Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Anamolous cloud formation & strange spiral contrails.

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 08:58 AM
link   


Even if power levels achieved were insufficient to be an effective strike weapon, the potential for psychological operations in many situations could be fantastic


Strike weapon???
the potential for psychological operations in many situations could be fantastic???




it makes what are otherwise the results of deliberate actions appear to be the consequences of natural weather phenomena


Decievers of the truth





How will the military, in general, and the USAF, in particular, manage and employ a weathermodification capability?


USAF in particular




Our vision is that by 2025 the military could influence the weather on a mesoscale (




posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Two pages of posts and nothing



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 05:14 AM
link   
Thanks for all your input everyone.
I see we have a little debate in progress, I welcome it!
So far I haven't seen this phenomenon over my skies again since I took those pictures. Also haven't seen a single persistent contrail, just the usual 10 second disappear ones.

Sry, micro-rant ahead.

I don't understand how some of you posters can confidently say that this has been totally debunked... Can you please provide links or something? Please prove me wrong. I am not just some cloud watching idiot I am a registered storm spotter and I wouldn't say I'm an expert on cloud formation but I know a heck of a lot more than the average joe about it. & I also am aware that sometimes its easy to see patterns you "want" to see (just like the average moon/mars picture thread) but I cant help but notice it plays out exactly the same every time.

If its just merely the "perfect" conditions for persistent, spreading contrails at a certain level of the atmosphere then whats with the grid-like flight pattern? I know there's allot of planes flying at any giving time, so you would think the odds of always making a nice even "tick tack toe" would be enormous right?? Why is the sky always clear of clouds before it starts? What about the huge "X" shapes right in the middle of whatever blue sky is still showing? If this thread was based on just one day of observations I could wright it off and sleep easy but I see this exact same thing every time.

I am aware this technology exists in some form and has been tested and perhaps perfected already. My sneaky govt does plenty of secret stuff and is not above testing things with no regard to the local populations. There's plenty of threads about such tests..(search about the one where they released thousands of bees over a US town...) Can someone explain to me what makes the concept of "chemtrails" so absolutely bogus that you can write it off is debunked or "doesn't exist"??

Z32Driver



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Z32Driver
 


"...then whats with the grid-like flight pattern..."

When more than one plane flies through an area, leaving contrails, they will leave behind a pattern merely because crossing paths create a pattern. Planes flight paths cross. The wind makes the contrail drift a bit, the next plane crosses, add in two similar situations on a different heading and, "ta-da!", a grid. Really it is a simple logical process.
What you also don't know without tracking a contrail is that sometimes those "x" and "grid" patterns are not visually the same a few miles away. I've done this myself. What is the "X" marking? Nothing.....because the trails are always moving and changing. I really don't know why this really simple to understand logic escapes people but it does. No one can change wind yet.......at least nobody has ever suggested otherwise on ATS. So your "pattern", is not. I am a cloud-watcher myself. How many clouds exist (outside of orographic) can you say ever "marked" a territory? For me that would be none, because clouds are constantly changing.

As to this:
..."Can someone explain to me what makes the concept of "chemtrails" so absolutely bogus that you can write it off is debunked or "doesn't exist"??..."

Also logic applies.
1st: Exhaust is hot and wet, the atmosphere can be cold and wet, and when the two meet, contrails form. Just like your breath (which is your exhaust) makes a cloud when you exhale outside in winter. No one needs to add anything to exhaust to make this happen.
2nd: The amount contributed by the plane is miniscule; the atmosphere contributes most of what you see (Somewhere I have a link to a study showing that atmospheric contribution of water was to the "4th magnitude", or 10,000:1 I can not find the link on this computer, so I stipulate this as hearsay for now).
3rd: The volume of supposed materials in a "chemtrail" will all have weight, which would be noticed by anyone who has anything to do with a plane. Many believe the entire trail is added, (How real is a concept when no two people say the concept is different in all points? Logic says "bogus".) which is impossible given the volume of product needed to produce a single cloud.
4th: Many believe that the "chemtrails" are affecting their health, that seeing them causes their eyes to burn, coughing, etc. That is impossible. Nothing the size of a particle in a contrail will fall to earth for at the very least 24 hours, most probably NEVER. In order to have an effect of any type, anything at the level of a contrail would have to be the size of large hail.
5th: There are no valid tests anywhere, at any time, that anything in a "chemtrail" have been proven chemically. Even someone in the "chemtrail" community has admitted that.
Logically, they cannot exist as claimed. Logically, no theory with so many differences in the "facts" cannot be true. Logically, nothing up there is doing anything to you down here.
And logically, you cannot prove a negative. So really, it's not on us to prove it is not true, it for proponents to prove it is.
If you want to learn about contrails, Google "contrail studies - chemtrails". Read and learn the science. Contrails have been seen and studied as far back as World War 1. There are pictures of them that old as well. "Chemtrails" have been around only as far back as the internet.
Coincidence? I think "no".



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Here is an other trail example video.
You can clearly see that x and # patterns are not that uncommon in the sky close to airports or airplane routes.
I am not saying they are chemtrails or normal contrails, i just wanted to show this for comparison.




posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Z32Driver
I don't understand how some of you posters can confidently say that this has been totally debunked... Can you please provide links or something?


Here you go - this page explains what is happening.

And this page provides a simulator to help with visualising it.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by stars15k
 


Look stars I haven't said anything about any sort of "marked" territory, anything falling from the sky, supposed health issues, or the X shapes being any sort of marker for anything. But I do see days when the trails last all day and follow clear and obvious patterns caused by coordinated aircraft. Thanks for the search suggestion but I know all about em, wind & perspective too.

I can sorta see where your coming from with your list of points.. and honestly here im not trying to say I believe there's some evil plot to make completely chemical contrails to rain down and screw up our health or something. What I'm saying is I believe its certainly possible and even reasonable that there is some mechanism that can and is being deployed to create these persistent spreaders. I was reading about how even adding small amounts of whatever to the fuel would really catalyze the contrail-formation process.
That's always made allot of sense to me, also it sounds easy and inexpensive to accomplish. Maybe its just my nature, im skeptical but find it extremely difficult to write off anything as impossible in this day and age.
The word impossible doesn't really fit in around here anyways



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Z32Driver
reply to post by stars15k
 


What I'm saying is I believe its certainly possible and even reasonable that there is some mechanism that can and is being deployed to create these persistent spreaders.


Indeed - ther are millions of those mechanisms working worldwide every day - they are called engines - internal combustion and/or jet engines.

If you are in Alaska you will know that car exhausts make "ice fog" that is nothing more than a persistant contrail at ground level.


I was reading about how even adding small amounts of whatever to the fuel would really catalyze the contrail-formation process.


What is allowed to be added to jet fuel is a matter of public record, and adding anything else is a criminal act.

Here is the specification - Def Std 91-91 Revision 7

For some reason the people saying anything else is in fuel never seem to bother the evidence fairy when it comes to providing any justification for their claims.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Here's a specification for Jet A1 that might be a bit easier to read -

Aviation Fuel Quality requirements
edit on 7-2-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: because my typing sucks



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Again, I understand contrail formation. So contrails form regularly from jet engines, this is well established, i get it.
How does this bit of information prove that enhanced / intentional contrail formation or chemtrail deployment (perhaps for "climate control") is not also being conducted?


I found this information interesting...


At an international symposium held in Ghent, Belgium May 28-30, 2010, scientists asserted that “manipulation of climate through modification of Cirrus clouds is neither a hoax nor a conspiracy theory.” It is “fully operational” with a solid sixty-year history. Though “hostile” environmental modification was banned by UN Convention in 1978, its “friendly” use today is being hailed as the new savior to climate change and to water and food shortages. The military-industrial complex stands poised to capitalize on controlling the world’s weather.




“In recent years there has been a decline in the support for weather modification research, and a tendency to move directly into operational projects.” ~World Meteorological Organization, 2007





Going under a variety of names – atmospheric geoengineering, weather modification, solar radiation management, chemical buffering, cloud seeding, weather force multiplication – toxic aerial spraying is popularly known as chemtrails. However, this is merely one technique employed to modify weather. The practice of environmental modification is vast and well funded.


SOURCE

Thoughts?



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Z32Driver
 

I have read the report being talked about in your source. The symposium was not a good source of information. It is biased from the start, by making the presumption that "chemtrails" were real, and never really questioned. This quote is a good example:
"Going under a variety of names – atmospheric geoengineering, weather modification, solar radiation management, chemical buffering, cloud seeding, weather force multiplication – toxic aerial spraying is popularly known as chemtrails."
The only thing listed that is considered "chemtrails" is "chemtrails" itself. Geoengineering is a very broad field, of which spreading anything by planes is considered to be the most expensive and problematic plan, therefore the last resort. And to be effective it would require planes flying higher than the contrails seen today. Because all weather takes place in the atmosphere, using "atmospheric" with geoengineering is redundant at best, and purposely biased. Weather modification has been attempted since man first was annoyed by the weather. Before planes, large fires were used, and cannons. Those were not "chemtrails". Solar radiation management can be ground-based actions.....simply using cement (white) instead of asphalt (black) surfaces and white instead of dark roofing is considered solar radiation management. Cloud seeding is not "chemtrails", nor is it considered geoengineering by the experts in the field. It takes place too low, over too small an area, for such a short amount of time to really do much about the weather except for directly under clouds being seeded. Apples and oranges.
The "weather force multiplication" is just, well.....wrong. It goes back to a "what if" research paper. Here is the disclaimer:


2025 is a study designed to comply with a directive from the chief of staff of the Air Force to examine the concepts, capabilities, and technologies the United States will require to remain the dominant air and space force in the future. Presented on 17 June 1996, this report was produced in the Department of Defense school environment of academic freedom and in the interest of advancing concepts related to national defense. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United States government.
This report contains fictional representations of future situations/scenarios. Any similarities to real people or events, other than those specifically cited, are unintentional and are for purposes of illustration only.
This publication has been reviewed by security and policy review authorities, is unclassified, and is cleared for public release.

Source
Do you really think something like this would be cleared for public release if it were true? Of course not. If it was in operation, we probably wouldn't know a thing about it. Yet here it is on the web.
The final blunder of that single sentence is the claim "toxic aerial spraying." What tests show anything toxic? Please, if you find a test showing toxic chemicals, show us. It should be a good test of the trail in situ, done with proper method. A "chemtrail" believer/website operator has recently admitted that there is no test that proves the claims.
If all that is wrong in a single sentence, imagine how many other errors are made in the report as a whole.
And once again, it's not up to debunkers to show it doesn't exist, it's up to believers to show it does.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Z32Driver
 




Thoughts?

My thoughts are, why does the "Belford Group" which held that supposed "international symposium" remain anonymous? Why do they claim that "spraying" is being done yet provide no evidence that it is?



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Z32Driver
 


Now for the really short answer, which I forgot to include above:

Clouds are water. Contrails are water.
The albedo from clouds is high enough that no chemical agent of any type would be needed. Why add something to the jet fuel, something that would either burn up or foul the engine anyway, that is not needed?
See? "Chemtrails" do not survive the common sense if critical thinking.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by stars15k
 




I have read the report being talked about in your source. The symposium was not a good source of information. It is biased from the start, by making the presumption that "chemtrails" were real, and never really questioned.


You are talking about biased, give us a break. Are you not making assumptions yourself seen as you have never proven chemtrails don’t exist?




Do you really think something like this would be cleared for public release if it were true? Of course not. If it was in operation, we probably wouldn't know a thing about it. Yet here it is on the web.


Here you go double minded two talking tongue. If it did exist we wouldn’t know about it and yet you say it doesn’t exist because you see no proof.
Double minded or your sitting on the fence.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Z32Driver
 




Thoughts?

My thoughts are, why does the "Belford Group" which held that supposed "international symposium" remain anonymous? Why do they claim that "spraying" is being done yet provide no evidence that it is?


Do you think just maybe there is a little danger when doing our best to expose the enormous deception against us and our lands?

Evidence is everywhere friend, our soil, our blood, our health, our animals, our wild life, our water, our air, Evidence is everywhere for those who will look into aerial geo engineering for them-selves.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by fireyaguns
 


Do you think just maybe there is a little danger when doing our best to expose the enormous deception against us and our lands?
No. There are plenty of people doing it. Making movies, selling t-shirts. I think it's because it would show that that the "Group" is just a couple of people (or one person) of no more importance than any of the others but by maintaining their anonymity they can continue to delude people into thinking their claims carry some weight.


Evidence is everywhere friend, our soil, our blood, our health, our animals, our wild life, our water, our air, Evidence is everywhere for those who will look into aerial geo engineering for them-selves.
No. No such evidence.
edit on 2/15/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 03:05 AM
link   
Arial Geo Engineering or Chemtrails if you like are also involved with the deadly mass killer HAARP.

The US government has at least three of these weapons.

This short link www.youtube.com... is showing many different applications for arial geo engineering or chemtrails and will help with the research for evidence that you will be able to match up with conjunction of HAARP link here www.youtube.com... what a dangerous weapon these people have made.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by fireyaguns
 


Indeed, but you also tried to say that the Harold E. Holt station was HAARP and that the fish were being burned there, which was clearly misinformation as I know many, many people who regularly fish there.

So, what else could you have wrong?



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 





So, what else could you have wrong?


How about everything....



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by stars15k
 



The symposium was not a good source of information. It is biased from the start, by making the presumption that "chemtrails" were real, and never really questioned.


Ok I'll admit it... I haven't exactly checked em out, but lets just say the symposium is super biased or whatever. You get the benefit of the doubt on that one.
You say it like the whole site is based on this source.
There are other sources cited with more specific information.


IOP Article (another source from that site i previously linked)
From link:


Seeding such cirrus with very efficient heterogeneous ice nuclei should produce larger ice crystals due to vapor competition effects, thus increasing OLR and surface cooling. SNIP A potential delivery mechanism for the seeding material is already in place: the airline industry.



Another source from that site. Is this legit enough for you to at least admit its POSSIBLE yet?
US Navy Chemtrail patent.
From above link..........


Light scattering pigment powder particles, surface treated to minimize inparticle cohesive forces, are dispensed from a jet mill deagglomerator as separate single particles to produce a powder contrail having maximum visibility or radiation scattering ability for a given weight material.



An earlier known method in use for contrail generation involves oil smoke trails produced by injecting liquid oil directly into the hot jet exhaust of an aircraft target vehicle. The oil vaporizes and recondenses being the aircraft producing a brilliant white trail. Oil smoke trail production requires a minimum of equipment; and, the material is low in cost and readily available.

I mentioned in prev post adding stuff to the fuel / engines as a condensation catalyst, now confirmed. ^


The present invention is for a powder generator requiring no heat source to emit a "contrail" with sufficient visibility to aid in visual acquisition of an aircraft target vehicle and the like. The term "contrail" was adopted for convenience in identifying the visible powder trail of this invention.



Come at me bro.

Z32Driver





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join