Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Chemtrail Timelapse + Request for an Investigation of Documented Weather Mod

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 03:34 PM
link   
An engineer from Charlotte, NC has extensively documented the hosing over his house and is demanding investigations. But, I'm posting this here because of the bigtime research he included in his expose, much of which I have not come across anywhere else. His name is Jerry Leonard and I think this is the first time he has spoken out.

He differentiates between geo-eng and this sub project called "solar radiation management" via "stratospheric particle injections." I think it's important to know the differences.

Holy cow, it's a long one but well worth the insight:
Request for an Investigation of Documented Weather Modification


Indeed, a survey of the patent and technical literature reveals that the deliberate intensification of jet contrail formation is considered the most cost-effective method under consideration as a technique for weather modification and global warming amelioration. To implement this agenda with jet-aircraft, geoengineers are discussing the use of fuel additives, customized engines, after-burner injections, and extra fuel tanks for dispensing experimental chemicals.

The scope of these stratospheric aerosol geoengineering projects needs to be understood by the public because, despite their far-reaching goals, they are being implemented “under the radar,” all over the world, even as their well-paid proponents admit these programs could create a global ice age or alter global rainfall patterns and affect the food supply for billions of people.

Alarmingly, the intensity of the spray incidents over Charlotte, N.C. ..

...

Other means proposed for launching millions of tons of chemicals into the stratosphere for geoengineering operations include particle-spewing smokestacks on ships at sea, tethered balloons dispensing chemical slurries pumped up from the ground, and exploding artillery shells packed with experimental chemicals.

...

Is this the method that is being implemented now? And are they using chemicals other than sulfates?

Geoengineering proponents have advocated for and patented the use of various metals, salts and polymers for dispersal in the atmosphere to modify its reflectivity. (For example, aluminum, titanium & silica gels, bismuth triiodide and Anatase crystal.)



His timelapse vid is telling, plus he documents the how's and why's behind it, plus other countries like in the UK.



Here it is sped up by 2x, for those pressed for time: www.youtube.com...




posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Kmhotaru
An engineer from Charlotte,


I doubt he is a engineer, as a engineer would know that all he videotaped were normal contrails....



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Kmhotaru
 

Really interesting. We're calling it weather moification, and that may be whats happening surely, but doesnt that put them into a position to say that theyre not doing all this FOR modifying the weather?

As in "It may be modifying the weather alright, but its only a sceondary side-effect to what we are doing" whatever that is.

You know...as in "Its raining hard today" or "It sure is wet outside!" I can see them not admitting they are doing anything TO INTENTIONALLY modify the weather....
edit on 09-22-2013 by mysterioustranger because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Kmhotaru
 





Request for an Investigation of Documented Weather Modification


Well after reading that I'm convinced.

Just so you know everything in that so called research is either misidentified, or out right wrong.

Also if you go through the threads in this forum all of those things have been discussed many times over.
edit on 17-2-2014 by tsurfer2000h because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


Really? Um, any examples in case I am being led down a badger hole (instead of a rabbit hole)?



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   
I am embedding the video here for ease of use.



What I see in this video is consistent with the expectation of contrail formation...that is, contrails will certainly form in advance of an approaching weather front...the video clearly demonstrates contrail formation in the morning, followed by lower level clouds moving in later in the afternoon and evening...

Further inconsistencies noted in the paper provided in support of an investigation...


These chemtrail observations are consistent with recommendations by so-called “geoengineers,” who write articles for mainstream media and technical journals and lecture at geoengineering conferences.


The observations cannot possibly be consistent with "recommendations," because:

a) No one knows what the skies would look like as a result of particulate introduction into the upper atmosphere at the heights proposed because there has been no such particulate introduction; and,
b) No one has provided a valid sample of what they believe to be "chemtrails."




Observers throughout the world are documenting the spraying of chemicals over their cities from aircraft.


No they are not. They are documenting contrail formation over their heads. And until such time just one of them provide a shred of evidence enough to simply tilt the scales of doubt to a 51 percent level in their favor, it will remain contrail formation and not chemtrail formation.

The author admits this in the quoted section you provide...


Indeed, a survey of the patent and technical literature reveals that the deliberate intensification of jet contrail formation is considered the most cost-effective method under consideration as a technique for weather modification and global warming amelioration


See the words?" "...deliberate intensification of jet contrail formation..." Now, what constitutes, "deliberate intensification," in the eyes of the author? Would he rather have a reversal to the old-style jet engines which produced much more soot than those of today? Does he demand a reduction in flights? I only ask because those (i.e., newer, high efficiency engines, resulting in improved performance, less adverse emissions, and more flights) are the reasons for more contrail formation.
edit on 17-2-2014 by totallackey because: further content



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Kmhotaru
 





." I think it's important to know the differences.


No truer words have been spoken.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Kmhotaru
 





Really? Um, any examples in case I am being led down a badger hole (instead of a rabbit hole)?


Let's start with how can this person know what those are chemtrails and not contrails?

Interesting thing is nobody has ever taken a plane and tested a supposed chemtrail, yet all believers know the difference how can that be?



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Kmhotaru
 





Really? Um, any examples in case I am being led down a badger hole (instead of a rabbit hole)?


Okay here is something else....


Along those lines, field experiments have recently been conducted in which military aircraft induced man-made cirrus clouds over England through “persistent contrails,” so that changes to the reflectivity of the atmosphere could be measured. And, as is discussed below, a custom fleet of drone aircraft has already been designed for a longer term effort aimed at dispersing one million tons of sulfuric acid per year into the stratosphere, for twenty years.


And what is so strange about that, because if the atmosphere is right persistent contrails will turn into cirrus clouds so nothing new there.

So exactly how big are these drones that can do that?

Now we have this...


Recent revelations of US government programs which sprayed radioactive particles over American cities,


And that will bring me to this...

www.nytimes.com...

Tell you what here is a good place to start that discusses everything you may have questions about...

contrailscience.com...



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 05:54 PM
link   

tsurfer2000h
Interesting thing is nobody has ever taken a plane and tested a supposed chemtrail, yet all believers know the difference how can that be?


Well, if they actually did that it would destroy their fairy tale about chemtrails!



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 

I doubt it, some kids stubbornly refuse to believe that Santa isn't real right into their teens. The chemtrail theories are very similar to the moon hoax theories in many ways, one of them being that absolutely no amount of evidence to the contrary will change a hardcore believers mind, even if somebody flew into a "chemtrail" and took samples and those samples showed no evidence of anything other than what we should expect to be in a normal contrail, the believers would accuse whoever took the samples of being "paid by the government" to lie. The typical chemtrail believer's mind is preoccupied with confirmation bias, only information that affirms their views will be assimilated, sometimes this means an interpretation that is almost pure comedy. And then we have the legions of "government agents" hmmm, I hope that someday the people who make these claims can look back and laugh at the worldview they used to have and say "I was young and stupid", at least for their sake's.


edit on 17-2-2014 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Kmhotaru
He differentiates between geo-eng and this sub project called "solar radiation management" via "stratospheric particle injections." I think it's important to know the differences.


Indeed.

And given that solar radiation management IS Geo-engineering I'm curious to know the difference too....


Solar radiation management[2] (SRM) projects are a largely theoretical type of geoengineering which seek to reflect sunlight and thus reduce global warming.[3] Proposed examples include the creation of stratospheric sulfur aerosols.

-wiki page



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Kmhotaru
 


Great letter! The man did his homework way way beyond what most do. For the first time I'm learning about the 7 years of weather experiments over the U.S. that preceded efforts in Viet Nam. Also the list of legal get out of jail free cards regardless of what your experiments bring, being offerred to those willing to geo-engineer - it's nuts! They're just inviting people to pollute up a storm and trash the sky without interference even if it ends all life on earth. Just amazed me. Thanks for putting that up and I hope a lot of people read it.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Kmhotaru
 


I am truly frightened by our next generation's lack of reasoning skills and reading comprehension!

Careful reading of the quoted piece reveals nothing of substance that has not been known for many years about possible means of altering solar irradiance.

Nothing in the piece reflects anything but speculation and possibilities.

Look at the operative phrases:


... a survey ...
... is considered ...
... under consideration ...
To implement this ...
... geoengineers are discussing ...
... experimental chemicals.
... needs to be understood ...
Other means proposed ...
...particle-spewing smokestacks on ships ...
... tethered balloons ...
... exploding artillery shells ...

"Is this the method that is being implemented now? And are they using chemicals other than sulfates? "

... proponents have advocated ...
... patented the use ...


All of this can be found in a couple of very descriptive illustrations and discussions of possible mediation of solar irradiance.
A simple search reveals exactly where this all was found.

No observations, anywhere.
No measured results cited.

This is nothing more than a re-hashed and edited summary of well-known techniques under consideration.

jw



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 




Interesting thing is nobody has ever taken a plane and tested a supposed chemtrail, yet all believers know the difference how can that be?


The funny thing is their have been several studies of contrail contents performed in the past. It is neither difficult nor expensive. Any true believers could band together and do the same thing to their suspected "chemtrails," but that would destroy the illusion and a good source of income for a lot of advocates.

jw



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Kmhotaru
 


Heya OP, you may find the thread I recently did on something very closely related to this to be of interest.

Geoengineering, The IPCC and our Global Future

Solar Radiation Management is one of the areas they discussed at that international conference and dispersion of particulate in the air with aircraft as one example of methods was part of the written outline. It makes for interesting reading when the source is considered as "The IPCC". Those same folks referred back to as writing the reports that defined global warming/climate change for the United Nations.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 

The key is, it's not happening yet. It's proposed.
That's kind of where this argument is at. The chemtrail pushers think that since there are white lines in the sky, and they are on a conspiracy site, they can disregard the science that explains contrails and jump over to the "SRM" or "Spraying" train with no evidence other than what you have read. Why? Because it sound good. And folks lap it up like milk. Never checking, reading, or dare I say, understanding the context of the documents.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 


Just how do you propose someone take air samples at 32000ft?
I recently watched 2 videos of the 2006 Fairnborough & Biggin Hill airshows in the UK. My idea was to look at chemtrails because high quality cameras would be focussing on the sky, & its time of 2006.
Apart from the great shots (Mig 29 vertical stall & revrse loop incredible) the blue sky distance shots were perfect.
In them were yes, perfectly natural contrails dissapating about 10 lengths behind the plane. However, there were many lingering chemtrails in there as well. These were jets in the far distance & at altitude , not the display aircraft.

I also noticed how quickly the "smoke" from the display aircraft dissapates into the air- it being oil injected into/onto the exhausts of the jets/planes involved.

This was from 2006 & you can clearly spot the difference between contrails & chemtrails!



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 06:20 AM
link   
Inevitably, the mislabeling of this forum has led to a macroscopic manifestation of the Uncertainty Principle: Chemtrails are Geo-engineering, but Chemtrails are not Geo-engineering.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by deano44
 





This was from 2006 & you can clearly spot the difference between contrails & chemtrails!


Might I ask a question...or two..

When these planes that were releasing the smoke at 32000 ft or were they closer to the ground?

Also you do understand that contrails are not smoke made by oil being injected into the exhaust which is done at air shows for just that show.

So since you say you can clearly see the difference could you possibly tell us who just can't see it?



Just how do you propose someone take air samples at 32000ft?


Here you go a way and a company that can do just that.

www.abovetopsecret.com...









 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join