Chemtrails Fact or Fiction? Media is starting to report:

[mshasta]

2 Media Outlets have started to report as well as other local news agencies.

Viewpoint/Chemical trail fallout continues, but the truth is out there
By Michael F. Williams
The Tribune

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/living/13583252.htm

Well, the jig is up. A small group of alert citizens in a remote coastal California county has pulled the curtain from over our Federal Chemtrail Program (FCP).

Thanks to readers such as Richard Palmquist and the truthradio.com Web site he referenced, the public can no longer be fooled into thinking the chemical trails we left in the sky are almost entirely water vapor.

For so long we had people convinced that the reason the trails, on some rare occasions, were so numerous, sharply-defined and persistent, was simply due to unusual circumstances of relative humidity, temperature, dew point and lack of turbulence at high altitudes.

These are not from commercial airlines but from military jets. I see them almost every day and would make the logical assumption they are military jets because commercial jets don't reverse direction very often.

I am sure these contrails

chemtrails are not a benefit to our environment. How about if any military people could try to clear up the reasons for so many flights, and what tests the military performs to protect the environment?

SEE ALSO STORY ****used with permission from reporter*****

Las Vegas Tribune
www.lasvegastribune.com/20050819/headline1.html
Chemtrails Are Over Las Vegas
Marcus K. Dalton
Tribune Media Group

Part 1

Editor's Note: Las Vegas residents are increasingly noticing the appearance of chemical trails overhead. They appear EVERY weekend without fail, the only exception being the two weeks after September 11, 2001. Such "chemtrails" are substantially different in appearance to the normal condensation trails left by jet airliners. The difference is that while condensation trails are composed of water vapor that dissipates rapidly, "chemtrails" linger much longer and spread out over time to eventually cover the sky with a thin haze. This week the Las Vegas Tribune begins a two-part article to examine the undeniable and mysterious phenomena of Chemtrails Over Las Vegas.

Last year a concerned reader wrote to the Idaho Observer: "Driving across Idaho and Nevada we saw normal condensation trails in the skies above north Idaho and we were habitually looking up as we drove toward Las Vegas. We had noticed that the sparsely populated areas in Nevada had brilliantly clear blue skies and that the occasional airplane left vapor trails that dissipated normally. But as soon as we neared Las Vegas, in the skies directly above the city, we watched what appeared to be a military C-135 Transports spraying something over the populated areas. When the planes were no longer directly over Las Vegas, they continued flying leaving a vapor trail that dissipated normally."

It has been reported that the "chemtrails" contain ethylene dibromide -- a substance that has been an additive to gasoline and airplane fuels as well as a banned pesticide. Ethylene dibromide has been linked to kidney and liver damage and is an immunosuppressive and a lung irritant.

William Thomas, who has researched chemtrails since their appearance in the latter 90s, has noted stunted plant growth in once-healthy gardens and wilderness areas in Santa Fe and Aspen. Similar
plant problems are commonly associated with chemtrails in other regions of the U.S.

A brief history of the chemtrail phenomenon can be traced to a Washington state man who told award-winning investigative reporter William Thomas that he'd become ill on New Year's Day 1999 after watching several jets make strange lines in the sky. Within six months, Thomas, writing primarily for the Environmental News Service, has detailed 1000s of eyewitness reports of chemtrails from 40 states.

"Mainstream newspapers have gone out of their way to dismiss these eyewitness accounts," Thomas told the New Mexican newspaper in June 1999, "It's easier to sell UFOs to major media than a phenomena as close in many cities as the nearest window."

Especially disturbing for residents of heavily chemtrailed communities like Las Vegas is a "chemtrail sickness" associated with heavy spray days leaving many stricken people complaining of the "flu" and acute allergic reactions months after the flu season has ended. Upper and lower respiratory and gastrointestinal ailments remain unusually high in many spray areas, along with debilitating fatigue - and something even more worrying.

What's going on?

Thomas is convinced that we are under "deliberate biological attack" by agents known only to top military and government officials responsible for permitting continuing over-flights by unmarked spray aircraft.

Government officials deny that anything unusual is taking place, yet increasing numbers of concerned observers are seeing 727-like aircraft painted "all-white with a black stripe up the middle of fuselage" laying long and often cries-crossing chemtrail patterns over Southern Nevada and elsewhere. None of the planes carry identifying markings.

Pat Edgar has been watching the jets spraying over eastern Oklahoma since a sunny day in October, 1997 when as many as 30 contrails gradually occluded the sky. "They look like they're playing tic-tac-toe up there," he says. "You know darn well it's not passenger planes." Edgar says he has watched "cob-webbing stuff coming down" from the zigzagging jets flying "all day long, line after line, back-and-forth, like furrows in a farm field." Edgar adds "There is a lot of Lupus in the area now. A lot of women have come down with it."

One source, who spoke to the Tribune under condition of anonymity, working as a civilian archeologist on government land throughout Nevada, began to notice "all white unmarked aircraft" preparing for take-off at Nellis AFB and at the Mancamp Complex near Tonapah in the late-90s. "It was these unmarked planes that were constantly laying down the criss-crossing X patterns of lingering chemical-spray trails over Southern Nevada." When the archeologist asked the military escort who accompanied the civilian research team into 'sensitive' areas around Nellis, about the planes, the reply received was, "You didn't see anything."

Another Las Vegas resident, Sandy Range, grew up within an outdoors field and stream-type family and has been watching the weather and the skies all her life. Holding a degree from Syracuse University, Range moved to Las Vegas in 1989. "I first began to notice the chemtrails in late '96 - 14 criss-crossed miles-long vapor trails that didn't evaporate like the norm. I began to see them weekly, then daily," Range states matter-of-factly.

One early morning in '99 Range was returing from Henderson when a low-flying craft dropped a trail right overhead along Boulder Highway. "It covered my car with a sticky web-like coating and I saved a specimen in a jar. Microscopic fiber-like filaments," Range reports.

Government denials, as usual.

Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio authored the Space Preservation Act of 2001, which sought a "permanent ban against weapons in space," specifically banning "chemtrails" as weapons. But in a subsequent version of the bill, the "chemtrails" language disappeared entirely. The missing words suggest an eyes-wide-open denial, which says as much about the cover-up as it does about the spraying that's plainly visible in the sky.

In a front-page story entitled "Conspiracy theorists look up," the Akron Beacon Journal noted that Kucinich's bill "had been rewrittenand the references to chemtrails and the other types of weapons were quietly eliminated." The Beacon Journal article, linking chemtrails to conspiracies, resulted from massive local pressure. Michel Massullo of Akron provided that newspaper with rolls of photos of plane trails and a sworn affidavit attesting to extensive aerial activity over that city.

The U.S. Air Force Website refutes the "Chemtrail Hoax" as having been around since 1996, "accusing the Air Force of being involved in spraying the U.S. population" with mysterious substances: "Several authors cite an Air University research paper titled 'Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025' that suggests the Air Force is conducting weather modification experiments. The purpose of that paper was part of a thesis to outline a strategy for the use of a future weather modification system to achieve military objectives and it does not reflect current military policy, practice, or capability. The Air Force is not conducting any weather modification experiments or programs and has no plans to do so in the future. The 'chemtrail' hoax has been investigated and refuted by many established and accredited universities, scientific organizations, and major media publications."

Explaining the government's position, Lieutenant Colonel Michael K. Gibson of the U.S. Air Force wrote U.S. Representative Mark Green in August 2000 and stated, "The term 'chemtrail' is a hoax that began circulating approximately three years ago which asserts the government is involved in a joint federal program of covert spraying of the public."

But many intelligent researchers call Gibson's communique a classic non-denial denial: Gibson is denying that the Air Force is secretly spraying U.S. citizens. The reality is the U.S. Space Command and other government agencies are involved in ongoing experiments for military and environmental purposes that involve aerial spraying, and the microfibers and other sprayed chemicals inevitably fall to earth, putting the public at risk.

Before you believe Gibson's and the government's "denial," do an Internet search for the following terms: "Joint Vision for 2020" and "Weather is a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025", a whitepaper by MIT's Bernard Eastlund and H-bomb father Edward Teller. Before he died in 2003, Teller was director emeritus of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, where plans for nuclear, biological and directed energy weapons are crafted. In 1997, Teller publicly outlined his proposal to use aircraft to scatter through the stratosphere millions of tons of electrically-conductive metallic materials, ostensibly to reduce global warming.

Two scientists working at Wright Patterson Air Force Base confirmed to the Ohio newspaper, Columbus Alive, that they were involved in aerial spraying experiments. One involved aluminum oxide spraying related to global warming and the other involved barium stearate and had to do with high-tech military communications.

And even in the face of government denials, environmental laboratories have begun to identify an extremely toxic component of the spray drifting over cities and countryside. Several independent sources claim that samples of fallout from the lingering smoke trails and have been independently tested and found to contain ethylene dibromide (EDB).

In 1998, a US Air Force public affairs officer told residents of Las Vegas that their sudden upsurge of respiratory ailments could have come from "routine" fuel-dumping by military aircraft reducing weight for landing.

An extremely hazardous pesticide, EDB was banned by the US Environmental Protection Agency in 1983. But in 1991, the composition of jet fuel used by commercial and military jet aircraft in the U.S. was changed from JP4 to somewhat less flammable JP8. A Department of Defense source says the move "has saved some lives" in air crashes. Ethylene dibromide is a key component of JP8.

The 1991 Chemical Hazards of the Workplace warns that repeated exposure to low levels of ethylene dibromide results in "general weakness, vomiting, diarrhea, chest pains, coughing and shortness of breath, upper respiratory tract irritation" and respiratory failure caused by swelling of the lymph glands in the lungs. "Deterioration of the heart, liver and kidneys, and hemorrhages in the respiratory tract," can also result from prolonged contact with JP8.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's hazardous materials list: "Ethylene dibromide is a carcinogen and must be handled with extreme caution." A seven-page summary of this pesticide's extreme toxicity notes that EDB may also damage the reproductive system. According to the EPA, "Exposure can irritate the lungs, repeated exposure may cause bronchitis, development of cough, and shortness of breath. It will damage the liver and kidneys".

Mark Witten, a respiratory physiologist at the University of Arizona in Tucson where an official US Air Force study on JP8 was carried out, told Scientist in March, 1998 that crew chiefs "seem to have more colds, more bronchitis, more chronic coughs than the people not exposed to jet fuel."

EDB is 6.5-times heavier than air. Unlike normal condensation trails, the thick white streamers being sprayed from downward-pointing tail-booms over at least 39 states does not dissipate, but spreads into an overcast that refracts a purple color in sunlight and appears suddenly as an oily film in puddles and ponds.

Hundreds of photographs and videotapes made by ground observers show pairs or larger formations of aircraft spreading a white mist that thickens and drifts toward the ground. Thousands of eye-witnesses - including police officers, pilots, military and public health personnel - have provided detailed accounts of aerial spraying in characteristic "X"s and east-to-west grid patterns, followed by occluded skies - and acute auto-immune reactions and respiratory infections throughout affected regions.

Severe headaches, nosebleeds, shortness of breath, joint pain and a dry hacking cough "that never leaves" are being reported by countless Americans jamming hospital Emergency Rooms from coast to coast. While December and January are traditionally bad months for asthma sufferers, patients, doctors and nurses across the U.S. report hospital wards filled to overflowing with bronchitis, pneumonia and acute asthma admissions at up to twice-normal winter rates.

"We're getting sprayed real heavily with the chemtrails," a Las Vegas resident told the Tribune. " On some days it's just total saturation."

As over-filled Pennsylvania hospitals were forced to divert respiratory emergencies to other facilities with bed space, a south-central Pennsylvania resident, Deborah Kammerer, looked out her window and watched aircraft "flying and dispersing over the city. It was supposed to be a clear sunny day. It became more overcast as the day progressed. I observed how the white trails widened out and settled down creating a haze over everything."

Where is the mainstream media's reporting of this mass phenomenon? Indications of a concerted cover-up came in February 2003, when a retired Southern Baptist preacher named Everett Burton finally succeeded in reaching C-span. After voicing his opinion on the Clinton impeachment trial, this former minister told Americans to get a copy of the Constitution and read it to realize what they have lost. Rev. Burton then advised viewers not to take his word for what was happening in the US, "just look up in the skies as the planes regularly spray contrails across the skies, spraying people and making them ill." At that point, Rev. Burton was cut off. The screen flipped from C-span to the Tennessee state seal, remained silent for several minutes.

... to be concluded next week.

[northzax]

1. how, er, amusing

yeah, people exposed to jet fuel on a regular basis get sick more often. shocking. And in the winter, asthmatics have trouble breathing. whatever.

[babylonsister]

2. Great. So now we're being poisoned by

our government?:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[soulcore]

3. I'm not saying we're being poisoned

but something sure is going on up there.

Sept. 8th 2005 - North Dallas


Dec. 27th 2005 - Downtown Dallas


Dec. 18th 2005 - North Dallas


http://stolenskies.net/database/

[HysteryDiagnosis]

4. Spraying for west nile??? nt.

[PWRinNY]

6. It's brainwash juice

Spray it over the population, dumb down America, and turn on faux news.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

7. Welcome to DU native new yawker... at least that's the drift I'm

gettin from your handle... for the record, how much dumber can we get... at least 59 million of us.

[PWRinNY]

26. Thanks!

Not a native New Yorker, but been in the state most my life. Always loved that Daily Mirror cover - thanks for the smile - and the welcome! :)

[soulcore]

8. If so, they're sprayng way to high and are horribly ineffective

I don't profess strange conspiracy theories, or even attempt to pretend like I know what's going on. But water vapor they ain't.

Jan. 21st 2005- North Dallas


Jan. 9th 2005 - North Dallas


Sept. 17th 2005 - Frisco, Tx

[adolfo]

25. Skeptics should go back to high school..

..for basic Science 101. Look up physical properties of H2O.

1.) Water vapor cannot remain persistent for miles in the sky.
2.) As for exhaust; it would take a highly inefficient engine and an extremely large gas tank to expel that much waste. Gas is definitely not cheap nowadays so I doubt it is exhaust.

Whatever it is, the public has a right to know its contents.

[AZCat]

33. Who claimed that contrails are water vapor?

They are made of liquid water. Water vapor (a product of combustion) cools to below the saturation temperature (at that particular pressure) and some of the water condenses out in the form of tiny droplets.

[Silverhair]

43. You need to go back to physics class.

1.) Water vapor cannot remain persistent for miles in the sky.

Have you seen a cloud? What do you think clouds are?

2.) As for exhaust; it would take a highly inefficient engine and an extremely large gas tank to expel that much waste. Gas is definitely not cheap nowadays so I doubt it is exhaust.

Water is formed by the fuel being burned. Jet fuel is a hydrocarbon and combines with oxygen to give off heat and H2O, CO2, and some CO. The H2O is really hot, in the hundreds of degrees, and in the very cold high altitude air cools to form a cloud. That is all a contrail is - a cloud.

Also, contrails have been being formed for a very long time. Look at some WWII pictures.

Check out these pictures:



Click on this image. It is the most dramatic.


------

I will now make a prediction. You have now learned that B-17s left contrails in WWII. Instead of realizing that contrails are indeed a natural result of high altitude flight, you will conclude that contrails were a military weapon used on the Germans by the USA and is being reintroduced. It will become part of your CT.

[adolfo]

45. Correction

1.) Clouds are not water vapour. As the air cools the vapour condenses into water droplets which form clouds. It is a multi-step process. It also takes a lot of H2O to create large clouds.

2.) The pictures you have proves my point. If you look closely at the ends of those contrails they all quickly disappear. Why? Because there is not enough condensed water to create persistent clouds.

Chemtrails however, are persistent so they stay in the air for much longer periods of time and can stretch for miles. What is it? I don't know, but they certainly are not contrails.


PERSISTENCY is the keyword here.

[Silverhair]

46. The ends of the contrails are not in the picture.

A contrail can be both persetent and non-persestent. I am now well advanced in years, and I remember seeing them as a boy, and some of them lasted and some didn't. It depends upon the weather conditions.

Of course, being a dedicated true believer in your conspriacy theory, you will just say, "Wow. They have been doing it ever since the 1940's, and we are just now catching on."

And higher altitudes clouds are ice crystals, not water droplets. Yes, it does take a lot of water to make a large cloud. But contrails are not large clouds.

However, you are a conspiracty theorist, and for you, the CT assumes a role in your life similar to that of a religion. By it you believe that you are privy to sprecial knowledge denied to outsiders. And you hold to it despite all evidence.

I have a major in math and a minor in physics with a course in meterology. And I have flown many time in many types of aircraft. In the service I was in flight training, but washed out. Sometimes my own plane left a contrail, and I certainly know that I was NOT spraying anything.

[adolfo]

47. Basic Question

I have no use for religion or blind belief. These are basic facts and observations that can be verified by anyone. Attack me if you want but that still doesn't change basic physics.

My argument is not about disputing the existence of contrails or its history. It is about the physical properties of clouds most refer to as "chemtrails".


Water is formed by the fuel being burned. Jet fuel is a hydrocarbon and combines with oxygen to give off heat and H2O, CO2, and some CO. The H2O is really hot, in the hundreds of degrees, and in the very cold high altitude air cools to form a cloud. That is all a contrail is - a cloud.

I'm here in sunny Florida and folks are getting the same chemtrails in colder states. Your theory doesn't hold unless you can explain how all major cities share the same climate conducive to these "clouds".

Since you claim to be an experienced observer here is a basic question. What is the longest contrail you have ever made personally?

[Silverhair]

48. Look up the temperatures of the upper atmosphere.

Even in the tropics, the higher altitudes are bitterly cold. Are you aware that you can snow ski in Hawaii? Check out this awesome panorama of Mt. Mauna Kea in Hawaii - it is snow covered - in the tropics. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050704.html

Mt. Kilimanjaro is almost on the equator and has a snow cap - although it is shrinking.

And the Andes mountains in Ecuador are on the equator and are snowcapped. Picture here:



Here is a site where you may see the temperature of the atmosphere. Those temperatures are global. It doesn't matter if you are on the equator, or if you are at the poles. You can get only very minor differences.

At the boundary of the troposphere and the stratosphere, about 10KM, (About 35,000 feet)the temp is about -60F, and is constant for about another 35K feet. Above that the temp begins to rise.

Get the idea? At very high altitudes, even on the equator - IT IS C-O-L-D.

My longest contrail was out of sight. I could not see the end of it. High altitude, about 42K ft.

Physics, which I have a minor in, does not change. You should learn it.

[adolfo]

51. Humidity is also a factor

Contrails cannot form behind aircraft unless the atmosphere is very cold. As NASA explains, “Contrails only form at very high altitudes (usually above 8 km) where the air is extremely cold (less than -40°C / -70°F).

NASA, NOAA and other scientific cloud-gazers also agree that a relative humidity of 70% or higher is necessary for cloud and contrail formation. If the air is very dry, contrails do not form behind airplanes,” states the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Taking NASA’s expertise as contrail catechism, chemtrail investigator Clifford Carnicom correlating atmospheric readings by NASA’s Climate Diagnostics Center of with 21 days of heavy “chemtrail” gridding over Santa Fe from Jan. 1999 to Aug. 1999. At altitudes where persistent white plumes criss-crossed the usually cloudless New Mexico sky. Carnicom found 30% humidity or less…

http://www.willthomas.net/Books_Videos/Chemtrails_Confirmed_Book_Extract.htm

It is easy to verify whether those clouds are chemtrails or contrails. Just look up the humidity/temperature at the time of creation.

You can also track flights with this handy software:

http://www.flightexplorer.com/solutions.aspx

Note: The FAA filters out military, non-US registered, and sensitive traffic.

[Silverhair]

53. Yes, Humidity is a strong factor, after temperature.

In very dry air, ice crystals will sublimate, producing a very short contrail. In more humid air the contrail can become long lasting, even spread out to form a cirrus cloud.

But it is still a contrail.

[adolfo]

54. Sure

Lets also assume all major cities in the world share the same climates.

[Silverhair]

56. Above 35K feet, it doesn't matter.

You are NOT going to find any place on earth that is warm at high altitude. Yes, there will be temperature fluctuation, but it will be between bitterly cold and damn cold. Humidity will fluctuate more than temperature will.

So the first requirement (cold) for a contrail will be met everywhere at high altitude.

The second requirment will (humidity) will fluctuate.

See what I mean about CTists? You are trying to violate known atmospheric properties by claiming that some places aren't cold at high altitudes. I even gave you examples of tropical mountains that were high enough to be snow capped, yet in the very face of it you cling to the idea that somewhere may be warm seven miles up.

[adolfo]

62. It does matter

“After multiple plumes appeared over Santa Fe, New Mexico, Clifford Carnicom pioneered the collection of government weather data from 30,000 to 38,000 feet. On days of intense aerial gridding, Carnicom found the temperatures and humidity at high altitudes to be only one-third as cold as the –40F and 70% humidity needed for contrails to form. Atmospheric scientists at the National Climate and Atmospheric Research Institute in Boulder say the only way to form contrails in such warm dry air is by adding tons of tiny particulates to the atmosphere. The smaller the particles for scant moisture to coalesce around, the more hazy clouds are formed.”

http://www.willthomas.net/Chemtrails/About_Chemtrails.htm

Both factors of humidity and temperature must be met. How can you be so confident both conditions are met every time there is a man made cloud? Yes, it can be really cold but there must be a certain amount of humidity to create very long and persistent“clouds”.

I’m keeping an open mind as to the possibilities rather than rely on assumptions. There are too many unanswered questions.

1.) Contrails do not rain cobweb-like material and Jell-O-like "goo" as reported by many observers.
2.) The high levels of aluminum oxide found in scientific lab tests of chemtrail fallout in Edmonton and Espanola, Ontario are as ubiquitous and inert as sand. The barium found in the Edmonton samples could be benign or toxic to humans depending on the particular “barium salt” involved. (We don’t have that refined analysis.) The highly reflective quartz particles that predominated in the Espanola lab test are also inert.
3.) People don’t get sick from contrails.
4.) In an interview with Columbus Alive magazine, two scientists working on chemtrails at Wright-Patterson air force base in Ohio told award-winning reporter Bob Fitrakis that there are two projects currently underway. One is aimed at reducing catastrophic global warming by spreading sunlight-reflecting particles in the atmosphere. Another project involves spreading temporary barium “antennas” in the sky to “duct” or conduct radio and radar waves over the horizon for tactical military operations. Barium chemtrails were spread over Afghanistan, the scientists said, to relay radio commands to remotely piloted Predator drones. One scientist expressed concern that chemtrails could be precipitating pathogenic bugs out of the upper atmosphere, bringing them down to people on the ground.

http://www.willthomas.net/Chemtrails/About_Chemtrails.htm

If it makes you sleep better at night then ignore all the data others have collected. They probably made it all up.

[Silverhair]

64. I prefer to concern myself with real problems, than with imagined ones.

Chemtrail evidence is in exactly the same category as space aliens visiting the earth.

Your points 1 and 2 fail from your lack of knowledge of high altitude meteorology. A contrail over, say, Dallas will not drop stuff on Dallas. The tiny particles would have to drift down and would be carried very far by the high winds, and scattered by the turbulance. A North/South chemtrail over Dallas would come down somewhere in Georgia, or in the Atlantic. And it would be so minute that it would not be known about.

You really, really should learn some physics. What the hell is one third as cold??? That measurement in physics does not exist. Temperature starts at absolute zero and is measured up, in increasing levels of warmth. If he is stating a scientific measure in non-scientific terms, then I doubt his knowledge.

Point 3. People don't get sick from contrails. True. I suppose that you are trying to imply that somebody got sick from a "chemtrail", but chemtrails have not been proven to exist, so your argument is circular, and therefore illogical. Some wacko CTer may have gotten sick, and blamed it on chemtrails, but that is hardly proof of anything.

Number 4 is just plain wacko.

Pathogenic bugs in the upper atmosphere that are brought down by chemtrails???? Anything up there is also brought down by snow.

Creating an upper layer radio mirror by spreading barium - for military advantage? You really should learn some physics.

Sunlight reflecting particles. Ordinary contrails do an excellent job of that. The effect of ordinary contrails is indeed a matter of concern, but then we would be talking about contrails, not chemtrails.

"Columbus Alive" is NOT a scientific journal. It covers Music, Art, Culture, Film, etc. So their journalists are not to be trusted on matters of science. They don't have the correct education to tell bullcrap from reality.

[adolfo]

66. Clean air is a real issue

Most of what I post are based on reports from reliable witnesses and physical evidence. All you provide is more theorizing, misinterpretation and bashing.

Very typical, if you can't attack the data then attack the source(s).

[Silverhair]

67. Clean air is a real issue. Chemtrails are not.

I have posted real data in most of my posts. I have posted about how they are formed, the math of the so called grid patterns, high altitude weather, etc.

Questioning the validity of a source is completely proper. The rag you used is not a scientific source, but covers the entertainment world. If I wanted to know about music fashions, they might be a good source. On science - they are not. Show me something in the genuine scientific press.

[adolfo]

68. NASA Patent

http://www.delphion.com/cgi-bin/viewpat.cmd/US03813875__?MODE=fstv&OUT_FORMAT=pdf

http://patimg2.uspto.gov/.piw?docid=US003813875&SectionNum=1&IDKey=15A9F4938532&HomeUrl=http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1%2526Sect2=HITOFF%2526d=PALL%2526p=1%2526u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm%2526r=1%2526f=G%2526l=50%2526s1=3813875.WKU.%2526OS=PN/3813875%2526RS=PN/3813875

US3813875: ROCKET HAVING BARIUM RELEASE SYSTEM TO CREATE ION CLOUDS IN THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE
-----------------------------------------------
Abstract: A chemical system for releasing a good yield of free barium (Ba°) atoms and barium ions (BA+) to create ion clouds in the upper atmosphere and interplanetary space for the study of the geophysical properties of the medium.
-----------------------------------------------

Inventor(s): Paine; Thomas O. Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration with respect to an invention of , Hampton, VA 23364

Issued/Filed Dates: June 4, 1974 / April 28, 1972
Application Number: US1972000248761

CLAIMS:
What is claimed as new and desired to be secured by Letters Patent of the United States is:
1. Apparatus for releasing free barium atoms and barium ions in the upper atmosphere to emit resonance radiation in the form of a luminous cloud comprising:
a rocket vehicle capable of being launched into the upper atmosphere of earth, a longitudinally configured payload carried by said rocket vehicle, said payload including:
a fuel tank disposed at one end of the payload, an oxidizer tank disposed at the opposite end of the payload, and
an open ended combustion chamber diametrically disposed intermediate said fuel tank and said oxidizer tank and with both ends thereof being open to the atmosphere, conduit means connecting said fuel tank and said oxidizer tank to said combustion chamber, valve means disposed in said conduit means for selectively permitting fluid flow from said fuel tank and said oxidizer tank into said combustion chamber, a liquid fuel having a quantity of barium salts dissolved therein disposed within said fuel tank, a liquid oxidizer disposed in said oxidizer tank, said liquid fuel and said liquid oxidizer having the inherent chemical property characteristics of undergoing a hypergolic reaction upon contact with each other whereby, when said valve means permit flow of said liquid fuel and said liquid oxidizer into said combusion chamber the resulting hypergolic reaction releases a high yield of luminous barium atoms and barium ions.
2. The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the liquid fuel is selected from the group consisting of hydrazine and liquid ammonia.
3. The apparatus of claim 2 wherein the barium salts contained in the liquid fuel is a mixture of barium chloride and barium nitrate.
4. The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the liquid oxidizer is selected from the group consisting of F2, OF2 and ClF3.


Edit: added alternative link

[Silverhair]

70. Yes, I remember that experiment.

It was in the papers at the time. I did some googling:

http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wposion.html

An atom can become ionized by the absorption of light. The atom of barium is particularly easy to ionize, because its outermost electron is very loosely bound. If a mass of barium is vaporized in space, producing a barium cloud, much of the barium becomes ionized by sunlight within less than a minute. The cloud then moves in response to electric forces in space, and can be used to study the electrical field in space.

Some barium releases are conducted far from Earth and are tracked by telescopes. The AMPTE mission (Active Magnetospheric Particle Tracer Experiment), launched in 1984, released barium clouds near the "nose" of the magnetosphere and in the magnetospheric tail.

The AMPTE mission included three spacecraft, shown here stacked up during launch. Click here for a full size version of this image.

In addition it released a barium cloud in the solar wind to produce an "artificial comet". Soon after the cloud formed, the magnetic field embedded in the solar wind picked it and made it share the wind's flow, a process similar to the one which creates the ion tails of comets.

http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/gloss.html#q14

Barium release --the firing from a rocket or spacecraft above the atmosphere of a charge of barium, evaporated by a thermite process. Usually produced shortly after sunset, when the sky is already dark but sunlight still reaches the high altitude where the release occurs. The barium atoms are released as a vapor, they spread rapidly and are readily ionized by sunlight. The ion cloud then moves with the local plasma and is therefore a useful tracer of plasma flows.
--------
I well remember this, and the green cloud in the news. I didn't get to see the could myself. It was released into SPACE, NOT in the atmosphere.

Your silly CT has someone releasing into the atmosphere as part of a contrail to create an ionic mirror for military use. Sorry, but the CT violates a lot of physics. You really, really, should learn physics. You would then realize how stupid the chemtrail CT is.

[adolfo]

72. Many Variations

It was released into SPACE, NOT in the atmosphere.

Did you even bother to read the patent? As the patent explains there are many variations of its use. Including space but not limited to it.

If you can't see a possible link between the substance (barium) found in chemtrails and the NASA patent (barium) then your critical thinking skills are seriously lacking.

Your silly CT has someone releasing into the atmosphere as part of a contrail to create an ionic mirror for military use.

The "ionic mirror" as YOU phrased it and described by scientists, is for better conductance of radio and radar signals. There are many well documented methods for creating conditions conducive to various waves. This is nothing new or secret. Would you expect them to send a rocket up every time?

This is just one of many possibilities.

Such a basic mistake makes me doubt your claims of superior knowledge.

[Silverhair]

75. That was released into the EXTREME upper atmosphere.

I gave you two links about the 1984 experiment. Planes make contrails at 30K to 45K feet. Rarely do they fly above that. Most, even military ones, can't cruise above 60K. The barium cloud was released in the ionosphere and it was released suddenly from a rocket, not from a plane. Contrails are in the lower stratosphere.

Your link shows nothing but the first page of the patent, and establishes nothing. My link give you more detail about the experiment.

BTW - Take a look at this from you very own post about NASA: a rocket vehicle capable of being launched into the upper atmosphere of earth, a longitudinally configured payload carried by said rocket vehicle

Do you know the difference between a rocket and a plane? It seems not.

And barium clouds are bright green, except in an electrical field, then they are purple . So far, nobody has claimed to have seen any green or purple "chemtrails." Now that I have said that, tomorrow chemtrail nuts will be imagining that they are seeing green/purple trails.

Here are some genuine, scientific links regarding barium cloud experiments:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1993GeoRL..20.1019M&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format=

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1975rmbi.rept.....A&db_key=PHY&data_type=HTML&format=

http://eos.wdcb.rssi.ru/transl/gma/9405/pap33.htm

http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/bookdescription.librarians/601175/description#description

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/ampte.htm

http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/1992/PV1992_789.pdf (This one is really detailed.)

You really, really, should learn some physics. Then, when you see something that to you is odd or different, you would be greatly less inclined to seek conspiracy explanations that "THEY" are doing, but instead you would be able to realize what is happening.

Really funny is another post (with pictures) in this thread that some nut attributes to "them" that is nothing more than normal gravity wave clouds.

[Silverhair]

77. The basics of why such an idea is silly.

To create such a ionic mirror, at 40K ft, would require many aircraft laying down ion trails, and in an hour the ion mirror would have moved to a position where it would no longer be useful, so a new one would have to be made. That would require squadrons of aircraft dedicated to nothing but ONE ion mirror. The Air Force there would be doing nothing else.

Far cheaper, easier, and more reliable to have ONE aircraft as a radio relay craft.

That is so obvious, that only a CTer would be unable to see it. But CTists ignoer the obvious to construct fanciful, impossible theories. That is why I treat CTists with such scorn.

[adolfo]

122. Self Delete

[adolfo]

123. Self Delete

[adolfo]

124. "Ionic Mirror" is your creation

Barium was a particulate found in many "chemtrails". Barium has many other possible uses. I was only suggesting a possible link and not proposing a final conclusion.

Why do you confuse the issue with your "ionic mirror" debunk theory?

[Silverhair]

126. Your own words:

Another project involves spreading temporary barium “antennas” in the sky to “duct” or conduct radio and radar waves over the horizon for tactical military operations. Barium chemtrails were spread over Afghanistan, the scientists said, to relay radio commands to remotely piloted Predator drones. That would be an ionic mirror.

And I have throughly shot that one down.

Do you have a SOLID link of barium in contrails? Something peer reviewed please. The link you provided was for a rocket placed barium release well into the ionosphere. Planes can't get into the ionosphere.

[adolfo]

128. Quotation

It was a quote from a web site. I'm sorry for the missing quotation marks.

http://www.willthomas.net/Chemtrails/About_Chemtrails.htm

[Silverhair]

130. No difference.

By posting them in support of your argument, you took ownership of them, if not authorship.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MercutioATC]

89. I call bullshit.......(not you, the report you cite)

At NO time is the ambient temperature at 35,000 feet only -15 degrees. I'd also SERIOUSLY question the statement that contrails only form at -40 degrees and 70% humidity.

[adolfo]

94. Trust but always verify

You can always double check facts by contacting experts for their opinions.

Even if we get rid of the temp/humidity argument that still does not explain why some planes are not affected and make no lasting contrail. Fortunately, we can actually track the type of planes that create these long clouds for comparison.

There is software available for tracking flights. It should be very easy to debunk the Chemtrail conspiracy by logging traffic,temperature,humidity and "chemtrail" plane elevation in the area.

http://www.flightexplorer.com/solutions.aspx

(Note: The FAA filters out military, non-US registered, and sensitive traffic.)

[Silverhair]

95. Easily explained.

Different flight altitudes. From the ground looking up you can't tell the flight level of a plane.

Depending on local conditions the altitude at which contrails will form is going to vary. If the air is drier, they may not form at all.

Also, you can have different humidities at different level. Have you ever heard a "virga"? That is rain that evaporates completely before it hits the ground. The upper air is moist enough to form rain clouds, but the lower air is so dry that the rain evaporates before it hits the ground.

And you can have layers of dry/moist/less moist, etc. You can have layers of temperatures. And the boundaries between the layers is sometimes wavy. The waves can be up to thousand of feet in amplitude. So if a plane happen to be flying at the right altitude, (With lots of flights, separated by altitude it is pretty easy for one or two flight to be at the right altitude.)you can even get the on/off/on/off pattern that freaks out some chemtrail believers. (I happened to see a flight leaving the on & off pattern two days ago.)

Anyway, you argument assumes that all planes are at the same altitude, and they aren't. Different flights WILL be at different altitudes for reasons of safety and efficiency. Different flight altitudes will mean differences in contrail characteristics.

It is really very simple, rather basic meteorology.

[adolfo]

127. Basic Physics H2O properties

"Anyway, you argument assumes that all planes are at the same altitude, and they aren't. Different flights WILL be at different altitudes for reasons of safety and efficiency. Different flight altitudes will mean differences in contrail characteristics."

I never asserted that ALL planes travel at the same altitude. That is a ridiculous statement based on your misinterpretation. As you mentioned, different atmospheric conditions will result in various contrail properties.

Here are 2 basics,

1.) Physics dictates that enough matter must be present to create these clouds. In this case the matter can either be from an engine or its surrounding environment.

You explained it as clouds of water vapor which is technically agreeable.

2.) H2O cannot remain a gas (vapor) when it cools. Local conditions must be supportive if the matter (H2O) maintains its current state.

Regular contrails do not last long since the atmosphere (local conditions) cannot support its current state. The H2O eventually cools and condenses. You would need a lot of condensed H2O (& supportive conditions) to create a long and persistent cloud with a lifespan of more than a few minutes.

Your response of "its cold up there and the engine is really hot" does not explain how H2O can maintain the necessary state for a persistent cloud.

[Silverhair]

129. Very simple.

It depends on the relative humidity. Also, the H2O does NOT form water droplets. It forms ICE CRYSTALS. The temperature up there is around -40.

If the relative humidity is high, approaching the amount for cloud formation, then the ice crystals will not sublimate, they will become clouds.

If the relative humidity is lower, then the ice crystals may sublimate a bit more rapidly, or even rapidly.

In very dry air, they may sublimate almost at once.

I have seen my own contrail stretch on out of sight, and I know I wasn't spraying anything, and my plane (In the early 1970's) didn't have any spray tanks.

One time, only, I did put a chemical substance into the air. There was a problem with the plane and I had to make it lighter, instantly. The only thing I had was fuel so I had to dump fuel. Even then I hated what I was doing to the air, but the plane had a problem. I could see the stream of fuel coming from the tubes in the wingtips but it did not leave any kind of visible trail at all. None. My altitude was about 15,000 feet at the time. Since I am typing this, obviously I made it in OK.

Anyway, I know from experience that contrail can persist a long time, even as a boy I saw some persist and become clouds, and the physics does allow them to persist. After all, clouds persist don't they?

[adolfo]

142. Detail is preferred not simplification.

A conclusion from a belief of "I've seen a few contrails therefore all must be contrails" is based on false logic.

The explanation you provided is too broad. It still does not scientifically justify how man-made clouds of ice crystals can persist for hours in the atmosphere.

After all, clouds persist don't they?

Yes, clouds persist only when there is enough saturation and proper temperature to sustain them. I seriously doubt a plane's hot engine can draw enough saturation (relative humidity becomes 100 %) to persist for hours. Do you have any hard data to back up your assertion of persistent ice clouds besides the "it's cold up there" theory?

[Silverhair]

145. You can't watch a "chemtrail" for hours.

The upper air moves, usually at around a hundred miles an hour, or better. So in an hour, a contrail is going to be about a hundred miles away. And you claim that you have seen them persist for hours. Then you are claiming to have watched them as they drifted hundreds of miles away.

If you would actually learn some meteorology, you wouldn't embarrass yourself.

Man made clouds can persist for exactly the same reasons that natural clouds persist. Once the contrail is out of the engine, it is ice crystals and subject to exactly the same natural forces that clouds are. Sometimes they will sublimate quickly, and sometime they won't at all.

[AZCat]

55. Psychrometrics is local.

Relative humidity is dependent on temperature and pressure, so it is also possible that under certain conditions (without any additional water added) condensation can occur even when the average relative humidity is not that high. I have seen this happen with aircraft where the pressure change caused by the fluid flow around certain parts of the aircraft is significant enough to precipitate out liquid water. There must be thousands of photos of this running around the internet, and there are some pretty spectacular ones. One in particular I remember was on an aircraft carrier during WWII and the prop from a fighter taxiing on the deck left a spiral contrail that was captured by a photographer - pretty neat.

[Silverhair]

57. Those are called "vapor trails" and are different from contrails.

Many people confuse the two.

A contrail results from additional water vapor being added to the atmosphere. Notice in this picture that the contrails are coming from the engines. Contrails ALWAYS come from the engine exaust.



A vapor trail results from a very short lasting extreme drop in local air pressure. It vanishes when the air comes back into to space. Usually they are seen coming from the wingtips of a plane when it is doing a high-G maneuver.

Notice that these vapor trails are coming from the wing tips of a plane in a sharp turn.



Here is a great picture of it the same phenomenon but happening as part of a sonic boom. The plane is as the point of breaking the "sound barrier":

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030504.html

[AZCat]

60. Yup.

I was just pointing out that even if a map of relative humidities shows low relative humidities for a particular location that doesn't mean that condensation won't occur because local phenomena (such as the passage of the aircraft) can change the local temperature or pressure. The genesis of vapor trails is different than from a contrail, but the process is the same. Whether the amount of water in the air increases or the capacity of the air to hold water decreases, water is precipitated out and a visible trail occurs.

As a quick aside, the vapor trail is a good example of an adiabatic process, one that occurs either so quickly or so slowly that there isn't any (significant) heat transfer from
the system to the surroundings. Another good example is a champagne bottle - when the cork is popped, the gas inside expands so rapidly that there isn't time to exchange heat with the surroundings, and the temperature sometimes drops enough for vapor to appear - not that different from a vapor trail at a wingtip of an aircraft.

The "shock egg" is pretty cool. There are a couple photos out there showing it.

[Silverhair]

61. Here is a picture similar to the one you were talking about.

Yes, ultimately the physics are the same. Water vapor exceeding local saturation point.

It took some searching, but I think I found the famous one that you were talking about.



Both are pretty cool.

[AZCat]

65. The second one is it.

It is neat - makes me wonder what it was like to see it in person!

[TheWraith]

69. For fuck's sake man, use some sense.

The ground temperature has absolutely nothing to do with it. The upper atmosphere is far colder than than the ground is, no matter where you are. Even traveled by jetliner? Look at the ice crystals that form on the outside of the window. Even if you're over Miami in the summer, it's still sub-freezing at a high enough altitude. What altitude this is depends on a lot of factors, but the fact remains that at the right altitude, you'll get contrails. It's a simple fact of nature. If you don't believe me, charter yourself a jet and fly up to around 40K feet, then look behind you. Hasn't ANYONE who believes in this theory ever asked why these trails appear behind virtually any kind of aircraft, including passenger planes? Don't you think that if some evil government plot were spraying something into the air, they'd be a little more subtle than to create these giant swaths of cloud that you claim shouldn't exist?

[the_spectator]

5. Calling all mods - get out of the hot tub -

don't we have dungeons for things like this?
:popcorn:

[rman]

137. what, you don't like this distraction

from far more urgent matters?

[...of J.Temperance]

9. It's fiction, I don't go for all of this Chemtrails mumbo jumbo...it's

Horsecrap. I'm just being honest here :)

[Poll_Blind]

11. I know what you're thinking. I'm _pretty much_ of the same mind.

However, there does appear to be something unusual going on. Again, I know where you're coming from- I have never seen so much disinformation than in the Age of Information we live in.

PB

[...of J.Temperance]

14. If you read the article in the OP, you'll see that it's satirical

Something might be going on but it's not what all the Conspiracy Theorists are thinking.

I don't usually post in this forum, I only got here because the thread originally was in General Discussion.

[mshasta]

12. Your right I guess the thousands of kids that got sick in 27 states

for being outside was just coencidence. I guess the fact the CDC never found anything wrong ...msut be fake

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5124a2.htm
Update: Rashes Among Schoolchildren --- 27 States, October 4, 2001-- June 3, 2002

[...of J.Temperance]

13. That could have been caused by anything n/t

[chat_noir]

10. Odd Powder Descends On Cars - Illinois EPA Investigating

CHICAGO -- It's not your imagination if you've walked outside and noticed a rusty colored dust sprinkled all over your car.

The strange rusty powder appeared on cars in the Chicago area this week.

Angelo Mavaraganes, who runs a car repair shop on the Northwest Side, said he has seen it on at least 30 cars the last few days.

Some suggested the rusty powder came with the recent rain, dirt from the southwest part of the U.S. Lab tests will tell more.

A spokesman for the Illinois EPA said the lab results on the mysterious powder should be in early next week.

http://www.nbc5.com/news/5884173/detail.html


Wonder what the results will tell us.

[adolfo]

22. Don't hold your breath

The spraying program is obviously classified. Don't expect anything useful from the EPA.

[orleans]

31. i was thinking the same thing.

...what is the point of chemtrails? what is the chemical?

and why?

anyone got ideas?

[DoYouEverWonder]

32. Probably weather control

The US is the breadbasket of the world, so it would be strategically important to maintain that status. The effects on humans would be a minor concern but not the purpose of the spraying, since it would not be a very efficient way to dose a population with something.

[radio4progressives]

15. Truth Telling on DU is Prohibited..

If something isn't reported on the Corporate MSM - then it isn't true.

That's the mindset of most DU members. They religiously complain (correctly so) of the Right Wing media spin meisters and whores - the morass of disinformation and propaganda the Corporate MSM dumps on the air that passes for "truth" is regarded as accurate to DU members in so far as the party line goes. but when it comes to information that impacts the whole country, information that doesn't discriminate between republicans and democrats - then it's tin foil hat stuff that needs to be relegated to the "dungeons" where no one goes to read.

there was a time not long ago, when the news of bio-germ and chemical warfare laboratories here in the united states was considered "tin foil" hat stuff. It's isn't until something about it gets reported on CNN before it's considered "legitimate" information.

but all anyone has to do, is look up in the broad day light to see this activity, to know it's not hallucinations or the imaginings of tin foil hat conspiracy ruminations.

I swear the Amurican public is more ignorant about what's going on in our own country than any other nation in the world. And some even revel in it.

[Jax]

16. But, but , but don't you know

it makes us look "bad" out there when we question anything the elitists and skeptics don't approve of.

Discouraging this was moved from general discussion.

[...of J.Temperance]

21. It was moved from GD because the Moderators were doing their job

This sort of thing doesn't belong in GD...which is why it's here in the specific Forum that it was designed for.

No it's not a Conspiracy Theory that the Moderators moved this from GD...it's like if one were to do a thread in GD about their dog or their pot-bellied pig, then the Moderators would move that thread to the Pets Forum.

[stickdog]

38. What the hell does this have to do with 9/11? (nt)

[...of J.Temperance]

39. I don't know...the Moderators chose to move this thread to this forum

So of course that was the Moderators choice to do that, and I would think that they had good reasons to do that.

[Silverhair]

42. DU rules require all conspiracy theories be moved to 9-11 forum.

Here is the rule:

Posts about so-called "conspiracy theories" are not permitted on Democratic Underground, except in the September 11 forum.

[...of J.Temperance]

24. self-delete

.

[WoodrowFan]

134. elitists?

If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest MF in the room," I'll be an elitist!

bye bye

[...of J.Temperance]

17. 'Ummm....these links are from the Corporate MSM

Yes?

[mshasta]

18. I agree. Sad and we think the Freepers are bad

[JuniperLea]

82. To the dungeon with you, Copernicus!

The Earth is NOT round and the Sun revolves around the Earth! Everyone knows that!

:sarcasm:

[NV Whino]

19. Chem trails or con trails...

just the criss-crossing pattern is an interesting phenomenon. Highly unusual.

[radio4progressives]

29. Con trails and Chem Trails are two different activities... NT

[NV Whino]

35. I understand that

What I'm saying is even if they are con trails, the pattern is suspicious.

[MercutioATC]

37. As an air traffic controller, I can tell you that they're not "suspicious"

Contrails are left behind (depending on atmospheric conditions) when a plane flies. If the pattern of the contrails was suspicious, that would mean that the routes of flight of the planes was suspicious.

They're not.


There are many routes of flight that don't make sense to a layperson but that doesn't make them suspicious.

[Desertrose]

40. It isn't "suspicious" to have jets fly grids over areas

that are 100-150 miles out from a major airport and at least another350+ mi from the next closest major airport?
Also at least 150+miles from an AFB as well?

Is it normal to have jets flying close together and crisscross with other jets going at 90º so that they form a tic-tac-toe pattern when you can see them in (close) proximity?

Is it normal traffic pattern to have jets do u-turns and fly right back over where they have just flown- you can see this by their "contrails" that linger?

Is it normal to see some planes' contrails disappear quite close behind them and others leave long white ever widening trails behind them in the same sky at the same time?This is not at all "suspicious"?

That *some* trails spread into greasy grey over cast "clouds" and yet I can still see that some planes have disappearing contrails, is that normal?

and if it is normal, isn't anyone concerned about the fact that jet traffic can create clouds that block so much sunlight?

I'm really not being a smart ass here, I'd just like to find the truth, ya know?

DR

typo edit

[Silverhair]

50. They aren't flying grids. There are intersections in the airlanes.

If a plane is flying from Phoenix to Boston, it's path will cross the path of a plane going from Houston to Omaha. That particular intersection point happens to be in the middle of Nowhere, OK, far away from any airport.

But idiots will see the crossing paths and say, "What are planes doing around here? There's no airport around here. It must me a conspiracy plot."

Now if you will look at a map of the United States, it should be obvious to you that there would be lots and lots of places that would be intersections of the highways in the sky, and most of those intersections won't be close to airports.

Surely you didn't think that planes magically teleported from airport to airport. They have to fly from one place to another, and that means they have to fly over places that aren't close to airports.

[Desertrose]

52. Please don't treat me like I'm a fool

or stupid, as I am neither. I have been watching the skies for over 50 years and have never seen what I 've been seeing since the late 90's. These planes are flying grids, no other description suffices.

Of course I understand jet traffic crosses in the sky over my head, but if air traffic is consistent then why do I not see this every day? Why the grids only when these trails are being "laid down"? I look up at the same times everyday and can often see jets crossing in the sky, but the only time I see the grid pattern, is when the trails "stick" & spread out to cover the sky.(BTW- I am not talking about 2 or 3 planes...I have counted over a dozen at the same time just in the immediate airspace over me working on the grid pattern.)

Even if these are only "contrails", they are making a royal mess of the sky. No one ever seems to comment on this point. I don't know what is in these "trails". I just know they do not behave the way contrails have in the past and if they do cause this scuzzy cloudcover, do you not see this as a probelm in itself?

"But idiots will see the crossing paths and say, 'What are planes doing around here? There's no airport around here. It must me a conspiracy plot.' "

Nice attempt to make me and this discussion appear silly. However, I assure you, the skies and what is going on over ALL our heads, whether intentional or unintentional, is not something to be scoffed at or dismissed.

[Silverhair]

58. About the so-called grids and increase in contrails count.

There is much more air travel today that 50 years ago. I too have looked at the skies since the 19540s. Contrails were more rare then. Two reasons. All civilian planes were propeller aircraft, and often didn't fly high enough to make a contrail. The second is that there were far few planes. Today you have far more air travel, and jets fly at higher altitudes.

The tic-tac-toe effect is common at ariel intersections. The upper atmosphere often has very strong winds of over a hundred miles an hour. So if a jet make a contrail, it doesn't stay there. The contrail moves with the air flow. The jet is also being blown sideways so it will make a straight contrail. Usually the winds are at an angle to the path, so if the plane is on a course of 180, and the wind is from 45 at 90 knots, then the contrail will appear to move toward 270 at 63 knots.

Now another plane follows the first one ten minutes later. The first one is flying in the same airlane. The first contrail will have moved about 12 miles toward 270. As you look up at it, you will see parallel contrails.

Now the same thing happens with a couple of planes going on a course of 90. Their contrails will appear to be offset toward 180, again at 63 knots. So if there is an ariel intersection there, the effect for a person looking at it from the ground will be as if they were flying "grids".

But in reality it is a completely normal effect of high altitude winds at an ariel intersection.

There are hundreds of ariel intersections in the US, and some of them a pretty busy.

From the ground, as you look up at the sky 7 to 9 miles up, you can see a huge portion of the sky. Easily you can see about 500 miles of sky, if the air is clear. So you can see most of the contrails that are being formed in your state unless you live in a large western state. Even there you can see many of them.

So the mystery is easily cleared up with a minor amount of history, (Great increase in air travel and transition to jets), and a little bit of high-school level trigonometry, and slight dollop of meteorology (High altitude winds are usually fast).

No need for crazy conspiracy theories.

The environmental effect of so many contrails is a different subject. My intent here is to debunk the idea of chemtails and the crazy conspiracy theories.

[Desertrose]

73. I understand what you are saying, but

that is not what I am seeing.

The planes are doing this with only a few seconds time between them. I can see them all in the sky at the same time, so your explanation does not apply to what I see.


Good try though. Sounds very logical- but doesn't explain at all what I see.

[Silverhair]

74. That is because you don't want it explained, except in CT terms.

To a conspiracy theorist, the belief in a conspiracy serves much the same purpose in their life that a religion does. It provides the person with a feeling being on of the chosen few who know a great secret. But the truth is that they are just a lot of contrails.

Where I live, a little south of Dallas, TX, this morning the sky was filled with dozens of contrails, at different altitudes. At any particular time, if one searched the sky, there was a plane leaving one. But I am not running around in circles thinking there is some great spooky conspiracy. Logic tells me that they are contrails, and nothing more.

Do you REALLY thin that EVERY airliners is equipped with sprayers?? How could the airliner carry the weight of the fuel, and the passengers, AND the chemicals? It is absurd to believe in chemtrails.

Nor is is possible to spray an area directly underneath the flight path of a plane 7 miles up. The chemicals would be extremely dispersed and would fall hundred or thousands of miles away, and it would be impossible to predict where they would come down.

[Desertrose]

79. Oh please. That's just bullshit.

...and an attempt to discredit anyone who asks questions. *conspiracy theorist*. Nice neat label for one who doesn't buy the "acccepted" story.

So because I ask some legitimate questions - I'm labeled a *CT* and then compared to some kind of fundie religious believer who doesn't understand things logical & scientific. Good try.

Did I ever say I thought every airliner is equipped with sprayers? Are you making your own stuff up here of what you think I am saying? Have you ever read descriptions of planes that people (many professionals, meterologists & pilots) who have observed *this* whatever it is? They all have plenty of questions of their own...and some pieces of the answers,too. There are just too many people who have quite a bit of knowledge and education on this subject that are not buying your explanations to blow everyone off as "tinfoilers".

Sure is convenient for you to dismiss those who don't go along with your *logic* as crazy CT's. Also interesting that you are all over this thread working so hard to discredit and if that doesn't work, then there is always ridicule.
Still not buying.

Must keep you busy being the offical *CT* debunker down here in the basement.

"It is absurd to believe in chemtrails".

Actually, it is even more absurd to trust those who have great power, money and greed and answer only to themselves.

[Silverhair]

80. Your are not wanting real world answers.

and an attempt to discredit anyone who asks questions. *conspiracy theorist*. Nice neat label for one who doesn't buy the "accepted" story.

Regarding "chemtrails" - there is no "official" story, because officials don't even bother with it. Officials regard it as a waste of time even to respond. They are fully aware that the CTist will cling to his CT like a fundie does to Creationism.

So because I ask some legitimate questions - I'm labeled a *CT* and then compared to some kind of fundie religious believer who doesn't understand things logical & scientific.

Your questions have scientific answers that are testable. When you reject science then that does indeed place you in the company of fundies.

Did I ever say I thought every airliner is equipped with sprayers?

Then you admit that they are just contrails, and nothing more? If they are not contrails, then the airliner has to be spraying something, and that means it has to have a spray system. No spray system means no chemtrail as a contrail become the only available explanation.

Have you ever read descriptions of planes that people (many professionals, meteorologists & pilots) who have observed *this* whatever it is? They all have plenty of questions of their own...and some pieces of the answers,too. There are just too many people who have quite a bit of knowledge and education on this subject that are not buying your explanations to blow everyone off as "tinfoilers

There have been NO peer reviewed articles in any of the scientific media, no serious papers by any genuine professionals. NONE. Of course, since you are a tinfoiler, you will claim that the scientific media is controlled by "THEM".

Also, there have been no genuine whistleblowers. A plot that large, would involve over a million people to execute it, and somebody somewhere would be screaming with GENUINE evidence. All that has been put out has the same lack of credibility as the space alien/UFO stuff

Sure is convenient for you to dismiss those who don't go along with your *logic* as crazy CT's. Also interesting that you are all over this thread working so hard to discredit and if that doesn't work, then there is always ridicule.

Try disputing the logic itself. All you have done is refuse to believe it - just like fundies do with evolution.

Yes, I am amusing myself by jousting with some of the crazier tinfoillers. I provides me with some laughs.

Must keep you busy being the official *CT* debunker down here in the basement.

Not very busy. It provides an amusing break from having to concentrate on what I do. I am self-employed so I don't have to worry about a boss looking over my shoulder. Sometimes I feel like taking a break. Kind of like the way some people will work a crossword puzzle for the same reason.

Actually, it is even more absurd to trust those who have great power, money and greed and answer only to themselves.

Ah. The standard tinfoiler answer. Either you believe the tinfoil, or you are trusting "THEM". Actually, I trust science, and logic.

BTW - Nobody owns logic. It is a branch of mathematics and simply is.

[Desertrose]

83. and that is according to you....

:evilgrin:

No official or accepted story?? Looks like NASA is talking about something
here.

Appears that NASA now feels a need to explain something as old and insignificant as contrails...oh wait these are the "new long lived & persistent contrails." So why the need to put spin on good old contrails unless somehow they are appearing different and people are beginning to question?

In your haste to prove me a crazy tinfoiler, you've made a few leaps in logic of your own.
I have never said I have all the answers...I just have questions & observations that don't add up.

OK,let me get this straight, so if something is not PEER reviewed, it is meaningless to you? Are you admitting you have not read the observations of others? Please explain then how you can make a complete scientific assessment without studying all the evidence. That is really quite illogical considering the known biases of science and its need to protect its own precious theories. Could be you are as much a fundie in your belief that science has all the (right & only) answers as those you accuse.

And you want me to take your word as truth because you use only evidence that supports your explanation? ...now that is amusing.

"standard tinfoil answer"?
" Either you believe the tinfoil, or you are trusting "THEM". "

So then by your own logic, you clearly trust everyone and everything in our government? If that is the case, then why are you even on DU? No, you don't trust this current administration, or perhaps even a few previous administrations? Well then, I guess that makes you tinfoil crazy too, eh?

I'm surprised that someone of your age & expertise always see things only in black or white.
Oh well. :shrug: maybe not surprised

[Silverhair]

84. Some things are black and white.

Yes, take a very good look at that site. Read it carefully. Not a single mention of "chemtrails". None. They are not even worth mentioning. Yes, NASA does explain what contrails are, and very will too. So what? NOAA has a web site that explains about hurricanes. They are performing a public service by making accurate information about those available. Because they are providing information about something does not mean that chemtrailologists have force NASA to repond. (Of course in the imagination of a CTer, EVERYTHING is part of the conspiracy.) And because I was a science major, I am able to check it for accuracy. They are accurate. They can't change the laws of physics.

There is a small group of people who form a Flat Earth Society. They really believe the earth is flat. I don't need to investigate their claims, as I already know the answer from genuine science.

A few years ago Joe Newman gained a lot of publicity with a so-called "Amazing Energy Machine". The Gulfport, MS TV news was taken in by him and ran a puff piece news story about it. From the news piece I was able to see that his claims for his machine violated the laws of physics. I didn't need to see his machine to know it was a fraud. I called the station and talked to the editor. A few months later they had egg on their faces when Newman was exposed as insane and a fraud. If the reporters had used even basic high-school physics, they would not have been taken in. The last of I hear of Newman he had started a new religion, married a woman and them perform a marriage cermoney of his new church that was supposed to unite himself and the woman's eight year old daughter in marriage. Mississippi child welfare stepped in right away, before the child was harmed. The point of including that was as proof that Newman was insane.

Nor do I need to review tinfoilers claims about chemtrails because I already know what causes them. Water vapor from the engine exaust in very cold, moist air will do it every time. How long they will last depends on the humidity at that point. Some will sublimate and some will become cirrus clouds.

I already know the science, so I know that the so-called chemtrails are merely tinfoil hattery.

No matter how thick the tinfoil in your hat is, you can't change the laws of physics.

Is is really very simple. Know the laws of physics. That which obviously breaks those laws, does not exist. Such items are indeed, black & white.

[Quakerfriend]

85. Silverhair, what on Earth are you trying to say?

You need to open your mind a bit. And, think!

I have done 100's of double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies. All you have to do is observe and take notes and you will see that this is not just WATER VAPOR!

[Silverhair]

87. You are out of your specialty.

Placebos have nothing to do with contrails.

You are making claims without presenting any data to back them up, nor any testable hypothesis.

Chemtrails are in the same category as alien abductions.

[Desertrose]

92. Nice strawmen..but they prove nothing.

Wow. Flat earthers and an amazing energy machine. So what the hell does this have to do with chemtrails? Not a damn thing except in your mind.

You readily believe what you want to about " crazy tinfoilers" & CT and but you won't take the time or make the effort to read beyond your own peer reviewed stuff. How convenient it must be to be able to file everything that doesn't neatly fit in your worldview box under "tinfoil hattery". Excuse me if I don't take your word & wait for more information on this whole thing before I decide.


"Know the laws of physics. That which obviously breaks those laws, does not exist."

You may know what you know, but its clear that you don't know everything....
You're stuck in a small box my friend if you seriously believe the laws of physics as we currently understand them cannot and will not be broken...hate to tell you but sooner or later it will happen.


BTW-you never answered my question about whether you trust everything this administration does...so which is it? Its all very black & white, right?
"Either you believe the tinfoil, or you are trusting "THEM".

[Silverhair]

93. "Chemtrails" and the administration.

Like I said: To a tinfoiler, if you don't believe the tinfoil, then you must be trusting "THEM". Because I reject crazy CTs, does not mean that I trust the administration.

I trust science and the laws of physics, and Occam's Razor.

I have seen claims for chemtrails posted here that require violations of the laws of physics and of meteorology. When that happens, I can easily dismiss the claim without investigation, just as I dismissed Joe Newman's claim.

[MercutioATC]

88. The big issue:

From the ground, you have NO idea at what altitude those planes are flying. A difference of 10,000 feet isn't discernable from the ground.

My point is that you're seeing contrails left by planes in at 10,000-foot block that appear as it they're at about the same altitude.


specifically:

1) Yes, it's common to have airplanes fly "grids" far away from major airports. They're not flown by the same plane, they're the flight paths of scores of different planes flying at different altitudes to different destinations.

2) You can't see "close proximity" from the ground. Hell, PILOTS can't see "close proximity" from the air. The planes you saw were separated by 1000' vertically or 5 miles horizontally if they were above 15,000 feet or so. However, a plane flying at 14,000 feet and a plane flying at 15,000 feet look like they're at the same altitude from the ground...actually, even at 14,000 or 15,000 feet.

3) Depends on where you're talking about. "U-turn contrails" could exist, legitimately, for a number of reasons.

4 & 5) The characterists of a contrail are based on dozens of variables...altitude, altitude density, the specific type of plane, temperature, wind speed...just TONS of syuff. It's absolutely normal to have contrails vary from day to day, from altitude to altitude or by type of airplane.

6) There is evidence, I believe, that planes can contribute to cloud cover. I really haven't looked it up in a while.



I know this is a technical issue...feel free to ask me questions.

[Marie26]

20. Uh, fiction

Did you notice that the author of the first article was being sarcastic? "This vital leg of our noble plan to bring about one-world government has been thwarted, but other programs continue. I cannot, of course, divulge the details, under threat of death, but the truth is out there." (cue spooky music).

The second link doesn't work.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Marie26]

34. OK, I'll bite

Right now I think that chemtrails are BS, but I'm open to the idea if someone can offer evidence of this. Are there any mainstream media outlets that have written about this? (In a non-satirical way). What is the purpose of this conspiracy - if they're putting chemicals in the vapor, what is the purpose? Do these chemicals cause disease, mind control, or what? Has anyone tested these trails and found that some dangerous chemicals were present? Are there any actual reported cases of disease/harm that can be directly traced to these chemtrails? Why would they decide to use public planes at such an altitude when there's a fleet of military planes at their disposal? Finally, if there are no studies that prove the presence of dangerous chemicals, why are you so sure that these chemicals exist? People mention that there's a different appearance, but honestly from the photos I haven't noticed a difference. I just can't understand why the government would take the trouble & risk to create a conspiracy involving every major public airline - for no discernible purpose. I hope I don't sound dismissive or like I'm making fun here; I'm really curious.

[Marie26]

78. Hello?

*crickets chirping* *Tumbleweeds blow by* Anybody out there?

[Quakerfriend]

86. Exactly Marleyb!

[philb]

27. Here's someones fact sheet on Chemtrails obtained by google search

http://www.willthomas.net/Chemtrails/About_Chemtrails.htm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chemtrailtrackingusa /
this is from a group that tracks chem trails:

We suggest you visit these sites, for the most up-to-date information on these subjects:

Great overview of chemtrails -- http://www.carnicom.com/contrails.htm

Weather modification and chemtrails – http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RadarMatrix2003

http://www.radarmatrix.com Chemtrail Illness – http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chemtrailmeds2

Cloudbusters -- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cloudbusters

[radio4progressives]

28. Why is topic in the 9/11 Forum? It doesn't belong in 9/11 -

It's a totally separate issue.

[JackieO]

30. Isn't there an ENVIRONMENT forum?

Seems this topic might be just a little more relevant there...

[Desertrose]

41. My guess is that it would get locked or...

get disappeared, same reason it can't be discussed in the science forum which also seems like a logical place to me.

Not sure why *some* are so afraid of this topic....or CT in general.

DU used to be a lot more *U* than it is these days.
:shrug:

[Silverhair]

49. 9-11 forum is a general dumping ground for conspiracy theories.

As per DU posting rules: “Posts about so-called "conspiracy theories" are not permitted on Democratic Underground, except in the September 11 forum.”

[rman]

36. Weather control seems plausible,

as does it being kept secret.

Beyond that, there isn't much i would put past them.

It's just that i have seen no convincing evidence that "planes regularly spray contrails across the skies, spraying people and making them ill". - especially the latter part. And "contrails"? Since when are "condensation trails" suspect?

[plasticsundance]

44. Yes ... just as they seed clouds to make it rain.

The Chem trails have a magnesium base that is used to deflect sunlight from the Earth to prevent the full impact of global warming. If the US government was forced to admit this, then they would loose the upper hand in the Kyoto Protocol.

[rman]

63. "to prevent the full impact of global warming",

you'd have to reflect sunlight for more then an insignificant amount of the surface of the earth.

If reports of contrail occurences are true then at best some of the time a small part of the surface of the US is covered to deflect some of the sunlight. The same may be true in Russia and Europe. That leaves like 99.99% of the earth's surface uncovered all the time. I don't think that has much impact on the process of global warming.

Magnesium cloud-seeding is more likely to create some local rainfall. And that's the worst i can make of it.

[Silverhair]

100. So how do you explain contrails in other parts of the world? NT

[Quakerfriend]

59. I am a retired NIH research scientist (medical research) and,

chem trails are very deliberate spraying, IMHO. Anyone who watches the sky daily can easily see that these are NOT just routine flights!! You can even see exactly when 'they' turn the spray on and off. I have taken many pics and can tell you too that there are specific times when 8-10 planes appear and get started spraying. I CAN'T BELIEVE THERE IS NOT PUBLIC OUTRAGE OVER THIS!

Several years ago, before, I had heard of chemtrails I discovered that my entire yard (more than an acre) and two neighboring yards were covered with what what appeared to be a petrochemical. I called the EPA and they came out and took a sample. But, never got back to me.

This topic needs to be discussed! I am very surprised that it get locked most anytime it is brought up!!

[MercutioATC]

90. You are a retired MEDICAL research scientist.

Those of us who are AVIATION professionals have explained this issue repeatedly.

I don't mean to seem aggressive, but you did make a point of citing your "NIH research scientist" credentials. What experience do you have with aviation or meteorology?

[dbt]

71. If you are looking for a serious Chemtrail discussion, you will NOT

find it at Democratic Underground. However, it can be freely discussed at www.progressiveindependent.com, where it will not be moved from General Discussion to some backwater forum.

dbt
Remember New Orleans

[Silverhair]

76. A backwater site instead of a backwater forum.

All of 574 register members. The chemtrail thread has all of 12 responses, and the poll has six responses. All of them appear to be believers.

And this is a serious discussion of chemtrails. Several of us have posted facts, logic, and solid reasoning why the belief in chemtrails is garbage. Of course, by serious, I think you mean "true believers only." No realists around to spoil your conspiracy with logic.

[Henny Penny]

96. Wow! Are you dipping your toe in the water???

n/t

[Silverhair]

97. It is amusement to me.

Everyone in a while I like to choose some silly, really nutty, conspiracy theory thread and slap the conspiracy theorists arouned a bit, using real data and real logic.

The counter posts were they try to defend the CT using logical fallacies, and bad data can be humerous.

I am under no illusion that I will convert any CTer, as to a CTer his CT serves many of the functions that a religion often serves. So they will cling to the CT, no matter what facts they are shown.

Their responses tend to be two types:

1. Get angry and me and call me blind, stupid, etc., because I can't see the truth of a CT that requires a complete rewrite of several branches of science.

2. Attempt to scientifically argue for the CT. After the flaws in their science and their logical flaws are pointed out to them, most of them resort to tactic #1.

[Henny Penny]

98. I think you have a cold war view of science,

science as certainty.

And that is your religion.

Science is not certain. It is constantly evolving as we learn more, and often the old certainties have to be cast aside.

[Silverhair]

99. None of the basics of physics have been cast aside.

NONE.

What you are thinking of has been advancements in engineering, that have brought about many of the marvels of modern technology. People often mistake engineering for basic science. Basic science concerns itself with learning the laws of the universe that we live in. Engineering is the application of that science to manipulate our part of that universe. But there has been absolutely NO change in a single bit of basic physics, basic thermodynamics, basic meteorology. The basics have not changed in the slightest.

And all of my debunking of chemtrails does not require a knowledge of those basics above high-school level.

The people who believe in chemtrails willfully ignore the obvious.

Please point out one aspect of "old certainties" of basic physics, basic thermodynamics, or basic meteorology of the last 75 years that has been cast aside. You can't, because they haven't been.

[Henny Penny]

101. 75 years? You are very keen on placing unnecessary constraints!

:-)

Newton’s corpuscular theory of light was widely accepted in the 18th century, before being displaced by Fresnel’s elastic solid ether theory. Neither theory was as good as Einstein’s quantum approach, and so were subsequently junked in favour of the latter.

And some people think Einstein didn't get it right either!

There have been radical disconnects in scientific understanding in the past, and I guarantee, there will be more in the future. The theories we hold on to are our current best efforts at understanding the universe around us.

The point about chem/con trails, is that they are an observable phenomena that are not explained by the data available. And people are free to speculate about their nature until their nature has been adequately demonstrated.

So let us take some video footage allegedly showing a pattern, or grid of chemtrails and try and replicate the patterns observed using planes with ordinary every day fuel flying ordinary everyday flight paths.... shouldn't be too hard. We simply have some suitably qualified expert witnesses examine the fuel tanks etc and some instruments to measure what the exhausts are outputting and there need be no disruption to flight schedules etc as the pattern should be replicated under everyday conditions! In fact, should be quite a cheap experiment to carry out.

Of course, if the patterns cannot be satisfactorily replicated under these conditions... we need to investigate further.

[MercutioATC]

102. We do those "tests" every day.

The testing ground? The national airspace system.

I'll say it again. For the patterns to be "suspicious", the flight paths of the planes would have to be suspicious. They're not.

[Henny Penny]

104. I can see why you put the word "test" in

inverted commas.

I don't think your idea of "tests" in this context would stand much scrutiny.

The scientifc test must be properly controlled and the results reproducible.

[MercutioATC]

105. It depends on what type of tests you're advocating.

Air sampling? I don't think you'll find anything, but knock your socks off.

If the issue is the "suspicious" patterns, however, there's no need for any testing. There's nothing suspicious going on (I know. I see it every day).

[Henny Penny]

106. The issue is.... "is there something real there or not?"

And it seems like it should be pretty easy to test this hypothesis.

It is important that any test should be viewed as valid by all sides. So that perhaps interested parties from both sides should provide an agreed team of informed observers and the whole experiment be recorded on video.

It is also important that the agreed goal of the experiment is the replication of the chemtrails/contrails that people are concerned about (so it is necessary to agree how a chemtrail may differ from a contrail). These proposed points of difference should be tested for. I would suggest that the main points of difference appear to be dependent on the chemical composition of the exhaust output, so some rigorous analysis of this output is required.

I would have the team examine the fuel tanks and fuel. How much material can these tanks hold, what is the chemical make up of the fuel at the start of the experiment, during and at the end.

If it can be shown that ordinary planes, with ordinary fuel and ordinary flight paths can be shown to produce the very same long lived contrails or chemtrails and that the exhaust output is harmless, we will have gone a long way towards settling this question in favour of the sceptics.

I'm sure there's a Discovery or Horizon documentary in this, at the very least.

[MercutioATC]

107. Fuel has very little (if anything) to do with it.

All jet aircraft use pretty much the same fuel.

The variables have to do with atmospheric conditions (which are nearly impossible to recreate for testing purposes).

[Henny Penny]

109. If all aircraft use the same fuel, and the issue is one of

atmospheric conditions, then that can be shown by the experiment.

The point of testing the composition of the fuel, is to eliminate the possibility that the fuel is not the same as is used in everyday flights.

[MercutioATC]

114. But they're ALL "everyday flights"!

...and they all use the same fuel because they all fuel from the same tanks at airports. There's nothing to "test".

[Silverhair]

108. That is done every day.

Next time you see a contrail being formed, look at it with binoculars. Then using software that somebody else has listed in this thread, you can look up the matching flight. Then you can see if it is a scheduled airliner or an ordinary flight plan. If you are really fired up about it, you can arrange to coordinate with teams at the major airports and ask them to check flight XYZ when it lands to discover the spraying equipment. When no spraying equipment is found, you will say, They hide it damn well.

After doing that long enough you will get tired of it, and you will have to conclude that the conspiracy theory is crazy, or will will have to become a little bit crazier to view the evidence of normal flights into part of the cover-up.

[Henny Penny]

111. Surely Silverhair, you cannot think that looking at something

with binoculars is a good way to determine its composition?


And you cannot think that the good scientist will:
- give up so easily...

"After doing that long enough you will get tired of it,"

- or preempt the results....

"you will have to conclude that the conspiracy theory is crazy"

This is not the scientific method.

:P

[Silverhair]

112. Binoculars CAN tell you the type of aircraft.

I assumed that you would know that. I guess I assumed too much on your part regarding that.

Once you know the type of aircraft, then look it up on the program. If they match, then you know that it is a civilian airliner.

A scientist would keep a log of each civilian airliner match with the program, (Assumes you do a through search on the program.) and do a statistical analysis. After enough data is accumulated, statistical analysis would conclude that almost all of them are civilian airliners. There would be a few stray unidentified in there as the program does not track military flights. But an unknown does not mean a chemtrail instead of a contrail. The known civilian airliners would be so numerous as to destroy the chemtrail theory.

However, since you are a dedicated CTist, you instead would conclude that the "THEY" are secretly using airliners with hidden spray tanks.

One thing CTists do NOT believe in is Occam's Razor.

[Henny Penny]

115. Knowing the type of an aircraft, is not the same as knowing the

contents of its exhaust, and it is this that we are supposedly examining.

No need to complicate matters unnecessarily by claiming that only military craft are capable of causing chemtrails.

Numquam ponendo est pluritas sine necessitate.
.....

Why, I believe by calling me a "dedicated CTist" that you intend to insult me!



William of Ockham was a very wise man, but there is no need to employ his principal inappropriately.

[adolfo]

116. Of course it was meant as an insult

Temperature and humidity are the main factors in forming regular contrails. Some here would like you to believe otherwise.

Exhaust does not linger around causing long clouds lasting for miles. Unless, there is enough particulate which would mean an inefficient engine burning more fuel than necessary.

If you are interested in conducting an independent test then I would like to suggest logging flights in your area. Collecting additional data such as time, elevation and plane type should be helpful in establishing a final conclusion.

Some skeptics here don't care about the scientific method. They are the dedicated CTist here and nothing will open their mind. There is a good reason why the same skeptic that "framed you" is on my ignore list. Don't waste your time.

[adolfo]

117. Reflector Telescopes are better

http://www.telescopes.ca/telescopes/RENDER/5/2028/3065/12351.html

For pure observational purposes. ;)

[Silverhair]

118. Yes, you get higher magnification with a reflector telescope.

Binoculars are cheaper and most people have some. It would depend on how seriously one wanted to do observations.

[adolfo]

121. Who said those were commercial planes?

There are various reports of military planes as the main culprit in creating the "chemtrail" clouds. Military planes would not show up in the flight tracking software.

You should know that.

[Silverhair]

125. The US does not have that many military aircraft.

Yes, we have a lot of military planes, but nowhere near enought to account for all the contrails. So the vast majority of them have to be commercial airliners. Also, if you look through binoculars at the plane type, you can usually see a large 4 engine jet. If you know your aircraft types you can even rule out certain models and narrow it down a good bit.

Some contrails will indeed be military aircraft. Most will be civilian airliners on regular commercial routes.

[adolfo]

131. Here is some hard data that supports the military theory

According to the data, unidentifiable planes made the most persistent clouds while commercial flights made regular contrails.

Unidentifiable planes are flights filtered out by the FAA (most likely military).

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/report.shtml

[MercutioATC]

132. Flight Tracker may filter out the military flights, but I see them...

...and I'm saying once again...

None of their flight paths is "suspicious". While it may look odd from the ground, they are all doing what they're doing for very specific purposes (refueling missions, training, etc). It's also true that a VERY small percentage of flights are military (less than 1%-2% where I work). I worked a few hundred aircraft today. Not ONE military flight.

[adolfo]

143. What are your observations?

Thanks for responding. Are you in a major city? From my understanding, "chemtrails" occur frequently in the most populated areas.

Have you personally verified contrails from commercial planes which lasted a few hours?

[MercutioATC]

144. I work at Cleveland Center (70,000 sq. mi. of airspace).

I work from 9,000 ft to 30,000 feet near and over three major cities, Detroit, Cleveland and Pittsburgh.

I work hundreds of commercial aircraft (and sometimes a couple of military flights) every day. Cleveland Center is an enroute facility which means we control airplanes between the towers so we don't have any way of directly observing them (we do it all by radar).

However, I live underneath the airspace I work and when I'm not at work I've frequently seen persistent contrails. Knowing the airspace, I know that there are far more persistent contrails than there are military planes in the sky.

I'm happy to answer questions...ask away.

[Silverhair]

133. The site is a conspiracy theory site.

It is dedicated to proving that chemtrails exist. However, I shall review it. It is a rather large page, and it is late. I will respond to it sometime tomorrow.

Now please address this question I have asked of you. You say that contrails must dissipate quickly.

1. Why didn't the ones I saw as a child fade quickly?

2. Why don't cirrus clouds fade quickly? Cirrus clouds are at the same altitude, and are very similar to contrails.

BTW - Atmospheric pressure also has a good bit to do with contrail formation as it is a major factor in how much humidity the air at that pressure can hold. I will give a more detailed explanation of how decreased pressure helps contrails to form, tomorrow.

[Silverhair]

138. Your researcher made a BIG blunder.

When he lists the steps in science, he leaves out duplication of the experiment by others, and peer review. Those are extremely important steps that science uses to weed out errors. Chemtrail believers have consistently failed peer-review.

I notice that he leaves out the winds aloft at the altitude during the time of the observation. Today, at Dallas the winds aloft at altitudes of 30K+ are all above 100mph.
So a contrail that is formed now, one hour later will be 100+ miles away. And four hours later will be 400+ miles away. I submit for your consideration that after about an hour and a half, I will not be able to observe whether or not a contrail is still in the sky or not, and neither can this researcher.

An eight hour contrail would be well over 800 miles away, and he claims to still be able to track it from the ground?

Even a relatively slow wind aloft of only 50mph would still take the contrail hundreds of miles away.

Even a very mild 25 mph wind will take it 100 miles away in 4 hours and 200 miles in 8 hours.

Winds at contrail altitudes are pretty much always high. Without winds aloft data, his study is completely useless. If he is going to claim that he watched a 4 hour contrail, he also has to show that the contrail would have still been visible in his sky 4 hours later.

This is why peer review is so important in science. It catches errors in data collection and in hypothesis. In this case, your researcher left out something important – winds aloft – and I caught it. Peer review wins again.

[Silverhair]

103. Contrails have only been being formed for about 75 years.

If we are going to talk about the science involved in contrail formation, then the begining of contrails is a logical place to start.

You said: The point about chem/con trails, is that they are an observable phenomena that are not explained by the data available.

But the observed phenomena ARE easily explained, as I have done in my posts on this thread. And as others have also done.

Macro physics is well established and has not changed for over a century. Many great discoveries were indeed made in the 19th century. Current discussions in physics concern aspects of quantum theory and the search for a unification theory. Nobody is trying to rewrite basic physics, or basic therodynamics, or basic meteorolgy.

But of course, to the dedicated CTists, the only explanation has to be a great conspiracy by "THEM".

[Marie26]

110. And other people can learn alot too.

Even though I don't agree w/the theory, it helps to hear someone w/a scientific background explain what's going on. Since stumbling onto this thread in GD, I've been following it cause of all the interesting info you've provided. You might not be able to convince hard-care believers, but at least it offers an alternative point of view for people who have just heard about it.

[Silverhair]

113. Thank you very much for the compliment.

That is also another reason why I sometimes jump into a CT thread - to debunk it for those who may be interested. It is nice to hear that I have been effective.

[greyl]

119. Yes, you were patient as hell!

Great points all over the place.
You won. :thumbsup:

[Silverhair]

120. Thank You. NT

[WoodrowFan]

135. I've learned a lot.

thanks!!!

[Silverhair]

139. Thank you for your encouragement.

Sometimes it does seem as if I am tilting at windmills. It is nice to know that I am helping others to understand what is really happening.

[MercutioATC]

91. PM me with a link to where you think these "serious" discissions occur.

I'd be more that happy to help answer questions there.

[rman]

136. To late, it's already in the public domain.

The link you ask for, that is. See the post to which you responded.

Not that i'm much of a chemtrail CT-er myself, but certainly there's a lot less censorship on PI then there is on DU.

[SidDithers]

140. A pic of a broken chemtrail...

not sure what it means.



Sid

[Silverhair]

141. Easy. Contrail. Plane flying at the boundry of two air layers.

The lower layer will not form a contrail, the upper will. The layer surface is not perfectly smooth but has waves. The waves are cause by differences between the direction and speed of the winds in each layer. In this case the plane is mostly in the contrail layer, but is skipping the tops of the waves of the lower, non-contrail layer.

Notice the cloud in the background that has stripes. That is another example of waves in the air.

Not a big mystery at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/coolimg/gwavecb.htm

http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/64/

P.S. The poor passengers were having a bumby ride on that flight.