NASA and their 'Contrail' Web Site

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by nothingwrong
 


Yeah, they did a terrible job of photoshopping it too.




posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Got some nice pics of circular contrails over area 51,... they are quite common ya know.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 12:27 AM
link   
This was posted in another thread and -deserves- reading. PDF may take a bit to load, but again worth reading. In regards to contrails/chemtrails.

www.belfort-group.eu...



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 12:32 AM
link   
See why the have a website teaching about contrails? Some people would rather accept anecdotal theories than learn what they are talking about.
So if YOU never saw them, they must not have happened? That's really narrow-minded reasoning. I've never seen all kinds of things, but I know these things exist.

I am a weather watcher, so have looked at the skies my entire life as well. I saw contrails then, and contrails now. I'm 51, so I've seen and noticed and remembered contrails for over 40 years.
I have a telescope, too. The problem associated with telescopes today is not clouds, it's light pollution from cities who never go dark. Cloudy skies have always been an issue with sky watching. It's nothing new.
Contrails are a known issue. It's why they are studied.....because they are there, and we need to know what their effects just might be. Beaches draw people, people require transportation. There are a lot of planes where tourists go. Where there are a lot of planes, there will be lots of contrails. If contrails bother people that much, perhaps they shouldn't fly.
Can you please cite where there is a 10 degree drop in temperature due to contrails? The global warming people need that info. And the cite for the "can't tan anymore" statement. The skin cancer people would be interested, I'm sure.
Science is not a mantra. People who try and explain things using science will all present the same general information because we know facts are facts, we know science and all it's laws do not change, we know what we were looking at when we noticed contrails before your claim, and we know that better, cleaner engines and fuel make a difference. We also understand that technology changes, so the planes we know we saw when we were young were not the same planes we see now.
Science studies are done on contrails to see their effect! We want to know all about contrails and what their effect really is. Not conjecture, not suspicion, but actual studies. You should look some up. It's quite fascinating. A Bing search for "contrail studies -chemtrails (to exclude the word "chemtrails") has 15,800 hits.
Choose one. Read it and figure out where all these scientists are getting it wrong, then come back and explain your reasoning. Be sure to present theory, methodology, repeatability of everything, and peer review. It's what the studies have, and it's just not fair to expect any less.
As far as the "just SHUT UP", well......don't you think wrong information should be corrected? I sure do. Continuing to spread the "chemtrail" theory is spreading wrong information. There are over 15,000 reasons that you are wrong.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 12:39 AM
link   
Here is a good way to start, should you accept the challenge to challenge a contrail study.
Shut down of Airlines helped contrail studies

There are three really good, easy to understand reference links included.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 04:16 AM
link   
I think its great that chemtrail protagonists are so open minded and enquiring.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Urantia1111
reply to post by minkmouse
 


Secret agendas of depopulation don't leave much scientific proof lying around. Makes it way harder to get away with. I'm only 40. I know what the sky looked like 20 years ago. this is a relatively new thing.


I'm 53, and I saw contrails in the 1960's.

People saw contrails in WW2, and even at the end of WW1.

You are wrong about it being a new phenomena.



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

Originally posted by amallomabo
This was posted in another thread and -deserves- reading. PDF may take a bit to load, but again worth reading. In regards to contrails/chemtrails.

www.belfort-group.eu...


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 @ 04:54 AM
link   
I remember late 90's to early 2000's going online and reading about contrails (chemtrails). NASA had a section of their site dedicated to the study of the effects of aerosols in the atmosphere. Of course, that was taken down shortly thereafter. Wish I had taken a screen cap of that. It was pretty interesting, they did mention weather among other things.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Loptr
 


The still have a page on aerosols

Sigh..!!!!



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by nothingwrong

The plane on the left seems to have some Photoshopped lines behind it?


Photoshopped. Really? See following report. If you read into you will also find the names of the pilots and the provider of the aircraft used in the experiment. You do understand the difference between the two engine variants in use?

www.bragwebdesign.com...

The 'barbers pole' that you can see in the image is from the Dassault Falcon test aircraft.

www.dlr.de...

You are also incorrect in your assumption that persistent contrails were not around 20-30 years ago. I grew up in Scotland in the vicinity of some of the transatlantic air routes. From the early 1970s I remember being fascinated by the airliners overhead and the persistent contrails that they produced.

Explain why the Aircraft Recognition Society during 1950 were using contrails in an attempt to identify aircraft types? Note the perisistent contrails reference in the chart used?

www.flightglobal.com...

www.flightglobal.com...

How do you explain these observations of contrails?

1970s

Link 1

Link 2

1950s

docs.lib.noaa.gov...



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by tommyjo
 


My comment was slightly tongue in cheek...

Lets clear up some issues which are starting to cloud the discussion (he he)

1) I do not deny that contrails have been around for as long as jet aircraft have been around. I saw them 40 years ago too, when I was a kid,.
2) Just because there are real contrails in the sky, and there have been for a long time, does not make this topic any less legitimate.
3) Why does your experience seeing normal contrails negate my experience with unusual ones?

Can I also ask this: Have you NEVER once seen an unusual contrail?



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 08:39 PM
link   
I've beat this topic to death and it DOES matter. Even if you don't believe in chemtrails, everyone needs to understand that contrails affect the weather.
There's too many sources to cite, so simply google search 'Contrails affect weather' and you'll have all the subject matter you need to make an informed decision as to why NASA is focused on them.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by nothingwrong
reply to post by tommyjo
 


My comment was slightly tongue in cheek...

Lets clear up some issues which are starting to cloud the discussion (he he)

1) I do not deny that contrails have been around for as long as jet aircraft have been around. I saw them 40 years ago too, when I was a kid,.
2) Just because there are real contrails in the sky, and there have been for a long time, does not make this topic any less legitimate.


Indeed - there are many, many reasons for this topic to be rubbish that are nothing to do with contrails - eg the utter lack of any evidence whatsoever that the purported chemtrails exist at all - no chemicals, no systems on aircraft, no documents, no additives, no actual sampling of the supposed trails.

Think of any other evidence hat SHOULD be there for this to be true - where is it?? None of it exists!


3) Why does your experience seeing normal contrails negate my experience with unusual ones?

Can I also ask this: Have you NEVER once seen an unusual contrail?



Define "unusual"?

The fact that you may consider a contrail unusual does not stop it being a contrail.

was it generated like a contrail (ie from the the engines or wings of an aircraft)? Does it look like a contrail? Does it behave like a contrail?

If so, why would you consider it anything other than a contrail?



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by nothingwrong
reply to post by tommyjo
 

Can I also ask this: Have you NEVER once seen an unusual contrail?


What is an "unusual" contrail?

You guys say "unusual" when you see a contrail which disperses, and you say "unusual" when you see a contrail which stays for hours. Nothing about this is "unusual" in any way. I remember seeing contrails since my childhood, this includes all sorts of trails, some which seem static and persist for a long time and some which disperse. Some cross the skies in patterns etc..etc..

Your theories would be way more believable if you guys could (for a change) back up what you say by evidence, RATHER THAN claiming something based on assumptions.

If someone would tell me those are chemicals sprayed for a purpose, the least I can expect is that someone can back that claim, eg. as science does, produce PROOF that the "chemtrails" consist of some sort of chemical and then after the "spraying" levels of this chemical *measured* are higher ---> I have never seen anyone mentioning such evidence or give hard facts/numbers about those alleged chemicals being sprayed.
(Despite the fact that it would be entirely nonsensical to disperse any sort of chemical in such a way and in such heights, it would be extremely inefficient....eg. simply doesn't make any fricking sense whatsoever)

Obviously, some of you realized that there is and will never be any hard numbers of any "chemicals" measured....then chemtrail people started to come up with a new theory they do not spray "chemicals" for the purpose of poisoning etc.. but instead for "influencing the weather" or "covering the sky"...etc..etc..which also doesnt make any sense whatsoever for so many reasons I dont even know where to start to point out the nonsense of this.

And the few times someone comes out with some alleged evidence that all those things are supposedly true it turns out that the evidence (videos, reports etc.) are entirely made up, deliberately wrong translated and/or lies.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by nothingwrong


Can I also ask this: Have you NEVER once seen an unusual contrail?



But what is an unusual contrail? Apologies for the late reply. I agree with the above posts and they cover the question.

I've seen a lot of contrails as an aviation enthusiast and also during my military service in the RAF, but nothing that I would call unusual. I can see why some people can get freaked out. For example sunlit contrails or contrail shadows. Add in perspective and I fully understand why some people can get overexcited.
edit on 8/1/2013 by tommyjo because: spelling



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Yeah, like NASA is just like, not even manipulating their pictures of space umm and the satellites work good. Untill they dont. Couse umm there might be something what would like, make the whole system crash if people saw it.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 02:31 AM
link   
I don't know a lot about the chem debate, but I do know that there has been lots of discussion and research about climate alteration through artificial cloud formation or spraying things in the atmosphere:



A final possibility, climate- or geo-engineering , is not an existing policy proposal, but is included because it is increasingly spoken about in the shadows. Geo-engineering will arguably become a reality if there is no meaningful reduction of emissions and a range of dramatic climate alterations start to manifest themselves: in short, if existing trends continue. Geo-engineering involves large-scale, engineered interventions to combat or limit the effect of changes in the earth’s climate. These measures range from the relatively benign to the dystopian. Examples being explored by scientists and entrepreneurs include ways of blocking incoming radiation, such as increasing the amount of soot and smogin the atmosphere or building sunshades, or trying to increase cloud formation artificially, or by increasing the absorptive capacity of the oceans by adding carbonates or phosphorus (ocean fertilisation). Carbon capture and storage (‘CCS’) and biochar technologies can also be considered forms of geo-engineering . Most of these technologies are untested at scale, and many make exaggerated claims regarding their climate effects.[31] Nevertheless, it is the policy space to watch — a space of action, although hard to see as the subject of a global agreement. Such technologies are being explored not only in relation to mitigation, but also in relation to adaptation. For example, Microsoft’s Bill Gates was recently reported to be part of a consortium applying for patent rights on a system for lowering ocean temperatures with the aim of reducing hurricane intensity. As reported in The Australian, the plan calls for a line of barges to be scattered along the US coastline, ready to be deployed in a hurricane’s path. Each barge would have a pair of tubes that thrust warmer surface waters to cooler depths while sucking up colder water.[32] The plan, theoretically plausible, raises a range of issues: ‘What if the system works and [Gates] succeeds in deflecting a Florida-bound hurricane towards Cuba?’ one scientist was quoted as asking. ‘Would that be seen as an act of war?’[33] In desperate times, we are likely to see geo-engineering move from trial to practice. It is unclear whether it would be able to reverse climate change and what consequences it would have for other aspects of the environment. It is unknown how ‘fair’ it would be, and what impact such measures might have on inequality. Nor is it clear who would have ‘permission’ to tamper with the earth system in ways which might be advantageous to some but not to others. Arguably, anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are themselves a form of climate engineering. Geo-engineering would almost certainly have negative consequences for global security, especially if done unilaterally or without the agreement of major powers.
Baskin, Jeremy - The Impossible Necessity of Climate Justice [2009] Melbourne Journal of International Law

It is certainly plausible that some group has decided to begin geo-engineering without the consent of the people.. for the greater good. Its widely accepted in the global warming community that action necessary to fix climate change is impossible through democratic means.

It wouldn't even be that hard to implement - All you would need is co-operation from a few major air lines.. and apparently NASA lol..
edit on 21-2-2013 by bigdohbeatdown because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-2-2013 by bigdohbeatdown because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 02:45 AM
link   
reply to post by bigdohbeatdown
 


You won't find any willing airlines. Weight is money, and they aren't going to throw money away. The modifications they'd have to make cost weight, and that means less cargo and fewer passengers. And if they tried to run it through the engines as many people claim they do that means more frequent engine changes, which is an obscene amount of money per engine (upwards of $20M per engine depending on type).



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 02:50 AM
link   
NASA needs to visit this ATS THREADThere's a pretty powerful and convincing video that people should pay attention to. They're attempting to fix a problem, that's getting worse, by the ways they're attempting to fix them.





top topics
 
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join