Chemtrail over Melbourne Australia 21/12/2012 11 am

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


Not really showing anyone up thats slightly harsh. I never said that they are chemicals I said contrail/chem for tge reason that im not sure. I do know one thing that the contrails from each plane lingers for hours spreads and mergers into the others to complete some sort of screen. If they were conducting geo engineering techniques thats exactly what id expect the sky to look like.

Its not as though this topic hasn't been discussed by scientists either- what stops they from doing it? Majority of us never wanted war... Or fluoride in water do they listen NO!




posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by lukeUK
 


You're right, it was a bit, even in jest.

Did you know that persistent and spreading contrails have been recorded and investigated since the early days of flying and are not actually new?

Is there anything in particular that makes you think geoengineering would look like it? None of the GE links I've read mention anything like it at all. Most things released into the air would seem to be invisible from the ground or short lived in their visibility.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by nothingwrong

Originally posted by Avgudar
It's fluoride. Americans want the whole world to ingest their poison, so they spray it over countries that do not add fluoride to their waters.


We have some very heavily fluoridated water here in Melbourne, so that makes little sense.


Are you able to verify this statement of yours and clarify what you mean by heavily?



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by nothingwrong
 





We have some very heavily fluoridated water here in Melbourne, so that makes little sense.


Your right that does make little sense...


The average amount added to Melbourne's water is less than one milligram per litre, equivalent to about one sugar grain in a cup of water.

The acceptable fluoride concentration range for Melbourne is 1 mg/L or 1 part per million, with the optimum concentration being 0.9 mg/L. This is set by the Department of Health as recommended by the World Health Organization.


www.melbournewater.com.au...

And you say these were chemtrails that you were seeing in the OP?



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


I don't understand the connection between fluoridation and chemtrails?

I saw a chemtrail, I filmed it, I posted it. Someone made a dumb comment about it being fluoride, I suggested that was not a likely explanation as they already add it to the water here. If you think I exaggerated by using the word "heavily" fair enough. Perhaps I did. But as far as I am concerned ANY fluoride is too much ie "heavy!"

What is your point? If I exaggerate about Fluoride I am therefore unqualified to comment on a chemtrail?

Nice try, but you make no logical sense, you probably drank too much fluoride in your watter as a child - it reduces IQ you know......



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by nothingwrong
 





I don't understand the connection between fluoridation and chemtrails?


I was merely showing you that your comment about being heavily flouridated was not quite true.. that is what that was.

Next I was just making sure that is what your saying you were seeing, that is the only connection.

Sorry if it was a little confusing for you, just killing two posts at one time..



What is your point? If I exaggerate about Fluoride I am therefore unqualified to comment on a chemtrail?


Well if you exaggerate about the flouride then what's to say you didn't exaggerate about that chemtrail you filmed?

Btw I never said you were unqualified to comment on a chemtrail, because honestly I don't know if you are or your not that's not any of my business.



Nice try, but you make no logical sense, you probably drank too much fluoride in your watter as a child - it reduces IQ you know


See now why did you go there? I am not going to even bother replying to that...



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


Well, at least I put a wink at the end of it - I hoped you would be robust enough to stand up to some rib tickling......

I guess my point is that I felt there was an implied connection or otherwise why would you mention it? Fair enough. For the record I would describe any water which is fluoridated as being heavily fuoridated as in my opinion the only acceptable amount is 0% but I digress.

So I still don't really know what you were trying to say, but hey that's my problem.

I saw this amazing chemtrail. I wish I had filmed it sooner you would have seen what a low altitude it was at (Way too low to be a contrail) You would have seen it spread, you would have seen the next one drift over us from South Melbourne (My friends there were watching the chemtrail as it traveled North towards me) I do have some pics I took an hour or so later showing some of this but I have not posted them.

Why not?

Just looks like normal cloud. Unless I had had the foresight to set up a tripod and take a pic every 10 minutes you would still not see the progression from low level con/chemtrail to broad hazy skies. So no point posting if it does not illustrate my point.

I saw a white line in the sky which was to low to be a contrail
My friends South of here saw the same over them
Both these line persisted, spread and widened causing wide hazy lines.
As the one over me drifted North to the horizon the one my friends South of here posted about did the same and drifted over us here.
I have some pics of this taken several hours after the initial chemmtrails were laid, but they are wholly unconvincing I am afraid.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 03:54 AM
link   
The question I have from your description is what height was the chemtrail? Was there are particular way you determined the height?

Did you use FR24s playback feature to identify the flight and altitude details from the link tommyjo provided on page 1?
edit on 3-1-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by nothingwrong
 





We have some very heavily fluoridated water here in Melbourne, so that makes little sense.


Your right that does make little sense...


The average amount added to Melbourne's water is less than one milligram per litre, equivalent to about one sugar grain in a cup of water.

The acceptable fluoride concentration range for Melbourne is 1 mg/L or 1 part per million, with the optimum concentration being 0.9 mg/L. This is set by the Department of Health as recommended by the World Health Organization.


www.melbournewater.com.au...

And you say these were chemtrails that you were seeing in the OP?


I dont understand the connection between the two either...nut I do know that the water is not right and hasnt been for years here.

It stinks of fluoride/chlorine.

Ive rung Melbourne Water several times over the years and keep getting excuses from water pipe works in the area, to the drought havong to have ater diverted from different reservoirs.....Ive been here long enough to know whats right and whats wrong.

I cant drink the stuff now without adding cordial to it.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by nothingwrong
 


what is the difference, in your eyes, between a chemtrail and a persistent contrail?



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Melbourne_Militia
 





I dont understand the connection between the two either...nut I do know that the water is not right and hasnt been for years here.


I wasn't saying there was a connection, I was just saving time and replying to two posts on the same reply..

I guess I should have just used two seperate replies...lesson learned..



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
The question I have from your description is what height was the chemtrail? Was there are particular way you determined the height?

Did you use FR24s playback feature to identify the flight and altitude details from the link tommyjo provided on page 1?
edit on 3-1-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)


I estimated the height of the trail by comparing it to round about clouds.

stream2.cma.gov.cn...

By my reckoning it was well below the "LOW" line on the picture above.



Contrails only form at very high altitudes (usually above 8 km) where the air is extremely cold (less than -40 degrees C). Other clouds can form at a range of altitudes, from very close to the ground, such as fog, to very high off the ground, such as cirrus clouds.


Source from NASA

I did look just at the radar site, I forgot earlier.....

The flight AM312 passed over exactly where I saw the Chemtrail at approx 10.45 at an altitude of 1,575Ft.



Airline: VAA Pty Ltd, Mascot NSW
Aircraft: SOCATA TBM-700N (TBM8)
Reg: VH-KWH
Altitude: 1575 ft (480 m)
Speed: 143 kt (265 km/h, 165 mph)
Track: 197°
Hex: 7C6A58
Squawk: 3736
Pos: -37.7062 / 144.9665
Radar: T-YMMB2



I just showed my wife the radar trail and she agrees that is exactly where we saw the chemtrail.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by nothingwrong

Originally posted by waynos
The question I have from your description is what height was the chemtrail? Was there are particular way you determined the height?

Did you use FR24s playback feature to identify the flight and altitude details from the link tommyjo provided on page 1?
edit on 3-1-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)


I estimated the height of the trail by comparing it to round about clouds.

stream2.cma.gov.cn...

By my reckoning it was well below the "LOW" line on the picture above.


So you can accurately guess the height of a white contrail against a white cloud by eyesight?

That's a pretty awesome ability - I think if you can really do it then you should be on that show about superhuman abilities.


I did look just at the radar site, I forgot earlier.....

The flight AM312 passed over exactly where I saw the Chemtrail at approx 10.45 at an altitude of 1,575Ft.



Airline: VAA Pty Ltd, Mascot NSW
Aircraft: SOCATA TBM-700N (TBM8)
Reg: VH-KWH
Altitude: 1575 ft (480 m)
Speed: 143 kt (265 km/h, 165 mph)
Track: 197°
Hex: 7C6A58
Squawk: 3736
Pos: -37.7062 / 144.9665
Radar: T-YMMB2



I just showed my wife the radar trail and she agrees that is exactly where we saw the chemtrail.



It is entirely possible that the flight was along hte smae line.

Do know what a TBM-700 is??



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

So you can accurately guess the height of a white contrail against a white cloud by eyesight?

That's a pretty awesome ability - I think if you can really do it then you should be on that show about superhuman abilities.



No - a bunch of fluffy white clouds about, it isn't so hard to estimate the location of 1 in relation to another. If you can't do this I would say YOU are the 'special' one!



Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

It is entirely possible that the flight was along hte smae line.

Do know what a TBM-700 is??



Yes, the sight showed a picture of it. A small turbo prop. Why do you ask?
edit on 3-1-2013 by nothingwrong because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-1-2013 by nothingwrong because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 07:27 PM
link   
A contrail is not usually a "fluffy white cloud" - is is usually quite a defined line. And telling whether it is above or below something else that is white would be a notable feat IMO.

Here is how some other people get verifiable info on contrail height.

I was wondering if you knew what it was because turboprops make contrails less often than jets - they usually fly lower.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul


I was wondering if you knew what it was because turboprops make contrails less often than jets - they usually fly lower.


Would be very odd, therefore, to see a low level 'contrail' on the exact path this plane took. You have the radar times, you have the time on the video and they corroborate...... curious yet?



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 04:20 AM
link   
reply to post by nothingwrong
 



I went back to your OP. The TBM 700 overflew an hour before you said you filmed the trail. However I noticed that around the time you mentioned, apart from all the traffic in and out of Melbourne, an Emirates A380 en route from Dubai to Auckland overflew Melbourne at 39,000ft.

Airline: Emirates
Flight: EK406
From: Dubai Dubai (DXB)
Via: Melbourne Melbourne (MEL)
To: Auckland Auckland (AKL)
Aircraft: Airbus A380-861 (A388)
Reg: A6-EDC
Altitude: 39000 ft (11887 m)
Speed: 506 kt (937 km/h, 582 mph)
Track: 93°
Hex: 8960E4
Squawk: 1550
Pos: -38.1061 / 148.0913
Radar: T-YCOR1

While this might appear to be a more realistic source for your trail, I am hampered by not knowing your exact location.

I dont expect you to divulge any such info, but could you have a look?
edit on 5-1-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by nothingwrong

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul


I was wondering if you knew what it was because turboprops make contrails less often than jets - they usually fly lower.


Would be very odd, therefore, to see a low level 'contrail' on the exact path this plane took. You have the radar times, you have the time on the video and they corroborate...... curious yet?


No - not at all.

As has been pointed out your connection of the 2 seems like poor research on yuor part.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by nothingwrong

Would be very odd, therefore, to see a low level 'contrail' on the exact path this plane took. You have the radar times, you have the time on the video and they corroborate...... curious yet?


Except you REALLY cannot estimate altitude by just looking, even if you are trained spotter.You are kidding yourself on that score. That's why instrumentation like this was needed to tellt the height for massed formations of bombers in the Battle of Britain




posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


It's rather insulting to be told that I am so stupid I can't even estimate the proximity of one physical phenomena in relation to another. For example, if one cloud is above or below another cloud. Can you look up and tell if one cloud is higher or lower than another cloud? I can. It all depends on which one goes behind the other one. The one in front is closer (or lower down) It is very simple. Don't over complicate things. Go out and look at some clouds and try this for your self. Now imagine one of those clouds is very long and thin. It is in front of anything which is behind it, and behind anything which is in front of it. This makes estimation rather easier than you suggest!

(Damn dammn damn I wish I had taken pictures as soon as it appeared. Then you would see. Oh well, me stupid, should have done it but didn't) ho hum!



new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join