Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Excellent Report on Geo-Engineering and Chemtrails [contains a suprise for ATS]

page: 4
36
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by WeRpeons
reply to post by waynos
 


So explain this to me without being so denigrating.


I simply pointed out your lack of understanding of this topic and was not denigrating in any way. Pardon me for not writing a fuller explanation in that post, but I've written it out so often for it simply to be ignored as inconvenient that I now wait to be asked.


I understand how atmospheric conditions can change how contrails expand. I am relating what I have never observed in all my years growing up and playing outside as a young boy all day from morning until the street lights came on. You can't tell me that the kind of contrail grids people are seeing today existed back in the 60's and 70's. Sure, I've observed contrails crossing each other in the past, but nowhere near the amount nor the expansive appearance I've seen today.


This would be correct. As you say, you saw contrails crossing in the past. This was the beginning of what we have today. If you go back to the 1970's, for instance, quite apart from there being fewer aircraft than there are now, the nature of the worlds air fleets was also very different. I will assume you know the engine terms I am going to use here, if not you can look them up or ask. High Bypass tubofans, the sort that, under the right conditions, leave long thick trails behind high flying aircraft, at that time powered ONLY the very largest, widebody jets. These were the Boeing 747, McDonnell Douglas DC-10, Lockheed TriStar and Airbus A300B.

These aircraft were new then, the 747 was the first of them, entering service in 1970, DC-10 and TriStar followed in 1972 and the A300B in 1974. They would not be widely seen in service until about 1977-79 Most airlines still operated older types such as the 707 and DC-8 on their long range routes, these were powered by turbojets or non high-pypass turbofans of an older generation and even though they did create contrails (possibly the ones you observed) they were less visible than now, and of course far fewer. But that is only part of it.

The far more populous fleets were made up of short range aircraft. These included the early model 737, DC-9, BAC One Eleven and Sud Caravelle, for example. These were powered by turbojets and flew shorter routes at lower altitudes, then below those there were the regional airliners, Vickers Viscount, Lockheed Electra, Convair 340 etc down to the smaller 30+ seaters like the DC-3 (still in wide use at the time) HS.748, Fokker F.27 etc which were all propeller driven and flew even lower, mostly not leaving any sort of trails at all.

Fast forward to the 1990s and ALL these propeller and turbojet driven airliners are gone, there are some modern turboprops such as the Dash 8 and ATR series still doing well, but basically every single size of airliner from 50 seats up to 850 is served by an aeroplane powered by high bypass turbofan engines and flies at higher altitude in the more rarefied air, because this is what costs least and generates most profit. The result is masses of trails all over where there were previously very few. But they WERE there.



The vapor trails today expand at a much quicker rate and their is definitely a concentrated effort and planned spacing between the trails.


This is an assumption, The reason the trails expand so much more is because they contain so much more water, due to the nature of the high bypass engine which compresses the ambient air without it going through the engine core and burning in order to augment thrust without using more fuel. While burning fuel itself creates water, the sudden depressurisation of this bypass air aft of the engine simply adds to that (think of the effect when you pull ring-pull on a can of pop and the mist that is created, but multiplied and sustained. An aeroplane would not be able to replicate this effect by carrying something it sprayed, there would be too much volume required. Indeed, it could be said that without the invention of HBPR engines the trails now would be even more vast as so many more engines would be required and they would burn so much more fuel to power the size of aircraft that now exist.

By way of an example, the Saro Princess was powered by TEN Proteus engines and did not sell, only one ever flew. A projected airliner by the same firm called the P.192 which was slightly larger than the Airbus A380 would have required 24 RR Conways (4 of the same engine powered the 707) todays A380 manages with 4 R-R Trents, this is the scale on which engines have developed. Here is a thread I made some time ago about that Saro project.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Please, don't try telling me it's because there are more planes flying today. Were not talking a limited amount of space for flights like a 4 lane highway. Atmospheric conditions haven't changed that would make contrails appear any different today as they did in the past.


As I said, more planes is only part of the explanation. See also engine and altitude changesfor all classes as described. The atmospheric conditions dont need to have changed, this is a common claim and supports what I was saying about not fully understanding.

Oh, and regarding your mention of airports, which is what prompted me in the first place. Because of the conditions required for contrails, unless it is particularly and unusually freezing cold where you are, no trail you spot over your head will have anything to do with aircraft landing and taking off at any airport near you.
edit on 5-1-2013 by waynos because: add link




posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 04:55 AM
link   
The "Belfort Group" report is a load of nonsense trying to masquerade as science - heck whoever they are they wouldn't even put their names to it - which is no great surprise since it is loaded with inaccuracies!



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 10:34 AM
link   
There is a huge difference between countries testing cloud seeding... which I am sure happens.. and "blanketing" cities with layers of supposed chemtrails... which I am sure doesn't happen. People assume if cloud seeding occurs, it MUST be much worse. I don't think it is. It's not practical, effective, and it just doesn't make sense.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Every time I go in to birmingham UK.
I see a lot of "Weather Modification Trails"
but at my home 10 miles out.
I never get any "WMT"
and I get a Lot of plains fly over my home.

if they are dumping fuel.
then That is very Bad for a big city.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


I apologize for taking your reply too personal. I very much appreciate your detailed explanation of what is causing the difference in the size of these contrails. The last thing I want to believe in is the government spraying chemtrails without our knowledge. The new type of engines causing more moisture in the atmosphere and causing the contrails to expand sounds reasonable

You can understand how people my age who have grown up never seeing such wide contrails and so many grid like patterns can be alarmed by just the sight of it. I'm a man of reason, and everyone has their own area of expertise. My expertise and probably a lot of other people here don't have the in-depth knowledge of the mechanics of airplanes or aircraft engines. When you're young growing up without video games, we played outside all day long. Anything out of the ordinary easily attracted our attentions. Most kids back than were more attuned to the outside environment. We knew our surroundings, we played under sunny and clear blue skies almost everyday! Comparing contrails during my days compared to the contrails of today just didn't mesh with the contrails I saw growing up. You can understand today's contrails would appear quite abnormal.

I just can't get my head around the number of grid patterns I saw that day. Like I said before, it literally looked like an air show was recently performed by the Blue Angels. I would like to say I was exaggerating, but frankly I'm not.



Oh, and regarding your mention of airports, which is what prompted me in the first place. Because of the conditions required for contrails, unless it is particularly and unusually freezing cold where you are, no trail you spot over your head will have anything to do with aircraft landing and taking off at any airport near you.


I might of not clearly stated what I meant about the airport. I reside in a city close to 3 large metropolitan cities who also have much larger airports than us. I meant to convey that the amount of traffic flying over our city, not necessarily landing and taking off, would be quite busy. In relation to the amount of grid lines, you would think I would see this on a common basis. I understand how the perspective in altitude of each contrail may cause it to look like a tight grid formation. I just can't imagine that aircraft fly in such a tight and uniform pattern.

(I still can't understand the large 4 engine airliner that we witnessed flying at an approximate 70 degree or more incline). I mean if that plane was occupied with passengers, wouldn't that have sent them all into panic? What would be the reason for such a sharp climb in altitude for a passenger plane?

Considering how many people have been startled by this, wouldn't you think the government would put out a press release and have the media explain that these are nothing more than a change in aircraft engines? And how would we even know the difference between a contrail or a chemtrail. Would you be able to physically tell the difference?



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddha
Every time I go in to birmingham UK.
I see a lot of "Weather Modification Trails"
but at my home 10 miles out.
I never get any "WMT"
and I get a Lot of plains fly over my home.

if they are dumping fuel.
then That is very Bad for a big city.


What are weather modification trails? You mean contrails?

Weather modification usually refers to cloud seeding which is something entirely different.

And I live 30 miles from Birmingham and see contrails all the time - mostly flights from Europe going to the US and Canada or from Scotland or Manchester heading to Spain etc (and vice versa). Aircraft in/out of Brum don't leave contrails as they're too low (ie in warmer air).



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   


Considering how many people have been startled by this, wouldn't you think the government would put out a press release and have the media explain that these are nothing more than a change in aircraft engines? And how would we even know the difference between a contrail or a chemtrail. Would you be able to physically tell the difference?
reply to post by WeRpeons
 


They do. NASA has an entire website which explains everything.
Contrail Education
There is another, recent thread here about the site.
NASA and their "Contrail" Website
Apparently even when the information is given, it is still not trusted by some.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by WeRpeons
 


You are welcome, and thanks for not just dismissing it out of hand. Aviation is something I've followed keenly from the age of 8, not only its progress, but its history too, when I was given my first Revell Me262 kit, which I naturally ruined
I'll soon be 50


I absolutely understand why these trails appear abnormal, and I'm not saying they are harmless either, thats well up for debate, but there doesn't have to be a deliberate spraying operation to explain it. I genuinely find that people who hold that belief simply aren't aware of aviation to the degree that a nerd like me would be, I'm a Trekkie of Aeroplanes


It is a simple fact that people who work in or avidly follow aviation all see chemtrails as nonsense. Chemtrail believers tend to be average joe's who have never had reason to look too closely UNTIL they notice the sky is looking rather odd. That's nobodies fault, its just how it is.

I have taken photos of trails and of grid patterns, here is one I've posted before to show that I'm not blind and I do see these sort of patterns, but the reasons for them are familiar to me.



The grids exist like that on certain days because the relative humidity of the atmosphere is at such a high level (with regard to ice) that the moisture is unable to sublimate back into the air as it normally would, therefore the trails from flights that could be hours apart will all be visible, making for a very busy looking sky. Also planes only have to be in the same corridor and so do not always fly on exactly the same path, so you can get parallel trails, and also the upper wind currents can carry the trails sideways which can multiply the grid effect. The ones on my photo were individual flights by different airlines to different destinations using the same corridor over my house, I tracked them. Obviously I cannot say what yours were.

Regarding the steep climb, I can only offer suggestions for I did not see it myself but could it have been a trick of perspective? Alternately could it have been a large military type such as the KC-135, C-17 etc where the climb angle would not matter, I have seen an RAF C-17 climb very steeply indeed and it surprised me that such a huge plane would do that?

Other than that I would not know what to say.

Regarding what you said about a statement on this, I do actually remember lots of discussion about the changing nature of aircraft power back in the early 80's. That however was in the pages of Flight International so only pro's and nerds would have seen it. I think the time for a statement now is long past and it would be dismissed as propaganda anyway, like all factual sites are on here.

There is lots of info available, but you do have to go looking for it I'm afraid. Contrailscience is run by Uncinus, a member here. The site is regularly ridiculed by believers but I would just say read the info and make your own mind up. Frequent challenges for anyone mocking the site to respond with something off it that is actually untrue have been met with a deafening silence








posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by WeRpeons
I understand how the perspective in altitude of each contrail may cause it to look like a tight grid formation. I just can't imagine that aircraft fly in such a tight and uniform pattern.

(I still can't understand the large 4 engine airliner that we witnessed flying at an approximate 70 degree or more incline). I mean if that plane was occupied with passengers, wouldn't that have sent them all into panic? What would be the reason for such a sharp climb in altitude for a passenger plane?


The FAA/ICAO regulations for aircraft separation minimums are actually quite tight now. Over 29,000 feet, they are only required to maintain 1,000 feet of vertical separation. So it appears that they are flying quite close, but they're still a pretty good distance apart.

As for the 70 degree climb appearance, it's a perspective thing. No large airliner can climb that steeply. I've seen a video of a 757 climbing a little over 45 degrees, but that's the steepest I've ever heard of anything even close to that large climbing at any kind of angle like that. The steepest climb angle that I've heard of for an American built plane is an MD-11, at 25 degrees. The 747 has about a 10 degree rotation angle. I'm not sure about Airbus, but I would imagine that it was similar. No airline is going to climb at 70 degrees, and no military flight is going to climb that steeply, as they're going to burn a horrific amount of fuel.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Here I have found a report from 1977 presaging the widespread adoption of HBPR engines as I wrote above. It even includes a graph showing the types I mentioned and that the HBPR powered widebodies are in a monority, then over the page, under the heading Propulsion it talks about the spread of these engines to other classes of aircraft including re-fitting older types with the newer engines (in reality only the DC-8 really benefitted from this until the 737 was completely redesigned a few years later). Naturally it is solely concerned with fuel and cost savings as contrails were not even considered an issue.

www.flightglobal.com...

Here also is a 757 I photographed on take off this year. Not a good image but it is quite steep.

edit on 5-1-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Well read, intriguing thread. . . Ive heard about this but not really fulling did my own investigation. But, I have to say even if the chemtrails are bad, but controling our weather for civil and defense purpose. . .I say good idea, besides using it as a weapon. But it also means greater advantage for Mankind, our planet be saved by global warming as well as we slowly figuring out how to inhabited another planet.
But good read, I enjoy thanks OP



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by stonerentity
 

? you are saying that the chemtrailing and geo-engineering being done at the present on this planet will give future generations needed experience for future planets we may inhabit.
your forward thinking on this idea is something we don't hear about enough.[with all the debunking going on]
as the op, i am still here on this thread ... looks like it'll be around for awhile, just busy researching for another thread i want to start [givin' me a headache]
g'night all!



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by WeRpeons
reply to post by waynos
 



(I still can't understand the large 4 engine airliner that we witnessed flying at an approximate 70 degree or more incline). I mean if that plane was occupied with passengers, wouldn't that have sent them all into panic? What would be the reason for such a sharp climb in altitude for a passenger plane?



We have a 747 captain who would sometimes take off at max thrust on a short haul flight (which means the plane is around 100,000 kgs lighter than it would be on a long flight) just for fun. They usually don't take off like this, kind of like how when you drive a car you don't floor it at every green light. We used to drive out to the runway to watch it lift off... needless to say it was pretty freaking impressive seeing a 747 take off like a military jet. They can do it, sometimes for operational reasons and sometimes.... just for shiks and giggles so to say.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by tinhattribunal
 


I don't know if you are including me as a debunker. All I can say wrt my above posts is that they are not debunking anything. They are simply a presentation of past factual events that offer a practical, if mundane, reason for the proliferation of contrails. The reason that "the sky didn't look like that when I was younger".

If believing in chemtrails requires true historical facts to be ignored then its not a very good theory.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 





All I can say w.r.t. my above posts is that they are not debunking anything.

i couldn't agree with you more!



good coversation so far, am enjoying just following along.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by tinhattribunal
 





i couldn't agree with you more!


So then your in agreement that chemtrails aren't real, and what your seeing is in all actuality contrails?

Glad you came around....



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 08:51 PM
link   


We have a 747 captain who would sometimes take off at max thrust on a short haul flight (which means the plane is around 100,000 kgs lighter than it would be on a long flight) just for fun. They usually don't take off like this, kind of like how when you drive a car you don't floor it at every green light. We used to drive out to the runway to watch it lift off... needless to say it was pretty freaking impressive seeing a 747 take off like a military jet. They can do it, sometimes for operational reasons and sometimes.... just for shiks and giggles so to say.
reply to post by gman1972
 


The odd thing about this is the climb wasn't coming from the direction of our airport. In fact it was climbing in the direction of our airport. So it couldn't have been taking off. Maybe it was just the sight of my perspective like a few others here mentioned. It just seemed quite steep at the time. In fact, it was one of the reasons that made me think they had to be chemtrails. I wouldn't think a passenger plane would climb at such a steep angle, so I started thinking maybe it was a military plane made to look like a passenger plane. But from the sounds of it, any plane would burn off a massive amount of fuel and the angle would be too great.

Thanks for your input.
edit on 5-1-2013 by WeRpeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by WeRpeons
 


I've seen some contrails, when the plane was coming right at me, that appeared to be going straight up. There is no way that they could have been, but that's how they looked. It can really throw you off if you aren't used to it.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by haven123
 


Thanks for posting that news report. That was interesting and makes sense.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 09:17 PM
link   


Except that there are "highways" that planes use. They're called jetways, and they tend to put airlines on them because those are the best routings as far as wind and weather conditions go. That's why you'll see two planes flying right near each other, because they're both on the same jetway. It's not the atmospheric conditions that have changed, but the engines. New super efficient high bypass turbofans tend to leave longer lasting contrails, than the older turbofans did.
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Thanks for your input on this. That would explain the difference on how the contrails would look different today than in the past. I'm slowly climbing back over the fence on this, but I'm still looking over my shoulder.
edit on 5-1-2013 by WeRpeons because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
36
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join