NAVY and NASA - The REAL "Chemtrails"

chemtrails are obvious to some of us.

the most famous ATS chemtrail thread, i think?

painting the sky

i have been listening (and participating with) to the debunkers on this issue since the painting the sky thread (4-12-2003).
it is as obvious to me now, (and even more so, after looking deeper) that CHEMTRAILS are a real phenomena.
they are NOT typical CONTRAILS.
this summer, there were WAY fewer chemtrails, bordering on none, but, back when i started noticing them, it was almost everyday.

PATTERN: very high altitude aircraft start laying down parallel lines of chemtrails...chemtrails spread out like wispy cotton candy and join together into a could blanket...blue sky day turns into overcast day. i have seen this pattern take over three hours to complete.

in my ennui soaked sunbathe worshiping youth, this has NEVER happened with normal jet contrails, which generally disperse within twenty minutes to an hour, MAX. NEVER did i see "contrails" be laid down by aircraft flying in parallel formation, which subsequently blank out the sun with the clouds that formed as a result of their exhaust.



[edit on 23-9-2009 by billybob]

Originally posted by Phage
The thread title says "Chemtrails".
What did you expect to happen?

Are you saying ATS can't look at the facts and separate them? Are ye all so predictable? Even YOU? Say it's not so...

:shk:

More STUFF NASA et al are dumping into the upper atmosphere... using the incoherent scatter radar at Arecibo, Millstone Hill and EISCAT radars (HAARP like facilities) to zap them

Experiments involving artificial ionospheric injections of different materials were conducted in the 1980’s. For example, Millstone Hill 440-MHz ISR was used to observe the spatial and temporal development of heavy negative ion plasma clouds created during four active chemical release experiments: the Ionospheric Modification Study (IMS) in 1983, the Space-Plasma Negative Ion Experiments (SPINEX 1 and 2) in 1984 and 1986, and NICARE 1 in 1989 (Sultan et al., 1992). The METAL campaign (Kirkwood and Vonzahn, 1993) was a multi-instrument campaign conducted in 1991 that was designed to investigate the relationship between neutral and ionized metallic layers in the high-latitude lower ionosphere. Measurements included electron density profiles and electric fields from the EISCAT UHF radar, ionosonde measurements of E(s) layers, neutral Fe profiles from lidar, rocket observations of winds (by chaff releases), and measurements of plasma density and ion composition (by mass spectrometer). The Arecibo incoherent scatter radar was used to observe enhanced ion acoustic and Langmuir wave turbulence after the release of 30 kg of CF3Br into the F region at 285 km (Bernhardt et al., 1995). In July 1992, as part of the NASA Combined Release and Radiation Effects Satellite (CRRES) El Coqui rocket campaign, the AA 2 experiment was performed. Its purpose was to study the interaction between a powerful radio wave and a high ion mass (Ba+) ''collisionless'' plasma. Approximately 35 kg of Ba were explosively released near the center of the Arecibo high-frequency heater beam at 253 km altitude (Djuth et al., 1995). Barium cloud releases were studied by Sridharan et al., 1997. Among other materials used for active experiments the following can be mentioned: metallic needles (Goldstein et al., 1998), CO2 (released near Millstone Hill ISR, Semeter et al., 1996), trimethyl aluminum (Roper, 1996).

CF3BR bromotrifluoromethane
"Due to the ban on production of bromotrifluoromethane (CF3Br) because of its high ozone destruction potential..."
www.fire.nist.gov...

Barium - Metallic barium has few industrial uses, but has been historically used to scavenge air in vacuum tubes. Barium compounds impart a green color to flames and have been used in fireworks.

Trimethyl Aluminum - Semiconductor grade TMA

Metallic Needles - Metallic Needle Probes - Nanoscience Instruments
Metallic Needle Probes. NaugaNeedles metallic needle probes are available on a wide variety of cantilevers. The metal tip is a constant diameter cylinder, ...
208.106.197.158...

Injecting Nanotech into the ionosphere...

Recent advances in nanotechnology open new horizons for active experiments in space. In particular, the so-called “nanoparticles” (0.015 to 2.5 μm in diameter, Postnova Analytics, 2005) can be charged to very high (up to a few hundreds, depending on the environment) charge numbers. If injected at ionospheric heights, they can create strong and sustainable artificial inhomogeneities of ionization (electron density enhancement or depletion) comparable or stronger than that of the background ionosphere. One possible application could be the excitation of artificial polar mesosphere summer echoes (PMSE).

EISCAT Progress report
e7.eiscat.se...

[edit on 23-9-2009 by zorgon]

reply to post by zorgon

66 pounds of CF3Br were released at 177 miles over Arecibo in order to study the upper reaches of the ionosphere. Spacecraft are considered to be outside of the atmosphere at 77 miles, the gas was released 100 miles above that. 66 pounds of CF3Br is about the same amount of propane in 3 of the 5 gallon tanks you use on your barbecue grill. Yes, it does react with ozone. But the very top of the ozone layer is 31 miles above the surface, 146 miles below the release point. There was no danger of any of the CF3Br doing any damage to the ozone layer or any other part of the atmosphere. It dissipated into space.

77 pounds of Barium were released 177 miles (100 miles above the atmosphere) over Arecibo. Barium is a highly reactive element which combines readily with just about anything it comes into contact with. When the widely diffused cloud of dust reached the upper limits of the atmosphere, it would combine with the oxygen and other atoms found there.

The study from Goldstone on "metallic needles" is interesting. In 1963 the Westford project deployed copper needles into orbit as a communications experiment. The needles were less than 3/4" long and orbited at an altitude of about 2,250 miles. Not really a very good idea. There was a lot of complaining about the project and that protest resulted in a provision in the Outer Space Treaty. In 1998 the Goldstone X-band radar detected a cluster of those needles still in orbit. Some of the first space junk and some of it is probably still up there. It is slowly reentering though, some of the meteors we see are probably those little bits of copper burning up.

None of these things have affected the atmosphere. Nor have they created any sort of "shield".


[edit on 9/23/2009 by Phage]

The BARIUM Oxidation occurs very easily and, to remain pure, barium should be kept under a petroleum-based fluid (such as kerosene) or other suitable oxygen-free liquids that exclude air.

Which is the FUEL for airplane?

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by neformore
Lets get some grounding and some terminology sorted out here a moment.

The recognised - and indeed long held definition of "Chemtrails" refers to what people see as lines in the sky. Those lines (and I'll go out on a limb right now and say that I beleive they are contrails, and nothing else) are generally formed at altitudes greater than 26,000 feet by aircraft passing overhead. (4.5-5miles plus)

Granted... the 'official term 'Chemtrail' has been used specifically in regards to contrail like looking trails from airplanes leaving chemicals.

Me personally... I am not that focused on that... spraying pesticides on an unaware population, spraying agent orange on people as a test with out their knowledge... running military aircraft spewing out tons of toxic fuel remnants ( I have the data sheets)... high altitude 'experiments' dumping chemicals from rockets and satellites to effect the weather, the ionosphere and the magnetosphere...

To me its all the same... but if you want to nit pick the term and its usage... fine...

Chemtrails of the 1st Kind...
Low level spraying of pesticides, crop dusting, chemical defoliants etc. These chemicals directly get into the air we breath (I still remember the mosquito foggers driving down the streets while kids played), the water we drink and the food we eat via the soil... Not to forget military testing of sprays on people (Don't believe me just google 'Agent Orange tests on towns')

Chemtrails of the 2nd Kind
These would be your aeroplanes spraying for whatever reason... I really don't see the difference WHAT the reason is IMO... smoke from sky writers, bad engines, nasty military jet fuels, cloud seeding... all of those are putting harmful chemicals into the air. It also seems MOST LIKELY that if they are now doing it in the upper atmosphere and space, that they MOST LIKELY did or are still doing, low level atmosphere tests first. In fact they even did it with Nukes in the 50's and 60's (yes I have the data for later)

Chemtrails of the 3rd Kind
LEO rockets dumping chemicals to 'test' changing the ionosphere etc. The use of high energy electron fields like HAARP produces to create plasma mirrors for a number of reasons

Chemtrails of the 4th Kind
Satellites in orbit releasing times amounts of chemicals like barium or gases for what ever reason we can still only guess at...

So you and other skeptics may wish to poke at the term 'Chemtrails' and stick to the narrow focus so you can say "But those are not chemtrails, they are rockets trailing chemicals"

To me its the same thing, dumping chemicals into the air... by what ever means... the end result is the same

Amazing how "chemtrails" gets totally redefined to be whatever the particular person wants it to be. Now apparently it is not just a supposed conspiracy by aircraft spraying the atmosphere, but now it is even rockets and low earth orbit.

Hey, we might as well include the space shuttle in it now too . I guess this space ship and rocket thing would be logical, since some chemmies have been claiming Reptilian piloted UFOS are involved too

in my ennui soaked sunbathe worshiping youth, this has NEVER happened with normal jet contrails, which generally disperse within twenty minutes to an hour, MAX. NEVER did i see "contrails" be laid down by aircraft flying in parallel formation, which subsequently blank out the sun with the clouds that formed as a result of their exhaust.

They never did? I certainly remember contrails all across the sky. There are plenty of photos and movies with them too.

Its just that you never actually looked at the sky with much interest, until you read a chemmie website and then starting actually looking. Besides, can you tell us EXACTLY why contrails must not last? Because I see cirrus clouds all the time that last, and I am pretty sure that white crystalline stuff on mountain tops is not exactly white paint.

This thread is full of evidence supporting claims they are spraying toxic chemicals in our atmosphere.

Yet the debunker turn their cheek on mankind.

Current aircraft engines emit aerosol particles and gaseous aerosol precursors into the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere that may affect air chemistry and climate. Aircraft engines also directly emit soot and metal particles. Liquid aerosol precursors include water vapor, oxidized sulfur in various forms, chemi-ions (charged molecules), nitrogen oxides, and unburned hydrocarbons.

www.grida.no.../Climate/ipcc/aviation/032.htm

How much you want to bet, 90% of the debunkers are government employees?

Disgusting.

Originally posted by kingswillquiver
How much you want to bet, 90% of the debunkers are government employees?

Disgusting.

No.

Whats "disgusting" is the fact that, in order to promote your belief, you choose to label, smear and denegrate those who don't see things the same way you do.

reply to post by Imagir


So there might be barium in fuel, no worries, it's found in lot's of things, for example it's used in the manufacture of plastics, ceramics etc, also used in drilling.


But getting back to barium in fuel. What happens when the fuel gets burnt in the motor?
Is the barium somehow immune from this high compression explosive environment?

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by kingswillquiver
How much you want to bet, 90% of the debunkers are government employees?

Disgusting.

No.

Whats "disgusting" is the fact that, in order to promote your belief, you choose to label, smear and denegrate those who don't see things the same way you do.

You're right. I call them government shills. Souls for the fire.
It's a good thing debunkers never say anything about
the other side.

Originally posted by kingswillquiver
You're right. I call them government shills. Souls for the fire.

I can see that you are fairly new here, so let me explain.

What you are doing is called making an ad-hominem attack.

You have no substance for what you claim, and you only make the claim in order to attempt to smear those posters who disagree with you.

That doesn't make you smart, or clever.

All it makes you is someone who can't articulate an argument properly by presenting clear and factual evidence and listening to other opinions put forward with respect.

Debate the information in the posts. Not the posters.

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by kingswillquiver
You're right. I call them government shills. Souls for the fire.

I can see that you are fairly new here, so let me explain.

How is your response not an attack on me?

Your way of topic, I suggest you moderate yourself.

Anyways, I would like to talk about the subject at hand, if you don't
mind.

Me thinks the red dust in Australia is from these chemtrails. The metals oxidize and settle to earth, creating the red dust. There was similar storms in the Colorado Rockies last year.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by kingswillquiver]

reply to post by kingswillquiver


Say what? Metal oxidises then settles turning into dust?

You seen a satellite photo of Australia before?

Pretty red isn't it? Is all that oxidised metal is it?

Here's the deal, you clearly don't know what you're talking about (I guess weedwhacker was right). I suggest you go and research how and why a dust storm can travel hundreds of kilometres before making stupid assumptions.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by kingswillquiver

 

I suggest you go and research how and why a dust storm can travel hundreds of kilometres before making stupid assumptions.

Stupid assumptions?

Thanks for pointing out your rudeness too.

People are surprised at the dust storm. Why, if it happens all the time?

Dust will be sticky. Scrape some off your windshield and get it to your govt. funded lab to get a straight answer.

You may want to keep you mouth shut, so as not to breath too much in.

Originally posted by firepilot

Hey, we might as well include the space shuttle in it now too .

Funny you should say that, because it's believed that these are - in part at least - caused by the space shuttle!



See for example:

earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

reply to post by kingswillquiver


I never said they happen all the time.

But since you mentioned it, in the desert regions of Australia it does happen quite often, been caught in a few myself, quite annoying when you have just hung a fresh load of washing on the line.

Back to the recent storm, you're right, one like that doesn't happen often, I guess the right conditions allowed the dust to get high enough to travel such a distance
Blaming chemtrails is quite an ignorant thing to say don't you think? and if my stating that is rude then you may need to harden up buddy.

reply to post by kingswillquiver

Me thinks the red dust in Australia is from these chemtrails. The metals oxidize and settle to earth, creating the red dust. There was similar storms in the Colorado Rockies last year.

The "red dust" is from clay subsoil. In many places once you get past the rich organic (black) earth you get a iro n oxide red subsoil. In others you get yellow clay subsoil. This Article seems to indicate "the upward yellowing of the soil [is due ]to a progressive transformation of the Fe oxides..... attests to greater activities of water and aluminium and smaller activity of aqueous silica in the topsoil than in the subsoil. We interpret this as a consequence of longer periods of wetting in the topsoil that could result from soil aging, more humid climate or both." Or in other words red soil indicates a drier climate?

The red "dust" has nothing to do with "chemtrails" unless said "chemtrails" caused a major drought and "dust bowl" conditions.

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by kingswillquiver

 

Me thinks the red dust in Australia is from these chemtrails. The metals oxidize and settle to earth, creating the red dust. There was similar storms in the Colorado Rockies last year.

The "red dust" is from clay subsoil. In many places once you get past the rich organic (black) earth you get a iro n oxide red subsoil. In others you get yellow clay subsoil. This Article seems to indicate "the upward yellowing of the soil [is due ]to a progressive transformation of the Fe oxides..... attests to greater activities of water and aluminium and smaller activity of aqueous silica in the topsoil than in the subsoil. We interpret this as a consequence of longer periods of wetting in the topsoil that could result from soil aging, more humid climate or both." Or in other words red soil indicates a drier climate?

The red "dust" has nothing to do with "chemtrails" unless said "chemtrails" caused a major drought and "dust bowl" conditions.

Please. If I had a dollar for every scientist that lied a little or at least "obscured the truth"...

This thing is way bigger than you and I.

reply to post by kingswillquiver



Just because you don't understand something (in this case basic geology and chemistry) does not mean that those who do understand it, study it, or take the time to read the research of those who study it, are wrong

Presumably you pick and choose what science you want to believe? Or do you still think the Earth is flat and the sun revolves around the Earth, carried on a chariot pulled by flying horses?


And anyway non of this has owt to do with Zorgon's original post

[edit on 23-9-2009 by Essan]

Originally posted by Marrr
reply to post by Phage

 

The day locomotive sized exhaust trails form behind my vehicle in the Winter time, I'll believe you.
OzWeatherman- I would love to see you debate Dr. Nick Begich on Haarp & Chemtrails...

Do you actually think the power output of your car engine is comparable to that of jet turbine or large piston engine? BWAHAHAHAH

But if you were to hypothetically have a car powered by a large engine or turbine for power, and you taking it up to very thin air, and very cold air, and run it the same kind of power settings, then yet it would happen. I have seen pics of it being caused on the ground in Alaska from a plane that was just sitting there at idle power setting.




[edit on 23-9-2009 by firepilot]