It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Chemtrails a HOAX.... So who is responsible and Why are there so many sources of Information?

page: 6
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 04:17 AM
link   
Yes, it did. The image was sometime around 10am (before I left for work) and it was clouded over by the time I got there, just before 12.

This happens because of the RH levels with regard to ice and water in the atmosphere and the persistence of the trails is what reveals the grid patterns that are created all the time, but which are not visible when the trail sublimates rapidly. This is the factor that many believers I have spoken to have difficulty with. To them it's a case of more planes v less planes rather than a matter of trail persistence.

Due to conditions, there is every possibility that it would cloud over anyway, but of course the obvious visible aircraft contrail is easy to point to, and often actually is the trigger anyway. The question is, I suppose, how harmful is it?

If it's a matter of cloud cover, then I don't think it would be that much as the trail is subject to atmospheric conditions, not in control of them, when the RH drops, the trail and the clouds go away.

If it's a matter of exhaust gases, then I won't argue with that. Toxic exhaust is an issue with any kind of combustion process, including aircraft engines, but those toxins are not anything to do with the trail, they are present all the time the aircraft is under power, the one saving grace of airliner engines is! I suppose, that they only combust about 10% of the air that passes through them to generate thrust! I don't know of any other combustion power source that can claim that.

Regarding your suggestion. I don't think it makes any difference. Even if succeeding flights are on precisely the same path, upper air currents can carry the previous trail sideways before the next flight passes, this is often what causes grids in the first place, you only need two intersecting routes flown a few minutes apart regularly and you can create a huge grid over a couple of hours.

Having said that, it can also cloud over from just a single trail, as per the writing of Saint-Extupery (sp?) quoted by Gaul.

Avoiding creating trails currently would involve flying lower, this would result in higher costs from burning more fuel, creating more pollution. Maybe contrails are the lesser of two evils in this respect?

The USAF tried contrail suppression for the B-2 stealth bomber but it didn't work, instead it now has a warning system so that pilots can fly below contrail conditions to maintain visual stealth. If the USAF hadn't figured it out yet then the airlines surely haven't.

The one thing you can be sure of, seeing a persistant trail or pattern of trails does not mean they were deliberately sprayed.




posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 04:20 AM
link   

OneFreeMan

waynos
reply to post by OneFreeMan
 


This is the one I was thinking of;



I have hundreds more, as I carried out a bit of a study myself when people were claiming on here that chemtrails (pictured in this manner) were being left by unmarked, unidentified aircraft.

Here also is a thread where I addressed the claims that grids etc are a sign of chemtrails, you have to scroll down for the second post as it took me a while to get the time to do it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 13-11-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)


Thanks. Can I ask do you recall if the day clouded over as is typical with these
type persistent lines?
If the aviation industry knows about this effect, as it surely does, would it not make
sense to try and lessen the possibility of this unwanted disturbance to normal weather
patterns by getting the different flights to fly as close as possible to and parallel to
trails already left by previously passing aircraft?
Surely that makes sense, and would be easy thing to implement.



The parallel trails in this picture were probably left by planes flying along pretty much the same route. Contrails are like clouds - they move with the wind so by the time the next flight comes along the trail left by the preceding one is not in the same place and so you get a series of parallel trails moving across the sky.

It is possible for planes to fly lower to avoid leaving trails but then they would burn much more fuel and create a lot more pollution. Or they could fly around areas where contrail persistence is likely but that could add hundreds of miles to the routes.

Other ways of mitigating contrails have been investigated but that would require huge investment by the airlines.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 04:28 AM
link   
And as I glance out of the window I can see it happening now, interestingly it is a stop start trail and the gap is where they intersect. Wish I had my camera here now. It's a Ryanair 737 going west to East and a City Jet Avro RJ85 going South to North.
edit on 13-11-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 04:48 AM
link   

totallackey
reply to post by OneFreeMan
 



If the aviation industry knows about this effect, as it surely does, would it not make
sense to try and lessen the possibility of this unwanted disturbance to normal weather
patterns by getting the different flights to fly as close as possible to and parallel to
trails already left by previously passing aircraft?


What makes you think the contrails left by jets is an "unwanted disturbance to normal weather patterns..."? You realize the only reason why you see the contrails at all is because of the current weather conditions, correct?


But the 'contrails' spread out to join other 'contrails' to artificially cover what would
have otherwise been a clearer bluer sky had the 'contrails' not been present and spaced out.
Are you saying you prefer artificially induced cloudy to naturally blue skies?



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by OneFreeMan
 


My previous post includes this point.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Korg Trinity

As of yet I have not seen a shred of evidence that could disprove the theory.


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is not up to people to disprove something that may or may not exist, regardless of topic. It is up to you, the believer, who has passion and belief in the topic to present undeniable proof that your extraordinary claim is real. Making your argument unbunkable is one way to sway the disbelieving in favour of your topic.
edit on 13/11/2013 by Jab0rnal because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Jab0rnal

Korg Trinity

As of yet I have not seen a shred of evidence that could disprove the theory.


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is not up to people to disprove something that may or may not exist, regardless of topic. It is up to you, the believer, who has passion and belief in the topic to present undeniable proof that your extraordinary claim is real. Making your argument unbunkable is one way to sway the disbelieving in favour of your topic.
edit on 13/11/2013 by Jab0rnal because: (no reason given)


I think you must have misread my post.

I'm asking for those that attempt to debunk the Chemtrail theory to put their money where their mouths are... and fess up their reasoning as to a HOAX.

For if Chemtrails are not a reality then it is a HOAX... if it is a hoax then there is or are people involved in making the hoax.

I'm simply asking who and why...

Can you see where I am coming from?

Korg.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Mikeultra
All those thousands of research papers were done for nothing you think? I see the 2 sides like this. I'll try to pick a name for those who don't believe. Is deniers OK? No offense meant by that term, I don't like using de-bunkers because that would infer that there was bunk. I'm a believer. Anyway the deniers seem to be focused strictly on contrails not being anything abnormal. They seem to reject the idea that a unknown substance could also be released into the normal contrail, creating the chem-trails! It may not be burned through the engines, it could be dispensed through nozzles on the wings near the engines.


Actually, no. We all agree it "could" happen. If you look back to the gulf oil spill, there was a plane with spray nozzles on it to spray corexit over the water. It did so at a very low altitude, but it sprayed. So sure, it's very possible. What our position is, is that nobody can look at a line in the sky and say it's anything other than a contrail with any certainty. It's just about that damn simple.

Until you can offer proof of what "chemical" is in them, other than the deadly H20, we, the deniers/debunkers are going to ask for this proof when you the "believer" makes baseless claims with no evidence.

I swear, if you and the others could grasp this simple concept, there would be no hostility on this.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Korg Trinity

Jab0rnal

Korg Trinity

As of yet I have not seen a shred of evidence that could disprove the theory.


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is not up to people to disprove something that may or may not exist, regardless of topic. It is up to you, the believer, who has passion and belief in the topic to present undeniable proof that your extraordinary claim is real. Making your argument unbunkable is one way to sway the disbelieving in favour of your topic.
edit on 13/11/2013 by Jab0rnal because: (no reason given)



I'm asking for those that attempt to debunk the Chemtrail theory to put their money where their mouths are... and fess up their reasoning as to a HOAX.


I'm simply asking who and why...



Which is it? In your OP you asked the source of the hoax (which you've been given) and the reason for it (which you've been given)

Are you now asking why the debunkers don't think chemtrails are real?



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Mikeultra
What our position is, is that nobody can look at a line in the sky and say it's anything other than a contrail with any certainty. It's just about that damn simple.


This is silly.

There are observable results that prove that even in light of CO2 emissions rising over the past 10 years the climate has cooled....

That the amount of sunlight reaching earth over the last 10 years has been reducing....

There has to be some reason for this effect.... nothing notable in nature...

Something has to be causing it...

Having looked at this personally myself there is nothing in the known causes of particulate could have caused it.

That leaves a covert method being used....

Chemtrails fit the delivery method perfectly...

Speculation maybe... but if not chemtrails then what is causing this???

Korg.


edit on 13-11-2013 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Korg Trinity

Mikeultra
What our position is, is that nobody can look at a line in the sky and say it's anything other than a contrail with any certainty. It's just about that damn simple.


This is silly.


seriously? It's very, very, basic common sense. Here, I will break it down even simpler, Unless you have some magical capabilities in you eye's, or some amazing new technology that can analyze a cloud from 25,000 to 35,000 feet in the air by sight alone, then no, you have no way of knowing what makes up that line in the sky. NONE. If you have a well reasoned rebuttal to that statement, I would love to hear it.


There are observable results that prove that even in light of CO2 emissions rising over the past 10 years the climate has cooled....


And clouds have existed forever, yet artificial clouds, AKA contrails, have been steadily increasing in numbers due to the increasing flights. So if you could link something, why not start with the very obvious? You jumped straight to unicorn piss.


That the amount of sunlight reaching earth over the last 10 years has been reducing....

There has to be some reason for this effect.... nothing notable in nature...

Something has to be causing it...

Let's look for a reason..........Hmmmmmm.............


Having looked at this personally myself there is nothing in the known causes of particulate could have caused it.

Please quantify that statement.


That leaves a covert method being used....

Chemtrails fit the delivery method perfectly...

Speculation maybe... but if not chemtrails then what is causing this???


Speculation? Ya THINK?


Korg.


edit on 13-11-2013 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)


Why, if you believe this is a real problem, do you minimize it by jumping from the basic process of elimination to the fantastic, with no discernible reason?
edit on 13-11-2013 by network dude because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


Methinks Korg is up to his usual tricks. This thread has been answered but he's ignoring that and has set off around the pitch carrying the goalposts with him.
edit on 13-11-2013 by mrthumpy because: Typo



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by mrthumpy
 


I guess he needs more stars and flags.

If he needs that to feel important, while pathetic and sad, who am I to deny it.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


I genuinely believe that 90% of chemtrai advocates are concerned citizens, the other 10% are people for whom chemtrails are simply another convenient arrow in their worldview quiver, where everything is a lie and there are omniscient evil forces hellbent on the destruction of humanity.

Look at the moon-hoax theories, they abound yet who profits from them?

I know people who spend a lot of time and money promoting awareness about chemtrails, printing leaflets and distributing them for example, but when you sit down and discuss the theories with them they cannot provide accurate and conclusive evidence for their existence. It's a self perpetuating belief system, and all the believer has to do is go outside on a day when there are trails and look up to have their beliefs affirmed.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Korg Trinity

I think you must have misread my post.

I'm asking for those that attempt to debunk the Chemtrail theory to put their money where their mouths are... and fess up their reasoning as to a HOAX.

For if Chemtrails are not a reality then it is a HOAX... if it is a hoax then there is or are people involved in making the hoax.

I'm simply asking who and why...

Can you see where I am coming from?

Korg.


I did read your post and I don’t think I misunderstand you.

A hoax is a fabrication designed to look like a truth, therefore you are still assuming that chemtrails, in part at least looks like a truth.
What I am saying is that nobody has presented facts supporting that there is anything other than water vapour (amongst other oxides and particles) in jet engine exhaust.

Attention should be, instead, focused on what is actually (scientifically) in contrails and their effects on the environment.

Answering your question about what hoaxers have to gain by hoaxing anything should be fairly straight forward. A hoax is presented to try and pretend to be something it isn't. Why somebody would do this could be many reasons, but the most significant would be for money, fame or simply, just because you can.
Why somebody would fake chemtrails is a strange question, because they are not ‘faked’ they are either there or they are not. Contrails are real, the question is are they chem or con trails. In my opinion, they are contrails. I don’t have to prove that as science has done that for me.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 08:25 AM
link   
WAYNOS


If it's a matter of exhaust gases, then I won't argue with that. Toxic exhaust is an issue with any kind of combustion process, including aircraft engines, but those toxins are not anything to do with the trail, they are present all the time the aircraft is under power, the one saving grace of airliner engines is! I suppose, that they only combust about 10% of the air that passes through them to generate thrust! I don't know of any other combustion power source that can claim that.


This might be the answer I'm looking for. Only 10% of the air passing through these new high bypass engines? The spray nozzles are located inside the engine cowlings behind the fan blades. The chemical substance is therefore released into the 90% of airflow that is not injected into the engines. That theory now eliminates the argument that engine wear would result from a fuel additive. Although I still think that is also possible with sub-micron sized particles. So it's possible there are separate "substance tanks" in the wings near the engines, that feed the nozzles located in the engine cowlings. GE probably has these nozzles mislabeled as harmless h2o. This would explain the switch over to these ridiculously large new engine types!


Sorry waynos, I don't know how to use the quote system exactly right yet.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Mikeultra
 


Great! and if that's the case, then we should be hearing from engine mechanics all over the world exposing the chemtrail phenomenon. Oh, wait, nobody is doing that.

How about first, try to figure out IF there is anything being sprayed before you start to worry about HOW it's happening.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Mikeultra
 


Interesting suggestion, and the first new idea I've seen on here for months so, whether I agree or not, good bit of thinking.

The question is how practical or realistic is the idea? You still have the same issues about supply chains and people in the know etc, also, it doesn't mean that the visible trail is the spray, which is the central argument that I disagree with. If you are saying the substance *could* be added to the exhaust, at any point, but the visible trail is not it, then I would agree.

Incidentally that 10% figure is more for the larger, top end engines whereas the Rolls Royce AE3007, one of the smaller engines that powers the Global Hawk UAV and Embraer ERJ145 regional transport, among others, has a bypass ratio of 4.8, so a fraction over half the air goes through the core, the rest is bypassed, so while principle stands firm, the ratio varies from engine to engine.


This would explain the switch over to these ridiculously large new engine types!


If you are only injecting and combustion fuel with 40-10% of the air passing through the core and the rest gives you 'free' thrust from the front fan then you are burning less fuel, creating less pollution and spending less money to make the journey.

This is the reason for the switch to modern engines. A turbojet that delivered 100,000lbs of thrust for the 777-300 or A380 would be stupidly noisy, thirsty and expensive. Its as simple as that.

See also research into the next generation of geared turbofans etc and the stalled development from the 1980's of 'open rotor' propfans as an attempted means of further reducing fuel burn.
edit on 13-11-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 09:00 AM
link   

network dude
reply to post by Mikeultra
 


Great! and if that's the case, then we should be hearing from engine mechanics all over the world exposing the chemtrail phenomenon. Oh, wait, nobody is doing that.

How about first, try to figure out IF there is anything being sprayed before you start to worry about HOW it's happening.


Not if the engine manufacturers have included service manuals that have these nozzles identified as some benign h2o doo-dad for clearing soot from inside the cowling. Along with labeling these nozzles as such. Then there is self preservation on the part of the mechanics. If they start asking questions, they might find themselves without a job. Or worse they might just disappear! The economy isn't doing so well these days, so loose lips sink ships is the order of the day for anyone getting uppity under the cowlings.




posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 

That definitely was my conclusion as well.
Sorry mandatory second line.




top topics



 
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join