Documents Reveal “Chemtrails” Originated at Department of Defense

0bserver1
reply to post by stormcell

 

Chemtrails are supposed to contain red blood cells

Sorry red blood cells ???? Barium that's well known , but It looks if you mix something up that happens anatomically and not airborne?

If not fill us in?

Chemtrails are and contain whatever it is the believer wants them to be/contain - often mutually exclusive, the theories are legion. There is no more a coherent single theory about chemtrails than there is a single, coherent religion.

0bserver1
reply to post by stormcell

 

Chemtrails are supposed to contain red blood cells

Sorry red blood cells ???? Barium that's well known , but It looks if you mix something up that happens anatomically and not airborne?

If not fill us in?

Probably easier for you to google "chemtrails blood cells" and you can see a overview of the myriad such reports and repeats, and check the details of whichever you so choose.

vrtrader
You know on some days the con trails from the planes stay in the sky and spread out quite far. I am not saying these are chem-trails, but on some days it does look odd. Just a thought.

Yep.

but it isn't new - that effect has been noted since at least 1940 - a famous French aviator of the 1930's, Antoine de Sainte-Exupery wrote about it occurring after he made high altitude recce flights over eth German foces:

The German on the ground knows us by the pearly white scarf which every plane flying at high altitude trails behind like a bridal veil. The disturbance created by our meteoric flight crystallizes the watery vapor in the atmosphere. We unwind behind us a cirrus of icicles. If the atmospheric conditions are favorable to the formation of clouds, our wake will thicken bit by bit and become an evening cloud over the countryside.

- Antoine de Saint Exuperry, "Flight to Arras", 1942, still available on Amazon.

the author was killed in 1944, and they found the wreckage of his aircraft about a decade ago

the reason why contrails can expand is also fairly well known - it is because they provide ice nucleation sites in a supersaturated atmosphere - in simple language the atmosphere can be over 100% humid - it can contain more water/ice than normal - if there is no method for the ice to actually precipitate out.

If you then put a bunch of small particles into that atmosphere thy become the nucleus on which the "extra" ice can precipitate, so it does so.

then those new ice particles become more nucleation sites.......and if you have a large enough area of supersaturation the contrail can expand quite a lot.

What I find hysterical is the EGO's of some of the sheep on this planet. To actually sit there and think that "Hey, we can stop global warming or create our own weather patterns cause we are smarter then Gaia". LOL, what a bloody disgrace to humanity. This beautiful planet is pure energy and love, she can take care of herself and she knows what she needs to do to keep us safe. She doesn't need help from egotistical bastards who think they know what they are doing.


Good news is that our time is running short my friends. One day she will do a little shakity shake and 9/10's of the population will be gone, which is what needs to happen anyway. Humanity has lost respect for this planet and she knows when the point of no return will be crossed, if it hasn't been already.


Literally LMFAO here at the thought of "controlling" anything that happens on this planet, other then spilling nuclear waste into the oceans and what not; that we are good at.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


That I never heard of? .. hmm another case to examine ..

reply to post by Imightknow


Another deluded cult member that believes nothing can control what you believe "God" and "Nature" are?

No evidence exists that this planet is only love, tons exist that many other factors, and higher powers can be for evil, and actually most are so.

For you to believe that it can decide when to shake, and kill off the masses that have been engineered to know nothing about what there reality of existence is doing to other realities, is proof that you are in the club of the "well-wishers".

They thank you for all the power you give them, and kill you in return!

0bserver1
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

That I never heard of? .. hmm another case to examine ..

You'd be surprised what has been found in chemtrails without ever taking a sample from one

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


You talk about the second world war but can you provide photos from the
1960's, 1970's or 1980's showing passenger airlines leaving persistent contrails?

Surely there should be many, if your stance is correct.

OneFreeMan
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

You talk about the second world war but can you provide photos from the
1960's, 1970's or 1980's showing passenger airlines leaving persistent contrails?

Surely there should be many, if your stance is correct.

There's a good collection of old photos of persistent trails here. Of course the planes aren't in the photos, if the trails were just being formed how would you know they were persistent?

Many believers will just claim that pictures like this have been doctored to show persistent trails, or they just change their story to claim that chemtrails must have been around back then. So I prefer not to rely on photographic evidence that they can just hand wave aside and ask instead why there couldn't have been persistent contrails left by passenger airlines.

reply to post by OneFreeMan


There are plenty, but why do you think trails couldn't persist at those times? Why would ice crystals in the atmosphere behave differently now compared to those decades?

OneFreeMan
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

You talk about the second world war but can you provide photos from the
1960's, 1970's or 1980's showing passenger airlines leaving persistent contrails?

Surely there should be many, if your stance is correct.

And indeed there is.



At least enough to make the news in 1980



How about 30 contrails in 1967?

Or Boeing 707's first year of service - see about 32:40 and 44:10 in this:



Or several threads on here - you are not he first to want to see early contrails

Of course there aren't as many as there are now - cell phone cameras are now universal, and good video cameras are effectively dirt cheap, and there are a lot more aircraft too - pic a year to compare how many more now vs pre 1990:



so a lot more pics of contrails now too.

Glad you have figured it out

mrthumpy

OneFreeMan
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

You talk about the second world war but can you provide photos from the
1960's, 1970's or 1980's showing passenger airlines leaving persistent contrails?

Surely there should be many, if your stance is correct.

There's a good collection of old photos of persistent trails here. Of course the planes aren't in the photos, if the trails were just being formed how would you know they were persistent?

Many believers will just claim that pictures like this have been doctored to show persistent trails, or they just change their story to claim that chemtrails must have been around back then. So I prefer not to rely on photographic evidence that they can just hand wave aside and ask instead why there couldn't have been persistent contrails left by passenger airlines.

Thanks for the link. A lot of the photos there are none too convincing though.
Shouldn't there be tonnes of photographs from back then from in and around big cities
areas where flight frequencies were higher, just as we see today?
Like this one for instance that was taken over Gran Canaria, the type I am accustomed
to seeing over my town?


I don't understand why not if persistent contrails are an intrinsic phenomena associated
with jet engines.
Were people less curious back then, or were cameras that hard to come by?

Or did the phenomena simple not exist?

OneFreeMan

mrthumpy

OneFreeMan
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

You talk about the second world war but can you provide photos from the
1960's, 1970's or 1980's showing passenger airlines leaving persistent contrails?

Surely there should be many, if your stance is correct.

There's a good collection of old photos of persistent trails here. Of course the planes aren't in the photos, if the trails were just being formed how would you know they were persistent?

Many believers will just claim that pictures like this have been doctored to show persistent trails, or they just change their story to claim that chemtrails must have been around back then. So I prefer not to rely on photographic evidence that they can just hand wave aside and ask instead why there couldn't have been persistent contrails left by passenger airlines.

Thanks for the link. A lot of the photos there are none too convincing though.
Shouldn't there be tonnes of photographs from back then from in and around big cities
areas where flight frequencies were higher, just as we see today?
Like this one for instance that was taken over Gran Canaria, the type I am accustomed
to seeing over my town?

I don't understand why not if persistent contrails are an intrinsic phenomena associated
with jet engines.
Were people less curious back then, or were cameras that hard to come by?

Or did the phenomena simple not exist?

See my point about not relying on photographic evidence.

As has been pointed out there are a lot more flights these days, plus modern high bypass ratio engines produce more trails, plus there are a lot more cameras.

OneFreeMan

Thanks for the link. A lot of the photos there are none too convincing though.
Shouldn't there be tonnes of photographs from back then from in and around big cities
areas where flight frequencies were higher, just as we see today?

Frequencies have never ben as high as they are today, and aircraft flying to a city do not leave a contrail over it - they are too low for that becaue htey are approaching to land - and of course climbing from takeoff for the reverse;

Like this one for instance that was taken over Gran Canaria, the type I am accustomed
to seeing over my town?

I don't understand why not if persistent contrails are an intrinsic phenomena associated
with jet engines.
Were people less curious back then, or were cameras that hard to come by?

Or did the phenomena simple not exist?

if the phenomena did not exist then what are all the eyewitness reports and photos and videos and studies about it that DO exist??

Contrails are a phenomena of atmospheric physics - AFAIK atmospheric physics has not changed in the last few million years (or 6-10,000 if you are that way inclined)

But there certainly were many fewer cameras - no cell phones, no digital cameras.

OneFreeMan


Thanks for the link. A lot of the photos there are none too convincing though.
Shouldn't there be tonnes of photographs from back then from in and around big cities
areas where flight frequencies were higher, just as we see today?
Like this one for instance that was taken over Gran Canaria, the type I am accustomed
to seeing over my town?

I don't understand why not if persistent contrails are an intrinsic phenomena associated
with jet engines.
Were people less curious back then, or were cameras that hard to come by?

Or did the phenomena simple not exist?

Here is my explanation, you are right in the sense that, even though there were less flights then, major city airports like Heathrow etc were still very busy. However, leaving aside the rather obvious point that aircraft utilising any airport within 50 miles are not going to be leaving contrails anyway, the main factor is that most short haul aircraft up to the end of the 1980's (Viscounts to HS.748 etc) were powered by turboprops. Typically, but not always, these would tend to travel their entire route below contrail height anyway. With the advent of types like the CRJ and ERJ (what happened to names, lol) which are powered by HBPR turbofans, they fly higher to maximise economy so you have a whole raft of air traffic leaving trails where they wouldn't before.

In addition to this the remainder of short haul traffic and all large transports (ie Caravelle/ One-Eleven to 707/DC-8 class) were powered by turbojets like the Spey or JT8, or turbofans with a bypass ratio of less than 1:1 like the Conway of the 707 and VC-10 generation. Experiments have shown how these engines produced less trails than modern engines and this is due to the cold compressed bypass air, which can now be 90% of the air used for thrust, condensing out as it is depressurised!

The first HBPR engines were limited to very large aircraft like widebodies for over a decade before they became almost universal across all classes.

Thinking about the volume of air and moisture helps too. The older engines produced 10-15,000lbs thrust whereas modern engines like the Trent 1000 go up to 100,000lbs, that's a whole lot more moisture even if the aircraft numbers had remained static.

Did you say you were a former commercial pilot? If so does anything about that not make sense?

reply to post by OneFreeMan


I forgot to include one last point, sorry.

Contrails are not intrinsic to jet engines, as you asked, there are lots of circumstances where jet engines do not create a contrail. Take off and landing are the most obvious, but it also includes flight in very dry, or low RH, air and/or in warmer temperatures.

Contrails are intrinsic with powered flight in freezing cold air. This could be at just above ground level in the Arctic, or at 30,000 in the more temperate zones that most of us live in. Whether or not trails persist is entirely due to RH levels. If high enough they will persist and spread, if not they won't.

The reason there are more now than before is a combination of the factors I described above, but in WW2 recce Spitfires and B-17 bomber streams were among the types that left contrails, no jets required.

OneFreeMan


Or did the phenomena simple not exist?

Of course contrails both persistent and non-persistent were present during the decades you listed. I remember as a young lad growing up in Scotland during the 1970s watching aircraft produce the long white lines in the sky. They fascinated me as I was aeroplane mad. What I was observing were the transatlantic routes and they were quite busy even back then.

See timeline I posted during 2011. See 70s and 80s study papers.

ATS post link 1

ATS post link 2

ATS post link 3

OneFreeMan

Were people less curious back then, or were cameras that hard to come by?

Or did the phenomena simple not exist?

Cameras were plentiful. But film was expensive. And there was no internet.

Today, you take 360 pictures and post them on the internet. Back then, you took 36 photos, sent them off for development, and got back 36 physical photos a week later which you then filed away. Most of these photos are no longer around (I don't have any of the hundreds I took in the 70s 80s and 90s, although I do have a box full of slides somewhere - but I have many thousands of digital images from the past year alone stored on my computer and ready to post here if required) and you need to find them and scan them onto a computer to show them on ATS.

I climbed hundreds of hills in the 80s and 90 - and took photos and slides of them. But I can't show you a single one. Because I lost the photos and the slides have never been scanned. Yet I can easily show you dozens of pictures of every hill I have climbed in the past 10 years, because pictures of those are all digital.

This is one reason why there are so few images of contrails on the internet from before the internet existed. I do think that sometime people forget that the internet and digital photioraphy have not always been around!

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Thank you, Aloysius the Gaul, and the others here posting evidence AGAINST "chemtrails". I never saw any videos of old persistent contrails until now! To me the Stratocruiser was especially interesting as it was leaving lingering contrails and didn't even have jet engines! I'm more fascinated with this than I was when I started thinking they were "chemtrails".

Although, that video from the 1980's talking about how they might "someday be used to control the weather" I find a bit ironic. Even assuming they're not intentionally used to modify the weather, that video appears to admit that they do, inadvertantly, create their own weather patterns.

Anyway, you have made a believer... or maybe an unbeliever in this case, out of me. However, that being said I still like to keep an open mind; So, to me, the fact that it is even remotely possible that they may be spraying something, and may be covering it up, is enough to not shift my thinking 100% one way or 100% the other. It's a shame that I think like that really, because I'm never satisfied with any answer to any questions I have.

Now, while the subject is still contrail oriented, I have another question. Why don't military jets seem to leave contrails? Or at least, they don't seem to leave persistent contrails. I realise that they probably don't WANT to leave contrails because that would make them easier to spot, but I see many military jets frequently over my area since I'm in-between a military base and their bombing range. I tried googling it myself, but sadly I've searched too many conspiracy-related terms and just typing in "contrails" it gives me all "chemtrail" related pages... lol

Goes to show how Google does "personalise" your experience.

Aldakoopa
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Thank you, Aloysius the Gaul, and the others here posting evidence AGAINST "chemtrails". I never saw any videos of old persistent contrails until now! To me the Stratocruiser was especially interesting as it was leaving lingering contrails and didn't even have jet engines! I'm more fascinated with this than I was when I started thinking they were "chemtrails".

Although, that video from the 1980's talking about how they might "someday be used to control the weather" I find a bit ironic.

Even assuming they're not intentionally used to modify the weather, that video appears to admit that they do, inadvertantly, create their own weather patterns.

Anyway, you have made a believer... or maybe an unbeliever in this case, out of me. However, that being said I still like to keep an open mind; So, to me, the fact that it is even remotely possible that they may be spraying something, and may be covering it up, is enough to not shift my thinking 100% one way or 100% the other. It's a shame that I think like that really, because I'm never satisfied with any answer to any questions I have.

Now, while the subject is still contrail oriented, I have another question. Why don't military jets seem to leave contrails? Or at least, they don't seem to leave persistent contrails. I realise that they probably don't WANT to leave contrails because that would make them easier to spot, but I see many military jets frequently over my area since I'm in-between a military base and their bombing range. I tried googling it myself, but sadly I've searched too many conspiracy-related terms and just typing in "contrails" it gives me all "chemtrail" related pages... lol

Goes to show how Google does "personalise" your experience.

How sweet are you.

Nice to see such a new member come in with grace and real conviction.
All the best in your quest.
Look up