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.


How to prove chemtrails.

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 02:29 AM
What I’ve learned so far from the “experts” on ATS about chemtrails and how to prove or disprove their existence in photographs.

1. Don’t call them chemtrails. They’re contrails; even if they don’t contain any condensation. Don’t ask.

2. Learn the basic science behind how contrails are formed. College courses are taught about this topic, and people who have taken such courses can drown you in jargon, so learn the basics.

a. Generally speaking, contrails are formed above 8000 meters in altitude where the air temperature starts to drop to about -40 and below, but when there is enough humidity in the air relative to the air temperature to reach the dew point…the conditions REQUIRED for contrails to form. 8000 m altitude is negotiable…if the temp and relative humidity conditions are met at lower altitudes, contrails will also form.

b. Sounding data are simply the information provided from collection devices like weather stations and balloons. Sounding data snapshots are available to we unwashed masses twice a day and synchronized in Z time. Z time is based on Greenwich Mean time. 00Z is zero hour in Greenwich mean time, which is actually a half day ahead of me in PST, so for me to choose data for the afternoon of any day, I’ll need to look at the data from 00Z time from the NEXT day, as that is the report which will contain the readings from my area in the afternoon of the previous day. 12Z the would be early morning my time. Get familiar with sounding data in your area by going to this site.

c. For Perspective on relative humidity, Arizona is considered dry with areas that have a relative humidity (RH) of 50…the driest being Antarctica with a relative humidity in the 20s.

3. Get a date-stamped photograph of a suspected aerosol or powdered contrail incident. I used this one from the afternoon of June 24th, 2010:

4. Remember if the conditions described above aren’t met, contrails CANNOT form. Using the chart below as a guide, the contrails in the above photo are in reality not contrails. I don’t claim to know what they are, but according to the below data taken from Salem which is within 50 miles from where this picture was taken; relative humidity was in the teens and low 20s, as dry as the driest place on earth, making the dew point out of reach; therefore there was no chance contrails could form at any altitude. I’m not an expert, but that’s what I’m reading here. Can anyone check my work?

72694 SLE Salem Observations at 00Z 25 Jun 2010
hPa m C C % g/kg deg knot K K K
315.0 9144 -36.5 -50.5 22 0.12 282 24 329.2 329.7 329.2
300.0 9480 -39.5 -55.5 17 0.07 285 24 329.6 329.9 329.6
290.0 9711 -41.7 -59.7 12 0.04 289 24 329.6 329.8 329.7
275.3 10058 -44.5 -61.0 14 0.04 295 24 330.5 330.7 330.5
254.0 10596 -48.9 -62.9 18 0.03 264 27 331.7 331.9 331.7
251.2 10668 -49.3 -62.6 20 0.03 260 27 332.1 332.3 332.2
250.0 10700 -49.5 -62.5 20 0.03 265 28 332.3 332.5 332.4
217.9 11582 -55.4 -67.8 20 0.02 270 23 336.5 336.6 336.5
200.0 12130 -59.1 -71.1 20 0.01 295 26 339.0 339.1 339.0
198.0 12192 -59.5 -71.2 21 0.01 295 26 339.4 339.4 339.4
194.0 12320 -60.3 -71.3 22 0.01 295 27 340.1 340.1 340.1
188.6 12497 -60.0 -71.5 21 0.01 295 24 343.3 343.4 343.4
184.0 12650 -59.7 -71.7 19 0.01 285 21 346.2 346.3 346.2

edit on 26-2-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 02:49 AM
looks like number 3 went bad , where is the date stamp on your photo ?
i haven't seen any trails in the sky in a long time , and i usually see them
everyday been clear skies recently
edit on 26-2-2011 by IgnoranceAssassin because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 03:06 AM
Maybe the aircraft was flying at an altitude of ~8,500m with a temp of ~-40c and RH of ~50% ?

424.0 7023 -20.3 -26.3 59 1.06 258 26 323.1 326.9 323.3
407.4 7315 -22.6 -28.6 58 0.89 270 23 323.8 327.1 324.0
400.0 7450 -23.7 -29.7 58 0.82 270 21 324.1 327.1 324.3
390.8 7620 -25.3 -30.6 61 0.77 270 23 324.2 327.1 324.4
387.0 7690 -25.9 -30.9 63 0.76 271 23 324.3 327.1 324.4
353.0 8348 -31.3 -38.3 50 0.40 276 23 325.6 327.2 325.7
338.0 8654 -33.7 -41.7 44 0.29 278 24 326.4 327.6 326.5

Which would make conditions marginal for contrail formation, but by no means unlikely.

But in principle, you have described exactly how to 'prove' chemtrails. Only thing to add is that verification of the aircraft altitude is necessary. And no, you can't do that 'by eye'. In Britain I use

posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 03:15 AM
Also, unless the sighting is at exacty the same time and location the sounding took place, worth checking the previous and subsequent soundings to see how condititions were changing - a weak frontal passage can make a big difference in atmospheric conditions in just a short space of time over a short distance.

posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 04:27 AM
Thank you for bringing this to light. I too have noticed the same thing on different topics.

posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 09:13 AM
What we need to do, or rather, what you need to do, is undertake a full scientific study. You will need the following:

Airplane flight paths
Measurements for temperature and humidity

You would need to have a large number of samples.

After which point, you must plot the results on a chart, that is, observation of contrail strengths and observations of humidity. If the two are not significantly related, that is, if there are many outliers, then you have evidence to prove that it is likely that dispersants or chemicals are present in the contrails.

It would be a good idea to learn about statistical research methods, and with enough data, you might be able to write a paper on it.

Good luck.
edit on 26-2-2011 by SystemResistor because: (no reason given)

Anyway, check this out:

Basically, its to protect the ozone layer, there is something about a potential catastrophic failure of our atmosphere and the results would be mass-extinctions - the fine balance of nature can come undone in a period of a few decades, effectively, causing the planet to die like a diseased plant...

I made an earlier post about what is called a "Gamma Ray Burst" and it could really be that CFC's are part of the cause of the hole in the ozone layer, or there could be phenomena out in space that could be the real cause. If we were to be hit by a GRB, our ozone would tear apart, and we would almost literally burn to death unless we are shielded, plants would die etc etc.

Here is a scientific paper on the results of Earth being hit by a GRB:
edit on 26-2-2011 by SystemResistor because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 10:34 AM

Originally posted by Essan
Also, unless the sighting is at exacty the same time and location the sounding took place, worth checking the previous and subsequent soundings to see how condititions were changing - a weak frontal passage can make a big difference in atmospheric conditions in just a short space of time over a short distance.


It is possible for a plane to be producing a contrail, then suddenly stop producing a trail, because it flies into a section of sky with different local weather conditions. So the conditions in one spot in the sky that the weather readings were taken may NOT be conducive to contrail production, while the conditions only 1 km away (horizontally) may in fact be conducive to contrail production.

posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 11:18 AM
reply to post by IgnoranceAssassin

Yeah...pardon my ignorance on that part...I have several shots from that day but I'm not sure how to get a copy that shows the date up on the site. Do I need to use a photo bucket site and link to it?

Here's a lame screen shot of my mouse cursor hovering over the image:


posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 11:37 AM
A good effort at collecting data. You should also familiarize yourself with he Appleman chart. It is a good guide, not always accurate but it can give you a good idea of what to look for.

The two most important lines on the chart are the 0 percent relative humidity line and the 100 percent relative humidity line. If the atmosphere were colder than the temperature indicated by the 0% line, a contrail would form even if the relative humidity of the atmosphere were zero.

If it is cold enough contrails can form and persist with 0% relative humidity because the water vapor in the engine exhaust is sufficient for their formation. The upper air conditions were quite conducive to contrails. Above about 38,000 feet it was quite cold enough (-55.4º) and because there was 20% (higher than 0%) humidity, contrails could persist, sort of "bonus" water vapor.

posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 11:53 AM
reply to post by Yankee451


c. For Perspective on relative humidity, Arizona is considered dry with areas that have a relative humidity (RH) of 50…the driest being Antarctica with a relative humidity in the 20s.

What is the source for that?? Is it (as is too often seen) relating the RH at the surface?? If so, irrelevant.

And, what makes you come to the conclusion that those contrails in the your photos consist of "powder"??

Based on what, exactly?

They look exactly, exactly like cirrus clouds. Normal, everyday cirrus clouds. Exactly the same appearance, and behavior.

A "powder"? How much material wold be required, to display that same appearance, do you reckon? Care to whip up some math for us....volume, parts-per-million to achieve visibility. Dimensions, opacity...then working those figures backwards, derive the amount of payload needed to be carried up, and "sprayed" out....

...OR, just realize that there already exists millions of tons of water vapor in the atmosphere....and much more contributed by the combustion of the jet fuel. Fuel, composed of hydrocarbon molecules. "Hydro" short for "hydrogen", an element. Oxygen exists in the atmosphere. Free atoms of oxygen, and free atoms of hydrogen WILL attract one another and combine. Making water molecules.

Adding to the already present moisture, the chemical reactions of combusting the fuel makes more water vapor. Water vapor cannot remain in vapor state when air is too cold, or too dense to support it. THAT is what causes condensation.

Basic science....

posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 12:12 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

I only included it for perspective, WeedWhacker...I thought that was clear when I said "for perspective"...

Giving a layperson a RH of 50 only means something if they can relate to what RH 50 means...if I say Phoenix, they'll get a good perspective how dry RH 50 is.

I'm your source. If you want to nit-pick, feel free to use the Google.

If you read the OP, which you apparently haven't done, you could see that I make it very clear I don't know what they are, but according to the sounding data, they're not clouds.

posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 12:24 PM

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by weedwhacker

...If you read the OP, which you apparently haven't done...

I've had the same problem with whacker - , He's already got his own delusions...errrr... ideas about what chemtrails are, so don't even try. BTW, don't tell him reptilians aren't real, he might have to change his signature...........

posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 12:28 PM
The Chemtrail issue is so subjective because we all wonder, "What is the reason behind the whole spraying?". Is it to make us sick, so that we must depend on big pharma, help with global warming, etc, etc. Theories are out there and this conspiracy has been difficult to establish because there do not seem to be any hidden identity whistleblowers that come forward, no Bob Lazars. I do think there may be some adverse reactions that sensitive people have to the 'ingredients' contained but I'm not sure that it has anything to do with making everyone sick.

Some people scoff that, well even Pelosi and the PTB are breathing the stuff, too. Why would they allow it if it may endanger them or their families health. Well, there may be chemicals that once breathed in or ingested through water can react with all of these "beneficial vaccines" the PTB want to pump into the useless eaters, us sheeple. Maybe the PTB are advised, yeah, don't get that vaccine, it reacts with the barium or whatever is in the trails. Not sure. Careful when the vaccines become mandatory.

My take is a little far out there, I know. The mysterious trail that was spat out on November 30, 2010, I think was not from a submarine but it was a "normal" Chemtrail, albeit a bit thick. Ms. Rodham-Clinton turned on the dis-information faucet to
"drip mode", putting little seeds that people recall later. Info like maybe the Chinese were exhibiting a show of force. No. Was it our sub, show of force since our esteemed leader was in Asia at that time. No. Uh, the airplane from Hawai'i. No.
I think that these chemtrails may aid UFOs in cloaking themselves. We are in an age of cameras everywhere, before people could only describe what they saw, now there is a little more proof. I can't find the pictures of the 'hole punch' cloud that several different people saw over Rosedale, CA and in the surrounding area, this was after the November trail. Maybe a big mothership was transiting and needed additional cloaking assistance. Who knows, I said it was far out. Oh, and the Chemtrails used to hang out for over 8 hours at times, now I think with a lot of people looking up, they have added an additional dispersant because they disappear quicker now. When they disperse the fan out like the "clouds" (rather anti-clouds
you see the weird puff ball look. Check this site out.

I don't know if it is my router or what? But this link I looked at a while ago, it was fine. Now I see that it is garbled at times, i'm beginning to see that a lot with sometimes controversial things on youtube. Am I the only one seeing this. Hope you guys can take a look . Can't wait to hear other thoughts. Thanks for the forum, ATS

posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 01:46 PM
reply to post by Yankee451

If you read the OP, which you apparently haven't done, you could see that I make it very clear I don't know what they are, but according to the sounding data, they're not clouds.

According to the sounding data they are clouds.

edit on 2/26/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 05:12 PM
reply to post by Phage

Yeah, I neglected the Appleman chart...I didn't really know how to read it until your last post. I see now how its important to get altitude. The contrails in the photo I posted show north\south flight paths, which is what I'd expect to see from flights passing overhead between Seattle and LA for example. So it does appear that as far as June 24, 2010 goes, the conditions at the average altitude for commercial jets were optimal for persistence. Thank you for the lesson.

top topics


log in