It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


So Maybe There ARE Chemtrails...

page: 43
<< 40  41  42   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 10:51 PM
reply to post by fireyaguns

Ah - OK - of course...... everyone is against you.

sorry for that.

posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 12:23 AM

Originally posted by MagicWand67
reply to post by Philippines

Maybe this will help you on your way to defining terms and facts about the perceived issue:

Problem is there are actually many names that have been given.

Stratospheric sulfate aerosols is actually not the only term currently being used.

Also other materials such as engineered aluminum and barium nano particles have been proposed.

SRM = solar radiation management is the most common term.

There are also a few other terms being used as well.

SWCE = shortwave climate engineering

Global dimming = effects of anthropogenic aerosol

Cloud whitening is another geoengineering technique which usually refers to the marine layer. But I think there is some cross over into whitening of clouds in the upper atmosphere too.

I see nothing wrong with the use of the term Aerial Geoengineering. It's an accurate description.

There are many forms of land and sea based geoengineering. Even space based geoengineering in the case of solar sun shades. Although SRM is usually used to describe the use of sulfate aerosols. SRM is also the term for some other forms of Geoengineering.

Like Genetically Modified reflective trees or painting the roofs of houses white.

The point is aerial geoengineering doesn't only have to take place in the stratosphere and they may be using material other than sulfates. If they are studying the effects of different aerosols and clouds at one altitude. It would make sense that they are studying these same effects at all altitudes.

edit on 11-3-2013 by MagicWand67 because: (no reason given)

Thanks for posting the list of other terms to those inclined to do some serious digging and research can have some good starting points.

I probably would care more about this issue if I saw these cirrus sheet formations where I live now, but I don't. =b

posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 01:05 AM
What Is and What Isnt a Chemical

If you try to look up the ingredients in Suave shampoo – Google search Suave shampoo ingredients – the number one hit is a site that condemns the Suave shampoo brand, and instead directs you to read a review of their favorite “herbal shampoo.” In said review, the writer makes the following statement:
“I shudder to think now about how many chemicals I have previously soaked my scalp in.”

Now frankly, it’s impossible to imagine soaking your scalp in anything that’s not a chemical, unless you take extreme poetic license and cleanse your hair with daydreams or something. The problem with statements like this is that all matter – stuff, substances, material – whatever you’d like to call it – is composed of one or more chemicals. Thus the wording of the above sentence is undesirable for a couple of reasons:
(1) It’s nonsensical – even water is a chemical.
(2) It helps perpetuate the misconception that chemicals are bad, and thus just adds to the confusion about chemistry.
Chemical Formula of Human Body

Two calculations have been made for the chemical formula for the human body, one a 26-element formula calculation by American chemical engineer Libb Thims in 2002: CE27HE27OE27NE26PE25SE24CaE25KE24ClE24NaE24MgE24FeE23FE23 ZnE22SiE22CuE21BE21IE20SnE20MnE20SeE20CrE20NiE20MoE19CoE19VE18

and another 22-element (empirical) formula calculation by American limnologists Robert Sterner and James Elser in 2000: H375,000,000 O132,000,000 C85,700,000 N6,430,000 Ca1,500,000 P1,020,000 S206,000 Na183,000 K177,000 Cl127,000 Mg40,000 Si38,600 Fe2,680 Zn2,110 Cu76 I14 Mn13 F13 Cr7 Se4 Mo3 Co1
I don't think anyone has talked about the chemistry side of this contrail/chemtrail debate but i didnt read all 40+ pages of this thread to find out if it has been discussed. Seems to me, based on the above information, those trails would be considered chemical trails (even if they are contrails), if everything, including water, is a chemical.
edit on 12-3-2013 by SamaraTen because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 03:18 AM

Originally posted by SamaraTen
What Is and What Isnt a Chemical

Seems to me, based on the above information, those trails would be considered chemical trails (even if they are contrails), if everything, including water, is a chemical.

Indeed - which is hardly useful but a common chemmie tactic.

Since everything is a chemical such a definition of "chemtrail" would include your breath, and indeed the wind itself.

Chemtrails are supposedly something OTHER THAN "normal" jet exhaust.

Chemmies sometimes try to get the definition extended to cover all "chemical trails" so that someone, somewhere, will actually admit that "chemtrails" exist.

posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 04:30 AM
reply to post by fireyaguns

Please quit with the whining "victim" misdirection tactic. There is no "we", I am an individual trying to have a conversation.

I am utterly familiar with the contrails created by the high altitude daylight bomber streams of the USAAF in the late war and with the fact that they were a consequence of the conditions through which the bombers flew, not a deliberate tactic. I am also aware of how these trails were a total hindrance and a deadly danger, to the bombers own crews.

You however are claiming that the video shows something else, in the light of your childish lie that showing something about W2 will get you into trouble I will continue to hold the opinion that you are talking out of your arse.

The offer to apologise still stands however.
edit on 12-3-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 05:24 AM
reply to post by waynos

If you don't get a T&C violation for that post something is wrong.

I take your insults as a compliment thankyou kindly.

Clearly you are cut like a snake

posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 05:38 AM
reply to post by fireyaguns

There is no insult. If you were not telling a lie you could have easily shown me up by now. Ciao.

posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 05:55 AM
reply to post by waynos

What are you on about

You are Transparent, more than you realise

posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 02:39 PM
reply to post by fireyaguns

For filming of the movie the separation distances were in some cases reduced. Nothing new to the likes of the French Air Force. Some of their airshow display teams were renowned for their super close mirror displays. Some of the distances are very similar to those involved in aerial refuelling. That 'very very thick substance' is a contrail produced at that altitude by the hi-bypass engines of the Airbus A340. Again nothing special.

See footage from the 1960 of a KC-135 producing contrails while a B-52 refuels.

You seriously need to get out and talk to WW2 Aircrew in reference to contrails. What you are seeing in the WW2 footage is nothing to do with screening procedures or smoke screens.

A run was begun on the primary target (Hopsten Airfield), but dense, persistent contrails obscured the target and bombs were not released. Low and high squadrons followed the leader and did not release their bombs at this time. The Group then proceeded to the secondary target, but contrails again obscured the target. The low squadron, however, was able to make a visual run on this target. The aiming point was changed to the intersection of the runways. Just before the run on the secondary target, the high squadron lead was hit by antiaircraft fire and it was necessary to turn the lead over to the deputy. The lead and high squadrons then executed a wide 360 degree turn, selected a new IP, and proceeded to make a second run on the primary target. High squadron deputy, Lt. Craig P. Greason, was hit near No. 4 engine by antiaircraft fire, caught fire and dropped out of formation. The high squadron leader then reassumed the lead, though the airplane was crippled and it was necessary to release bombs on those of the Group's lead squadron. The lead and low squadrons experienced some difficulty with AFCE. The lead and high squadrons let down to 2,000 feet below briefed altitude to avoid contrails on the second run.

More accounts at following link and also the ridiculous video productions of Tanker Enemy. The madness of the die-hard chemtrailer desperate to claim that the WW2 footage is faked. @@:

Also see the studies complied on WW2 contrails and specifically those produced by USAAF. 'World War II contrails: a case study of aviation-induced cloudiness'

Dense and persistent condensation trails or contrails were produced by daytime US Army Air Force (USAAF) bombing raids, flown from England to Europe during World War II (WW2). These raids occurred in years when civilian air travel was rare, giving a predominantly contrail-free background sky, in a period when there were more meteorological observations taken across England than at any time before or since. The aircraft involved in the raids entered formation at contrail-forming altitudes (generally over 16 000 ft, approximately 5 km) over a relatively small part of southeast England before flying on to their target. This formation strategy provides us a unique opportunity to carry out multiple observation-based comparisons of adjacent, same day, well-defined overflown and non-over-flown regions. We compile evidence from archived meteorological data, such as Met Office daily weather reports and individual station meteorological registers, together with historical aviation information from USAAF and Royal Air Force (RAF) tactical mission reports. We highlight a number of potential dates for study and demonstrate, for one of these days, a marked difference in the amount of high cloud cover, and a statistically significant (0.8 °C) difference in the 07:00–13:00 UTC temperature range when comparing data from highly overflown stations to those upwind of the flight path on the same day. Although one event cannot provide firm conclusions regarding the effect of contrails on climate, this study demonstrates that the wealth of observational data associated with WW2 bombing missions allows detailed investigation of meteorological perturbations because of aviation-induced cloudiness

edit on 12/3/2013 by tommyjo because: additional info added

posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 03:30 PM

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by tommyjo

The first video looks CGI to me...

It isn't CGI. The film plot specified that a rogue pilot hid a Mirage 2000 under an airliner. That footage was specifically filmed and involved assistance from meteorologists in order to have the Airbus produce the necessary contrails.

Les Chevaliers du ciel (English: Sky Fighters)

The French Air force were highly involved with the aerial footage. They even provided a specially equipped Miraqe 2000 with cameras in fuel tanks. A Learjet was was used in the filming.

The following footage shows the final footage of the Mirage 2000 hiding under the Airbus A340.

Google translation of the French website.

The other high temperature of the film takes place at more than 13,000 meters. He staged an Airbus A340-600, which is hiding under a Mirage 2000 piloted by a terrorist. For the sake of spectacle, it was necessary to investigate, with the help of meteorologists Air Force, the conditions of temperature and humidity favor the creation of contrails. Production has come from Los Angeles a Learjet equipped with two cameras periscope capable of flying at altitude and speed Mirage and Airbus, while performing acrobatics. Initially, Pires had imagined that the Learjet would leave in flight back over the A340 and would make a barrel to place itself under the belly of the four-engined, revealing during rotation, the Mirage hidden. A plan of hell! The direction of flight tests found too risky maneuver and've opposed.

top topics

<< 40  41  42   >>

log in