Chemtrails - a true purpose

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket

Nature does not use aircraft fuel to make clouds.

edit on 30-4-2012 by Gmoneycricket because: (no reason given)

Nature does "conform" to what we put into it.
If you don't agree with that, then "smog" is just a by-product of nature's will....as if nature had "will".

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Curious and Concerned

 

Are you saying that wing tip contrails, should they form cirrus, would not contain jet exhaust and, therefore, would be the same as natural cirrus? Are wing tip contrails forming cirrus? How often is this happening? I thought wing tip contrails were rare, usually invisible and quickly dispersed. Are they common now?

I think it's important to note that most visible wingtip vortices are not made of ice crystals, but condensed water droplets. They often occur close to ground level in humid conditions, such as that below. Here you can see vortices are also coming from the tip of the flaps, as well as aerodynamic condensation over the wings.

If the right conditions are present at high altitude, wingtip vortices can form cirrus, and they generally won't have jet exhaust in them. It's hard to say that they are the "same" as natural cirrus, since there are many variations of cirrus cloud. One way that these contrails may differ from cirrus is in the ice particle size and optical thickness, but chemically, they're exactly the same. I wouldn't say they are common, certainly not as common as standard jet exhuast contrails, but they do occur. Here is a photo of wingtip vortices and aerodynamic contrail cirrus. I suspect the colours been played with a bit to emphasise the iridescence though.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
So are you saying that artificial cirrus, formed from jet exhaust, that doesn't exhibit optical effects, is somehow wrong? Because the cirrus is still there.

No, not at all. There are many factors which affect these optical effects, which is why not all cirrus produce them, and not all contrails produce them. Just because natural clouds can produce iridescence, doesn't make them "wrong" if they don't.

When parts of clouds are thin and have similar size droplets, diffraction can make them shine with colours like a corona. In fact, the colours are essentially corona fragments. The effect is called cloud iridescence or irisation, terms derived from Iris the Greek personification of the rainbow.

Iridescence is seen mostly when part of a cloud is forming because then all the droplets have a similar history and consequently have a similar size. Sometimes iridescence can be seen far from the sun but is most frequent near to it.

Iridescent Clouds
Since contrails generally form rather thin and uniform and will initially have similar, small sized ice particles, this can make them particularly prone to cloud iridescence. But in order to see it, the sun still has to be in the right place relative to the ice crystals, among other atmospheric factors involved.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
I've got another question: how many rare optical effects need to become common before we realize that there's something else in the mix?

This is like asking "how many acorns do we need to fall on our heads before we realise the sky is falling?" If what we see is perfectly explainable by known and studied optical effects, there's no reason to start assuming that "something else is in the mix" (unless you accept 'cos a chemtrail site said so' as a good reason, of course). If you can show that there is any real reason to believe that something else is going on, then it would be well worth looking into.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Or, put another way, how many occasional persistent contrails do we need to see before it becomes clear that they are more common than not and that perhaps there is a reason for that?

These are rather subjective questions you've got here, and I can't say I have an accurate answer for that. If someone wanted to prove there is a reason, there are far better ways than merely counting contrails.

But we already have many reasons why we would see an increase. There are far more planes and air traffic than in the past. There are far more turbofan engines than in the past. Modern turbofans have increasing bypass ratios, hence increased contrail. There are far more videos of contrails and the internet has helped spread them (as well as baseless hysteria). And a general understanding of aviation and the mechanisms of cloud and contrail formation can go a long way towards explaining the things we are seeing, even if it can be hard to understand initially.

Does anyone have evidence that their NOT spraying? Not on either side, just curious as so many members get mad as hell at the very idea of chemtrails.

Does it really make you that mad? Someone should make a thread debunking them if your so 100% sure. Same with the people who are 100% they DO exist; make a thread, explain to the people.

reply to post by Curious and Concerned

Thankyou for your reply and for so calmly putting up with my digs. I don't find the persistent contrail story believable, rational or scientific. Therefore, I, like the OP, have moved on from 'are they chemtrails?' to 'why?'.

There is nothing hard to understand here except the pseudo-science of persistent contrails which seems to filth up every thread exploring a reason for the mess in our skies. Wing tip contrails have very little to do with that although I appreciate you wanting to bring in a formation that doesn't contain jet exhaust. Still, its' contribution is miniscule to non-existent.

Weather phenomena i.e. halos, sun dogs, metallic rainbows, hole punch clouds, spirals etc. are on the rise. What used to be rare and non-existent is becoming common.

The technology exists to put charged particles into the atmosphere. Creating an artificial magnetosphere is not that far-fetched. While I appreciate the tactic of coming into every chemtrail thread with the highly speculative persistent contrail theory, I feel that theory belongs in a highly speculative forum. There is no official support for it except from those on the government dole i.e. NASA and the military. The persistent contrail theory is not supported by observation nor is it supported by independent studies, not government paid for.

The creation of an artificial magnetosphere or augmenting the existing magnetosphere is not something you'll find in the mainstream media. The magnetosphere has lost 10% of its' strength since the 1800's and that's just what is officially known. It makes sense to me that geoengineering, armed with almost no knowledge of our atmosphere, would find that to be yet another thing to tamper with. So I hope this brings the thread back to topical discussion and to the OP: .

Originally posted by luxordelphi
I don't find the persistent contrail story believable, rational or scientific.

That is because you have shown a complete lack of understanding of the science and evidence presented. But not only that, you have shown a complete unwillingness to bother trying to understand it. You can lead an ass to water but you can't make it drink.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
There is nothing hard to understand here except the pseudo-science of persistent contrails which seems to filth up every thread exploring a reason for the mess in our skies.

I don't think you know what "pseudo-science" means.

Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.

This pretty much sums up the entire "chemtrail conspiracy", including the OP. You are essentially claiming that you don't believe clouds are real. Clouds (including contrails) are well known and understood phenomena, that anyone with any intelligence has the capability to learn if they tried. The science is relatively simple, and has been known and documented before the chemtrail fantasy and even before the conception of aviation.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Weather phenomena i.e. halos, sun dogs, metallic rainbows, hole punch clouds, spirals etc. are on the rise. What used to be rare and non-existent is becoming common.

What is a metallic rainbow? Sounds like the nonsense a chemtrail site would try to use to get ignorant and gullible people to believe that rainbow's are a government conspiracy. With the exception of spirals, all those things are well known phenomena which existed long before the chemtrail theory started. Just because you didn't know about them, doesn't mean they were non-existent or even rare. That would be a rather arrogant thing to believe.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
The technology exists to put charged particles into the atmosphere. Creating an artificial magnetosphere is not that far-fetched.

You don't believe in clouds, but are happy to believe a theory with practically no evidence, even though logic would determine it an implausible idea. This thread started with the highly speculative claim that the "TPTB are spraying metals in our atmospher through chemtrails", even though there is no reasonable evidence to support this claim. That is what you call "highly speculative".

Originally posted by luxordelphi
While I appreciate the tactic of coming into every chemtrail thread with the highly speculative persistent contrail theory, I feel that theory belongs in a highly speculative forum.

This is only the second or third thread I have posted on in this forum explaining what a contrail is. Highly speculative? It is quite astounding that someone wants to believe in a conspiracy so bad that they will refuse to understand basic concepts, and instead label them highly speculative.

Ignorance is bliss. For some at least.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
There is no official support for it except from those on the government dole i.e. NASA and the military. The persistent contrail theory is not supported by observation nor is it supported by independent studies, not government paid for.

What about the many academic institutions, meteorologists and those in the aviation industry? There is an abundance of proof if you bother looking at it. But as we have seen, denial is a far better way to keep the chemtrail dream alive. Good luck with that.

I'm not saying that parts of the chemtrail theory, such as the OP, are impossible, just that they're highly implausible and that the "evidence" used to snare the gullible into believing it are woefully flawed. Of course people are looking into geo-engineering, but that doesn't mean every persistent contrail is a government conspiracy, as many people on here seem to believe.

It seems the motto of this site is completely lost on some people.

Wow same pack of "debunkers" ganging up and screaming with excessive !!!!!!!!! exclamation points .. seems these guys think the more !!! they use the righter they are.

What strikes me as odd is how overzealous you guys are about proving any part if this conspiracy theory false.

With most conspiracies (for example: bigfoot, ufos, chupacabre, or 9/11) the people who dont believe in them just quietly chuckle and then go away and use their time for something they would deem worthwhile.

For not believing in Chemtrails.... you guys spend a ton of time on the chemtrail threads.

It is VERY suspicious AND obvious what is going on here.

GREAT THREAD !!! DO NOT BE DISCOURAGED by these regulars attempting to drown you in childish insults and yelling. The louder they scream the closer we are... the more dire they are to stop the truth.

reply to post by Curious and Concerned


Nobody is claiming that sunbows are a result of chemtrailing exclusively. From the website chemtrailcentral.com "
Ice Crystal Halos and Sundogs
When ice crystals, formed in the upper atmosphere, are precipitating slowly down they can create a field of micro prisms that bends the light in geometric ways. Different orientations and shapes of ice crystals create the Sundog mock-suns, technically known as parihelia, or the circle of light around the sun known as a Sunring or Halo. The size of the ring is governed by the degree by which the light is bent, in this case 22 degrees. If conditions are favorable, with the sun low in the sky, a second 44 degree ring can be seen as the light of the 22 degree ring is bent a second time. Other ring sizes and structures are possible depending upon conditions: 9, 18, 24, and 46 degrees, as well as the Parenthelic Arc seen stretching across the first photo. As the light is passing through the hexagonal ice it creates a rainbow effect with the red-end of the spectrum toward the inner part of the Halo, also the area inside the ring may appear darker than the surrounding sky.

These two natural phenomena are most often seen in very cold climates like Antarctica, but can be seen anywhere given the necessary conditions. When significant spraying has occurred in an area an aerosol haze can be produced. This haze is made of frozen crystals (or tiny droplets according to some) of the sprayed material and can appear like smog. But, unlike smog and more akin to ice crystals, these chemical crystals can bend the light to create optical manifestations almost identical to Sunrings and Sundogs. These rings have slightly less of the bright rainbow colors than ice-based rings, and sometimes have a brownish "oily" appearance.

These photographs demonstrate Chemrings and Chembows. It must be remembered that the conditions that are favorable to ice Sunrings are the similar to the conditions for normal Contrails, so just because a picture has both doesn't mark it as chemical based. However, for these two photos, the photographers have observed what they consider to be organized spraying. Click for larger picture and more information." Now when I see sun bows/dogs on days when I SEE HEAVY JET TRAFFIC/TRAILING, and that is the only time I ever see them, how could I think that it was just a coincidence? Honestly I had never seen a sun bow until about a month ago. Another poster, westcoast, caught this. She lives just thirty miles south of me. She does not mention the trail clearly visible underneath the sun in her pic on this post: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Vandettas
Does anyone have evidence that their NOT spraying? Not on either side, just curious as so many members get mad as hell at the very idea of chemtrails.

I think you have a valid question, but how do you get "proof" that something isn't happening? If I said that the government is spraying chem-rain on the population, and that if you see rain coming from a cloud, it's definitely chem-rain, how would you gather proof that this isn't happening?

What you could do is explain how rain can be just that, rain, and that you don't need a government conspiracy to explain why we see rain. This is essentially what happens ad nauseum with persistent contrails on here, yet as you can see, some people are simply not willing to accept that a conspiracy isn't happening. This may be why some posters "get mad as hell". For example, I have spent literally hours researching, gathering, collating and trying to explain the basics of cloud and contrail formation to some posters here, yet they choose to remain ignorant on the topic. For some, this would be infuriating, but I try not to let it get to me, as frustrating as it is. But it genuinely irks me to see such ignorance displayed as if it's undeniable fact.

Originally posted by Vandettas
Someone should make a thread debunking them if your so 100% sure.

They have. There is a very knowledgeable meteorologist who posts on ATS who has started many such threads, but you still see the same old fallacies and myths posted to try to justify the existence of a massive worldwide chemtrail programme and deny basic science. Here are a couple of them.
Contrail/ Chemtrail Research Thread,
Real Contrail Science, why they persist and why they spread out and why they are not chemtrails ,

Originally posted by Vandettas
Same with the people who are 100% they DO exist; make a thread, explain to the people.

Again, they have, but most fail miserably at providing any actual proof. There was a thread recently where I commended the author on their effort, but under closer inspection it turned out that they too had failed at providing the evidence to support their claims. Once it was pointed out to them that their initial claims were wrong, instead of accepting this they started insulting those who did or simply ignored it, even when the evidence became obvious.

I'm starting to think that it is futile to try and have an intelligent discussion with those who claim there is without doubt a massive chemtrail programme run by the government. I am quite happy to look at the evidence presented, but none yet has been able to show that such a programme is taking place. I am quite happy to admit that some of these theories are possible, just not undeniable fact as those pushing the theories seem to believe.

I believe this is what they are doing. I believe this is Chemtrails

Stratospheric sulfate aerosols (Geoengineering)

The ability of stratospheric sulfate aerosols to create a global dimming effect has made them a possible candidate for use in Geoengineering projects to limit the effect and impact of climate change due to rising levels of greenhouse gases

According to estimates by the Council on Foreign Relations, "one kilogram of well placed sulfur in the stratosphere would roughly offset the warming effect of several hundred thousand kilograms of carbon dioxide."

The low-tech nature of this approach has led commentators to suggest it will cost less than many other interventions. Costs cannot be derived in a wholly objective fashion, as pricing can only be roughly estimated at an early stage. However, an assessment reported in Newscientist suggests it would be cheap relative to cutting emissions. According to Paul Crutzen annual cost of enough stratospheric sulfur injections to counteract effects of doubling CO2 concentrations would be $25–50 billion a year.This is over 100 times cheaper than producing the same temperature change by reducing CO2 emissions

If it is potentially the most cost-effective method, wouldnt it be logically that they are experimenting? But then why the secrecy? Is the situation so dire they fear panic if the truth got out?

Delivery of particles into the lower stratosphere will typically ensure that they remain aloft only for a few weeks or months.[19] To ensure endurance, high-level delivery is needed, ensuring a typical endurance of several years.

You see. Chemtrails do not spray onto the ground. In fact the goal is to keep them airborne for as long as possible. Months... Years even.

Various techniques have been proposed for delivering the aerosol precursor gases (H2S and SO2).[2] The required altitude to enter the stratosphere is the height of the tropopause, which varies from 11 km (6.8 miles/36,000 feet) at the poles to 17 km (11 miles/58,000 feet) at the equator.

Like I have said in previous threads,

Aircraft such as the F15-C variant of the F-15 Eagle have the necessary flight ceiling, but limited payload. Military tanker aircraft such as the KC-135 Stratotanker and KC-10 Extender also have the necessary ceiling and have greater payload.

I have said I suspected the aircraft I witnesses was a KC-10 or KC-135 all white or gray color aircraft spraying. The military has many of these aircraft. I have believed this was the most logical aircraft being used for such a program.

Here are some links to other important Chemtrail info and ATS threads to get you up to date...
ATS: Chemtrails Are "Small Reflecting Particles" In The Upper Atmosphere.

New chemtrail patents list: The programs and research continues

US Patent 5003186 Stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming (spraying with aluminum)

Chemtrails Flights Exposed - Evergreen Aviation (A CIA Front)

Council on Foreign Relations on Planetary Geoengineering: “Add more small reflecting particles in the upper part of the atmosphere”

Unilateral Geoengineering Non-technical Briefing Notes for a Workshop At the Council on Foreign Relations Washington DC, May 05, 2008

Originally posted by nitro67
Nobody is claiming that sunbows are a result of chemtrailing exclusively.

Maybe not, but some are claiming that they were either rare or non-existent before they heard about chemtrails, and that they're somehow different from the naturally occurring ones. I have simply shown why they're the same and caused by the same processes, and there is no need to introduce a speculative theory as to why they occur.

The chemtrail site you refer to has some serious flaws in the way they claim that their photos are of "Chemrings and Chembows". One of the most obvious being that though there is a contrail in the images, the actual rings are coming from the extensive natural cirrus formation. I would not blindly believe everything on a chemtrail site to be accurate information.

Originally posted by nitro67
Now when I see sun bows/dogs on days when I SEE HEAVY JET TRAFFIC/TRAILING, and that is the only time I ever see them, how could I think that it was just a coincidence? Honestly I had never seen a sun bow until about a month ago.

I'm not saying it is a coincidence. As I previously explained, the conditions which are favorable for the formation of iridescence is when a cloud is freshly formed with similar sized ice particles. This occurs in a contrail, so it's no surprise that you might notice them. Also, just having contrails present makes it more likely that you will observe the sky than if there was just plain old clouds.

What I am saying is that this does not in any way prove that they're "chemtrails" and not contrails, since it is simply ice crystals causing them and they don't need (and no one has bothered to try and explain why) chemicals to produce the effect. Therefore, it is highly illogical to claim iridescence in a contrail is proof that something else is going on.

Originally posted by AllSeeingI
If it is potentially the most cost-effective method, wouldnt it be logically that they are experimenting?

They are experimenting. They are doing computer models and lab testing to assess whether such methods would be feasible. Personally, I don't think it's a good idea at all to attempt global geo-engineering, but I don't mind if people are discussing and researching the possibilities should they be required. Still, I would want people to be damn sure before they attempt any real world experimentation, but would prefer that they don't in the first place.

Originally posted by AllSeeingI
But then why the secrecy? Is the situation so dire they fear panic if the truth got out?

What do you mean secrecy? The information is publically available which is why you have posted about it. But everything I've seen is simply discussing possibilities and performing computer or lab testing. This is not limited to geo-engineering, but to things such as manned flights to Mars. This doesn't mean there are actually massive programmes of manned flights to mars taking place now, which is what people seem to be suggesting with geo-engineering.

I agree that there may be some experimentation taking place, but that doesn't mean I must believe in everything a chemtrail site says, and it certainly doesn't mean I shall choose to be ignorant on fundamental concepts of meteorology. People here seem to think that proving that a contrail is a contrail is the same as denying every possible chemtrail theory, which is simply not true. They're not mutually exclusive concepts.

reply to post by Curious and Concerned


Towards the end of the first clip and into the second he describes what I have been seeing! He is even talking about mysterious BOOMS! Clintonville anyone?These clips are from the 80's! Open Minds with Bill Jenkins is legendary!





Another link with great images: imageevent.com...

Well I'll just conclude to say on what's on my mind: If there are chemtrails being used in toxication, solar radiation shielding or whatever... If you ask me eitherway It is unaccaptable to use it. We should not modify our planet, never even if it costs us our lives.

reply to post by Fichorka


But we are modifying our planet already.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Fichorka

 

But we are modifying our planet already.

I know. We should stop.

reply to post by nitro67

Those are quite interesting videos, as I love learning about Nikola Tesla and his many accomplishments. I can't say I've seen too much of his work regarding the scalar wave theories, but they're interesting none the less. Maybe they are a valid reason for the "booms" heard, I don't know.

But the problem with their theory on cloud patterns, is that these patterns appear quite frequently in nature. The atmosphere is a fluid, and just like any fluid, wave patterns can be formed during dynamic processes. One of these cloud patterns is called Mackeral Sky

Mackerel sky (ger: Schaefchenwolken; fr: nuages moutonneux)
is a popular term for a sky covered with extensive cirrocumulus or altocumulus clouds arranged in somewhat regular waves and showing blue sky in the gaps. The pattern resembles the scales on a mackerel, thus, the name.

Weather Online
Here are some examples of what some of these natural cloud formations look like.



There are also other cloud formations that resemble waves, known as wave clouds. They can be predicted based on weather conditions, and are often utilised by glider pilots here in NZ. Here are some examples of wave clouds that I quite like.





Just because something seems unnatural, doesn't always mean that it is. Nature is capable of producing some amazing sights. Many of the pictures you posted seem to show mostly normal cirrus, cirrostratus and maybe thin altostratus clouds as well. It's well worth the time to do a little investigation into clouds and how they form, as it can help explain a lot of things that seem unexplainable at first. I wish you all the best in your quest for knowledge, and keep looking up.

Originally posted by Fichorka

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Fichorka

 

But we are modifying our planet already.

I know. We should stop.

the only way to stop humanity modifying the planet is to kill every one of us.

But that still leaves other life modifying the planet. Why are they all allowed to live but we are not?

Seriously?! If Governments were doing this to create something good for the planet, they would have come right out and said so, don't ya think? Instead I have seen they and other countries have been denying that they are even spraying the skies! For years they have denied it. Now it seems that 'they' are admitting to it, but saying they are trying to cool the planet because of 'Global Warming', the hoax that that is. I would think they would be tooting their horns loudly if indeed they were spraying to create a man-made magnetic shield......Syx.

reply to post by ProudBird


I'm 100% sure this guy is a liar. I woke up today after the last three days of constant rain, and I found RUST ALL OVER MY BACKYARD!! Then I recalled people making claims about how the chemtrails contained various metals. I will start a thread within the next few days. I'll take pictures and put them up. I'll try to make a video also to show you how i even wipe off the rust from these plants. Absolutely crazy times.

On a side note I watched the video that claimed the chemtrails are to protect us because the megnetic protection from earth is breaking down. I personally believe that the large collection of metals, such as building all over the world, cause a disruption such as this. Not to mention a billion cars, and a couple billion computers, and a couple billion more other metal items. A lot of things we use is made of metal

reply to post by michaelonats


All the metals you see (cars, ships, planes, knives forks, spoons, etc) were already in the earth to start with!