Phantom Cloud over Germany (Chemtrail related?)

[Crayson]

<http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/22/22139/1.html> (German language with picture)

July 19th last year there was a strange phenomenon on the German sky.

As you see in the picture if you follow the link the Doppler Radar shows a a huge cloud over Germany (400 by 100 kilometers dimensions). Published by the German Meteorological Society.
Funny thing being; it was a sunny day with no coulds visible to the eye.

According to weather experts of different weather institutes there is no natural explanation for this cloud.
Bird or air plane fuel can be dissmissed as possible explanations.

In the afternoon the cloud dissipated towards the east of Germany.
About the kind of chemical particels that like fell to the ground i that area can only be speculated.

Given the the high altitude it is suspected that particles of some kind have been sown into the atmosphere as a kind of experiment.
These particles did reflect the Doppler Radar rays making the cloud "visible".
To what end can only be speculated:
- Testing the behavior of particles in the atmosphere thinking in terms of biological or chemical warfare or chemical accidents?
- Testing substances to influence weather patterns?
- Confusing the Weather Radar on Purpose?

The weather institute filed a lawsuit (against unknown person) citing chemical pollution, exposure of people to chemicals and purposedly confusion of the public. This now forces state attourneys to investigate the matter, making all this very real and not a conspiracy theory.

[benburch]

1. If you will recall when the Space Shuttle broke up...

it was visible as such a cloud on doppler.

Possibly this was a bit of space junk coming home.

[Crayson]

2. Possible... but...

I agree on the 400 km length... since a piece of space junk would reenter on a "meteroid" like trajectory and burn up it could make a very long trail...

But not one of a broadth of 100km?

[benburch]

3. Upper-air winds would smear it.

The Shuttle debris cloud was quite wide.

[benburch]

16. Here is an image of the shuttle debris cloud.

Later it smeared out even wider.

http://spaceflightnow.com.nyud.net:8090/shuttle/sts107/030201columbia/weatherradar.gif

[tocqueville]

4. please translate correctly

"Für den Meteorologen und Geschäftsführer des Wetterdienstes Donnerwetter, Karsten Brandt, gibt es für diese Phantomwolke keine natürliche Erklärung. Auch Vogelflug oder Kerosin aus einem Flugzeug scheidet als Ursache aus."

which means that Karsten Brandt thinks that there is no natural explanation, not the whole scientific community.

the reference to other scientific expertise sends to an article (pdf) written by a SINGLE person

http://www.dmg-ev.de/gesellschaft/publikationen/pdf/dmg-mitteilungen/2005_3_4.pdf

where the cloud "disappears" but is translated into an UFO (!!!!). So much for the scientific method, besides the fact that it isn't even serious journalism...

then I'd like to know why the high altitude makes AUTOMATICALLY the cloud into something that has be sown. Besides there are plenty of particles reflected by a Doppler Radar. The most common are water vapor.

THe lawsuit has nothing to do with whitewashing a conspiracy theory. It can lead to exactly the contrary : it's forbidden to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. That's why the investigation can lead to that what was shouted was "cloud", thus "purposedly confusion of the public"

which it sounds to me to be...

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

5. Chemtrails?

Hell, why not aliens?

Chemtrail aliens.

[Crayson]

6. Yeah common bash me!

Sorry for my not so exact english translation...
English is not everybodies native language.

And I wasn't the one who wrote UFO in the thread (although I DO know that the U just means unidentified Alien, else it would probably be called AFO as most people interpret it)



I'm just giving you some facts here.
-There WAS a very strange phenomenon on the German sky this summer and it was most like not natural.
-And there IS a lawsuit going on about environmental pollution in relation to that phenomenon.

[seemslikeadream]

7. Hey Crayson

Welcome to DU

Don't let one person's rudeness get to ya, we're not all like that here. :hi:

on edit this thread will probably get locked can't talk about chemtrail in GD, maybe in the 9/11 forum

[greyl]

8. Nobody bashed you. nt

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[greyl]

10. I think all of DU questions the official story.

I mean, other than the right-wing kooks that are here "undercover".

[tocqueville]

12. I don't bash you, I contest

English isn't my native language either

I checked your article and understand enough German to make sense of it. I just stated that only ONE person (at least quoted in the article) says that there isn't any "natural explanation", not an entire meteorologist community as it sounds in your post. The article you name then refers to another article (the pdf) where you can find ONE report (among other topics) about the cloud, but there the author emphasizes about the presence of an UFO in the cloud :

Unbekannte Flugobjekte im RADAR-Bild?
Jörg Asmus

In den RADAR-Bildern vom 19.7.2005 fiel dem
Schreiber dieses Artikels ein seltsames RADAR-Echo
über dem Nordwesten Deutschlands entlang der Ems
auf, das überhaupt nicht zu dem dazugehörigen Satellitenbild
(Abb. 1) passte. Dieses RADAR-Echo war
mit deutlich abgesetzten Streifen von Nord-Nord-West
nach Süd-Süd-Ost ausgerichtet, während die übrigen
RADAR-Echos zu den überwiegend konvektiven Wolkensystemen
im Satellitenbild passten. Da diese Echos
zunächst nicht indentifiziert werden konnten, wurden
sie als „Unbekannte Fliegende Objekte“ bezeichnet
(nicht im Sinne von Fliegenden Untertassen!).

http://www.dmg-ev.de/gesellschaft/publikationen/pdf/dmg...

So I find the presentation of the German article referring to "other scientists" very dubious and not very honest. I don't blame you for the article, but I contest its contents.

1) There was a strange cloud over Germany, but it can have natural causes. Let's explore them before we come to other conclusions.
2) There is a lawsuit according to you (link ?) but it seems that it goes the other way (for slander) if I make sense of your post.

[Desertrose]

11. German Parlimentarian "admits" chemtrails

Here is a very interesting statement from Social Democratic member of Parliament Monika Griefahn.

German Parlimentarian "admits" chemtrails

Former six-year board member of Greenpeace Germany, Monika Griefahn chaired the Committee for Culture and Media of the Federal German Parliament when she replied to a letter from two chemtrails dissenters in July 2004, stating, “I am in basic agreement with your concerns. Instead of making a concerted and determined effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions throughout the world, experiments of various kinds are being carried out in the earth’s atmosphere in order to cure the symptoms.”

After assuring her correspondents, “I share your concern over the use of aluminium or barium compounds which have a considerable toxic potential,” the parliamentarian went on to say, “however, so far as I am aware the extent of their use is so far minimal.”

There we have it. In the skies of Germany, so Social Democratic member of Parliament Monika Griefahn tells us, aluminium and barium compounds are being spread just as tens of thousands of concerned citizens have observed, documented and bitterly deplored.

 

Link here.



html edit

[tocqueville]

13. Monika Griefahn has very little credibility on that matter

Greenpeace told the press immediately that they don't share her view

http://www.chemtrails-info.de/chemtrails/greenpeace-erklaerung.htm

[Desertrose]

14. So because Greenpeace disagrees, does that make her statement false?

Since your linked site is in German it is unfortunately not much help.

Is her remark true? Sounds as though she is aware of some things going on- whether or not Greenpeace agrees with her is not the point here.

Perhaps Greenpeace, like many agencies funded by larger corps, does not want to rock its financial boat , by even being connected with anyone who talks about chemtrails. We have certainly seen here on DU how anyone who brings them up is ridiculed and labeled :tinfoilhat:

[tocqueville]

15. Grreenpeace says that there is no proof of chemtrails

of course it doesn't make her AUTOMATICALLY wrong, but regarding her claimed background as "Greenpeace activist" it put things in a different light.

Where did she get that "secret knowledge" that nobody else has ? as a member of parliament ? not likely.

Besides your claim that Greenpeace is "corporate funded" quite preposterous. I don't defend Greenpeace at any price (sometimes they are really wrong), but to believe that they are silenced by money is not credible either.

The reason for Greenpeace "silence" is that they have no scientific proof of the phenomenon...

The chemtrail problem is very easily solved : pick up 50 samples of typical trails in different part of the world (easily done with a plane and atmospheric filters) and analyse the results...

then start talking...