and relative humidity we might mention that cirrus, whether contrail or natural or chemtrail are some of the few clouds that form in this rarified air. Natural cirrus and contrail cirrus have specific parameters necessary for their formation. Chemtrail cirrus does not meet nor does it necessarily need to meet this criteria.

We also might mention, while we're at it, that the tropopause is not at a uniform elevation but varies considerably by latitude and varies also, in extent, by latitude and season.

And I wouldn't, couldn't leave the subject of temperature without mentioning recent wild cards and jokers: the ozone hole, HAARP and HAARP-like facilities with their ionospheric heaters, the night-time thermal entrapment phenomenon caused by contrail cirrus, the effects of sulphur and reflectant metal nano in the atmosphere as they relate to heat and drought and weather modification and heat records being broken.

To sum: it's not just saying that, oh yeah, the temperature at 30,000 feet is not the same as the temperature directly beneath on the ground. Although, I agree, it's an important point to grasp, but it is not a proof or refutation of chemtrails.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 




For me it speaks a bit to the knowledge of the person posting it as to whether or not they even recognise what they are looking at, and can manage an honest commentary....but I guess if your are not concerned about the honesty and knowledge of the person you are asking your information then I can see why you would not be bothered by it.


I've had an opportunity to show that video to a few people and they were like o.m.g. - that looks exactly like the clouds we were seeing some 6 or so months ago. It's amazing footage from an unimpugnable source. It looks bad for your side and I'm not surprised to find you out at the spokes mucking rake.



Except for those poor New Zealanders - their chemtrails bring too much rain - did you forget that??


I'd like to be able to answer your question and perhaps, in a few weeks or months, if the internet still functions, I will. Right now all I can say is that even though the HAARP array can be angled, I don't believe it can be angled to produce standing waves in New Zealand nor do I feel that altering the course of the jet stream would affect the southern hemisphere in the same way as it does the northern hemisphere. Further, the global hydrological cycle is set and what doesn't dump somewhere, will dump somewhere else.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 





I've had an opportunity to show that video to a few people and they were like o.m.g. - that looks exactly like the clouds we were seeing some 6 or so months ago. It's amazing footage from an unimpugnable source. It looks bad for your side and I'm not surprised to find you out at the spokes mucking rake.


So the why in the world are they spraying video has people you know believing in chemtrails after you tell them all about those pesky chemtrails? I have to ask did you explain to them about contrails and let them make up their own minds?
I am going with no, so you tell them they are seeing chemtrails and that contrails don't persist that long as chemtrails do, Am I close with that observation?

And how does this look bad for our side, as far as I can recall the proof of chemtrail existence has yet to be seen?
edit on 21-8-2012 by tsurfer2000h because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Curious and Concerned
 




An aircraft however, flies in a straight line (relatively, and suitably for this discussion). As the aircraft flies, it can hit varying 'pockets' of the atmosphere with different properties, just like the clouds, and sometimes these variations will cause contrail formation to vary. This can sometimes cause a 'morse code' effect.


So I'm just going to slow way way down and say this one more time: without radiosonde and/or lidar actively measuring each 'pocket' and non-'pocket' within the morse code signal, there is no assurance, beyond assumption, that humidity levels varied to that minute an extent. For God's sake man, it flies in the face of logic. Logic dictates that the plane was spurting. That's the easiest explanation. Yours is convoluted and fantastical. This is what happens when observation takes a holiday and dogma babysits.



It would be ok if you were simply asking questions or stating something as your opinion instead of undeniable fact. But you have repeatedly stated something as fact, even when shown to be wrong.


You all don't have any facts. That's the simple sad truth. Because you see someone dressed a certain way go into a door and later someone dressed the same way comes out, you assume it's the same person. I've enjoyed all the contrail WWII stuff because though I've studied WWII extensively, my studies never included persistent contrails. It was this data from WWII that showed me you got nothing. You're assuming that because you see a trail in the sky it is a persistent contrail and you, therefore, assume that it is at a certain altitude and a certain humidity etc. etc. without ever verifying any of this.

I'm not faulting you. I was in a peculiar situation when I first realized that chemtrails are not persistent contrails but something else entirely. This was my personal experience. It came through observation, not patronage. It's not science that supports persistent contrails, it's propaganda because chemtrails are a clandestine military operation. They are so in your face that an entire bunk science had to be created to explain them away.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


Originally posted by luxordelphi
We might also mention that humidity and relative humidity are two completely different things - not interchangeable at all.

They're different things, but they are related. Relative humidity is the ratio of the actual humidity compared to the saturation humidity of the air, which is dependent on temperature and pressure. It should be noted that when most weather agencies state the humidity as a percentage, they're actually referring to relative humidity.


Originally posted by luxordelphi
To sum: it's not just saying that, oh yeah, the temperature at 30,000 feet is not the same as the temperature directly beneath on the ground. Although, I agree, it's an important point to grasp, but it is not a proof or refutation of chemtrails.

It does refute this claim though.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
I hope you're in the southern hemisphere (where it's winter) because contrails don't form in the summer.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by tommyjo
 




Yes by all means have a little fun but you see this misconception bandied about on 'Chemtrail/Contrail' threads. The misconception that some people can't understand that the temperature at ground level, even during Summer, is not the same at 30,000 feet.


By all means, let's clear this up: NOW HEAR THIS - the temperature at ground level is much warmer than the temperature at 30,000 feet.

While we're at that, let's mention that at 30,000 feet it's a dry cold because there isn't much atmosphere up there. We might also mention that humidity and relative humidity are two completely different things - not interchangeable at all.


The term "humidity" though, generally refers to relative humidity, which is the ratio of the amount of water in the air to the maximum amount it can hold.

As you get higher there's less water, but it also requires a lot less to read saturation, as the cold air can hold less. So it requires less and less water to get to the needed relative humidity levels.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Curious and Concerned
 




An aircraft however, flies in a straight line (relatively, and suitably for this discussion). As the aircraft flies, it can hit varying 'pockets' of the atmosphere with different properties, just like the clouds, and sometimes these variations will cause contrail formation to vary. This can sometimes cause a 'morse code' effect.


So I'm just going to slow way way down and say this one more time: without radiosonde and/or lidar actively measuring each 'pocket' and non-'pocket' within the morse code signal, there is no assurance, beyond assumption, that humidity levels varied to that minute an extent. For God's sake man, it flies in the face of logic. Logic dictates that the plane was spurting. That's the easiest explanation. Yours is convoluted and fantastical. This is what happens when observation takes a holiday and dogma babysits.


Actually, no, we have absolute and undeniable proof that relative humidity varies to that minute an extent.

The proof is .... CLOUDS!



Clouds are perfect relative humidity indicators. Where there's a cloud the relative humidity was above 100%, and where there's no cloud then it's below 100%. Clouds can be big, small, thick and thin. They can be tiny, or they can be huge with tiny gaps in them. Then form in vertical shapes and in horizontal shapes. There can be lots of them, or just one or two.

So imagine the sky when the humidity is a bit lower. You still get all those shapes, all those different regions of humidity, just now they are invisible.

Until a plane flies along, adds a bit more water, and the clouds are revealed as if you'd drawn a magic pen across the sky, making the invisible clouds visible, but just along the line of the plane. We call those new clouds "contrails"



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 



Originally posted by luxordelphi
So I'm just going to slow way way down and say this one more time: without radiosonde and/or lidar actively measuring each 'pocket' and non-'pocket' within the morse code signal, there is no assurance, beyond assumption, that humidity levels varied to that minute an extent. For God's sake man, it flies in the face of logic. Logic dictates that the plane was spurting. That's the easiest explanation.

there are no words...
We know that the atmosphere is not uniform. This is a fact, not an assumption. We don't need radiosonde measurements to understand this, as simple observations prove this. It is entirely logical to understand that it is possible for aircraft to enter varying 'pockets' which only need to have slight differences in properties to affect contrail formation. Of course we can't go and measure every pocket of every intermittent contrail, but we don't need to to know that it is possible.

Your theory on the other hand, relies on the assumption that there are aircraft capable of "spurting" intermittent trails which persist in the atmosphere (something the Evergreen plane has not been shown to do), while assuming that normal aircraft cannot leave intermittent contrails (which we know they can). That is what you would call "convoluted and fantastical".


Originally posted by luxordelphi
You all don't have any facts. That's the simple sad truth.

I have provided the fact that it is cold enough in Summer for contrails to form. I have provided the fact that there were regions of the atmosphere near the OP's photos which were conducive to contrail formation. I could provide the facts as to why so many more of your claims in this thread are wrong (remember, 2 out of 8, or 25% fail), but you refuse to accept facts when it might affect your belief of chemtrails, so what's the point?


Originally posted by luxordelphi
You're assuming that because you see a trail in the sky it is a persistent contrail and you, therefore, assume that it is at a certain altitude and a certain humidity etc. etc. without ever verifying any of this.

I have assumed that it is possible for contrails to form based on the evidence presented and the meteorological data. You have assumed they're not possible based on woefully flawed reasoning and an unwavering faith in chemtrail dogma. The photo's could be chemtrails, but this would require many, many more assumptions than normal contrail formation. Occam's razor would suggest that normal contrails are the more likely explanation. It's as simple as that.

You (or anyone for that matter) have not been able to verify that they're chemtrails either. It's baffling, but not at all unexpected, to see such ridiculous double standards with regards to evidence.


Originally posted by luxordelphi
It's not science that supports persistent contrails, it's propaganda because chemtrails are a clandestine military operation. They are so in your face that an entire bunk science had to be created to explain them away.

There you again, calling something bunk when you clearly do not grasp even the basic components of the science. Your refusal to admit your failings when blatantly obvious shows that cognitive dissonance is strong, and for that I truly feel sorry for you. You have made up your own 'facts' (eg. requiring particle saturation to be "super") to reinforce in your mind that persistent contrails aren't real, when the overwhelming wealth of knowledge proves you wrong.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   
I wish someone could show me a picture as fact,
of a jet flying low altitude over the antarctic in -50 degree weather,
creating contrails.
But I am going with lux it may be to dry to created them,
because if it was humid at -50 it would be snowing.

And I have never seen persistent contrail pictures from car exhaust at -30 degrees,
which would meet the conditions they describe as prime persistent contrail conditions.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   
And I don't understand how something as lite as a snowflake,
can fall to the ground with gravity,
but ice crystals formed in contrails remain airborne and persistent.
I thought ice was heavier then snow.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   
We all know of at least 1 ice that is lighter then air and it is dry ice,
made of co2.
But millions of pounds of co2 turning into dry ice would be bad for the environment,
and we all know the airlines would never do that.
We would have to tax them, more regulation, of the persistent emissions,
because it would be a persistent pollution.
The airlines may even send out pr people to convince us of, a harmless sight in the air.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Rudy2shoes
 

Here's a C130 which has turboprops which are jet turbines with propellors attached to them.



And I have never seen persistent contrail pictures from car exhaust at -30 degrees,

Have you looked? Just ask someone from Canada about ice fog.

In high northern or southern latitudes, especially around urban areas Ice fog can form. Ice fog is any type of fog where the droplets freeze into very tiny crystals in midair. This type of fog forms when the air temperature is well below freezing, generally below zero, so that any vapor present almost immediately condenses. Vapor is added to the air by automobile exhaust, furnaces and industrial plant exhaust. Ice fog can be extremely dense, posing driving hazards and the fog can last all through the day and night.

starryskies.com...



but ice crystals formed in contrails remain airborne and persistent.
Have you ever heard of cirrus clouds?



I don't understand
Apparently you don't. Nor, apparently, have you tried to decrease your level of ignorance.
edit on 8/21/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   
If i wanted to mislead the public and the regulators of pollution,
I would create something like an air bypass engine.
It would mix massive amounts of air with the same amount of pollution.
It would measure as less pollution but still be the same amount of pollution,
it just would be mixed with more air.
And it may have side effects like condensing to air and be more visual.
But it is just a fancy way to pollute more air, but look more harmless.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Rudy2shoes
 

New account there Gmoneycricket? Welcome back



Originally posted by Rudy2shoes
I wish someone could show me a picture as fact,
of a jet flying low altitude over the antarctic in -50 degree weather,
creating contrails.
But I am going with lux it may be to dry to created them,
because if it was humid at -50 it would be snowing.

It wouldn't necessarily be snowing, as if the relative humidity is less than 100% with respect to water, then clouds and precipitation will not form. However, if localised parts of the atmosphere do reach 100% humidity with respect to water, then the humidity only needs to be greater than 100% with respect to ice (which is always lower than wrt water) to persist.

But as per your request, here is a video of a Hercules leaving contrails at ground level at the South Pole. The exhaust supplies moisture as a by-product of the combustion process, which quickly freezes in the freezing air



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   
I said persistent contrail at ground level,
the contrail in that video did not linger for hours.

But to be honest,
who in there right mind would be out there for hours at 50 below
filming vapor trails of pollution.
edit on 21-8-2012 by Rudy2shoes because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rudy2shoes
I said persistent contrail at ground level,
the contrail in that video did not linger for hours.

No, you didn't. Here is what you said:

I wish someone could show me a picture as fact,
of a jet flying low altitude over the antarctic in -50 degree weather,
creating contrails.


You asked about persistent contrails from car exhaust...it's called ice fog.
edit on 8/21/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Not one mention of a car or combustion you may want to update wiki.

en.wikipedia.org...

I wonder how many cars it would take to equal 1 contrail?
I guess we would have to use the same tons of fuel consumed to get close.
Heck it is going to take me over a hundred trips to the gas station just to get the first ton consumed
in my vehicle.
I wonder if a plane can even make it to the end of a runway on one ton of fuel?



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rudy2shoes
reply to post by Phage
 


Not one mention of a car or combustion you may want to update wiki.

Why? You didn't see this post? www.abovetopsecret.com...



I wonder how many cars it would take to equal 1 contrail?
I wonder how much fuel it would take for 200 people to drive their cars across the country. But maybe you're right. No planes is a great idea.
edit on 8/21/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join