Chemtrails V.S. Contrails

Thanks for the interesting info about aircraft engines. If you read my pdf you may have answers to my other points, which I would be pleased to hear.

originally posted by: superluminal11

csat.au.af.mil...

Why not quit being disingenuous here and post the introduction chapter as well? Or have you never bothered to find out what 2025 is?

originally posted by: CarlGrove
Thanks for the interesting info about aircraft engines. If you read my pdf you may have answers to my other points, which I would be pleased to hear.

I tried to read that but it wouldn't let me as I don't have Dropbox. Do you have another format?

a reply to: waynos

Sorry, I find that the Dropbox links sometimes work and sometimes don't. I will try a link to 4shared:

www.4shared.com...

Apologies if anyone else has had problems. It's just a 2 page article.

a reply to: CarlGrove

Thank you.nive read it now. You may not be surprised when I say I disagree with every single point :-)

I'm all in favour of a reasonable discussion with you as to why I think your wrong if you would like to.

But I would first like to direct you to this old thread of mine which debunks several of your claims in one go.

Namely that these trails come from the engines, not singly from the tail. They come from brightly painted (and thoroughly identified) commercial jets, not grey painted military types, and they persist over an extended period so that flights separated by an hour or more from start to finish are still visible by the trail they left.

Please read on beyond the OP as several points are explained here and then if you fancy a chat, we can go ahead.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I will check out your thread, but may I say that my points are not claims but just statements of what I have personally observed in the skies over my home. If you "disagree" with what I have seen there can be no basis for a sensible discussion, can there?

a reply to: CarlGrove

Well, that's up to you. But you cannot "see" that a contrail doesn't persist and that if a trail does persist it must be a chemtrail. That is an opinion or belief, not an observation.

Likewise, you may well have seen short vanishing trails from brightly painted airliners and long persisting ones from grey military aircraft, I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm disagreeing with your conclusion that it happens that way all the time. My pictures already show that conclusion to be in error. I have been studying and photographing aircraft for a very long time.

It is the opinions and conclusions I'd like to debate with you, not argue about what you saw. Do you see what I mean?

Just scanned through your thread, and very impressed by your pictures of high altitude flights. But none of these contradicts any of my own experiences -- indeed, they support my own observations that chemtrails are always single trails from the tail of the (military) plane, because they clearly show multiple trails, one from each engine. Obviously we are simply observing two different sets of phenomena. Let me make it plain that I don't believe that civil aeroplanes are in any way involved in this activity. As I am in a large military airspace I see mostly military aircraft overhead; to the south the air corridors all run E-W and the contrails of those flights all appear as parallel lines. I must carry on watching and hope to get some photos of military jets engaged in this. I have seen trails being laid occasionally at low altitude and the difference between these and the civil planes you have photographed is plain. I tried to get a picture of one of the planes (not then laying trails) on my phone but the image is not sharp. The "clover leaf" device was visible with the naked eye.

a reply to: CarlGrove

Thanks, and I think it is fascinating that you see my thread as supportive. I'd love to know more about what you are writing about as, if it is indeed a different phenomenon, my knowledge of aviation may be helpful to you.

There are still one or two 'general' points that you made I'd like to discuss as well as to know more about your specific observations as I think you have picked up a bit of a misunderstanding about the nature of contrails that could actually hamper your research, but it's ultimately up to you. The cloverleaf device, sounds extremely interesting as it is obviously something not seen on airliners at all.

Just to take one thing at a time for clarity's sake, I would like to ask, Carl, when in your point one you state that contrails disappear quickly while chemtrails do not, what is different about the water ice in a contrail that means it must disappear quickly that doesn't apply to the water ice in a cirrus cloud which can linger all day?

And where did you get your information that formed your opinion on this?

a reply to: CarlGrove

As I am in a large military airspace I see mostly military aircraft overhead; to the south the air corridors all run E-W and the contrails of those flights all appear as parallel lines.

Just wondering about something...you say you see these planes and they are military, so exactly how high are these planes that you observe doing this spraying?

to the south the air corridors all run E-W and the contrails of those flights all appear as parallel lines.

So you say no N/S plane flights where you are, and what military bases are there near you since you say you live in military airspace?

The "clover leaf" device was visible with the naked eye.

Exactly how low was this plane if you could see the spraying device with the naked eye?

Thanks for your interest. To add some detail: I had heard about the alleged chemtrails when I first saw something that looked quite unlike any contrails I had ever seen, from the Dover ferry en route to a coach holiday in Spain. I mentioned it to my wife and told her about the crazy theories, and we both laughed. Some time later, early in 2011, around 9am one morning, my wife called me to the living room, which has a South facing view, and said, "There's something odd happening here." The odd thing was a military jet, at moderately low altitude, on an Eastern heading. A white plume was shooting out of the tail. Just as I arrived in time to see this, the plume abruptly ceased, and the plane turned to a NE course. Then shortly after that the plume began again and it continued as the plane went into the distance. By the time I had got a camera, the plane had gone but the white trails remained. We then saw a number of similar plumes being produced at a high altitude, all within the military flight zone. By now my attention was engaged and I observed (1) subjectively, the trails seemed qualitatively different from contrails. (2) They at first stayed fairly thin, then expanded and turned rather more grey in colour. (3) Subsequently the trails all merged into a grey fog, cutting out the sky (that had originally been clear blue). The sun was visible as a vague disc. By the time I had travelled into town the whole sky was grey, and as I walked to my midday job, a dark jet, with no visible markings appeared flying below the grey, dead slow (near stall speed?). I thought to myself, "he's checking on his handiwork." At the tail I saw, for the first time, the feature I have called a cloverleaf.
Since then, maybe 7 or 8 times, I have seen similar operations taking place. Originally the flights seemed to cross each other to make the crisscross pattern that others have described, but in the last year or two I have noticed (1) that they do not take place when the sky is clear any more; and (2) they occur most often when there are cirrus clouds. I take it that the aim is to make the trails less obvious. (3) Mostly there seem to be at least 6 or 7 planes working at once.
I have seen the planes with the cloverleaf thing several times, and tried to photograph one once but the phone camera I used was not very good. I have also seen one descending and heading towards a nearby air base.
Obviously there would be no point spraying chemicals -- or aluminium powder -- just over one small area in the UK so I am making the assumption that what others have claimed in other parts of the world may have some truth in it.
Clearly my assumption that contrails have not changed since the 90s was wrong, and maybe someone can come up with an explanation for my observations as well!

a reply to: CarlGrove

Noticing that you see the persistent contrails when there are already cirrus clouds in the sky is telling. Why were there cirrus clouds? You have two choices here. Choice 1. the conditions where the clouds form were consistent for cloud formation. Choice 2. some evil government entity used some covert device to manufacture clouds in hopes that they would divert attention to the spray operation that ensued. (Of course choice 2 is a bit over dramatized, but the general idea remains)

Persistent contrails can only form where the temperature, humidity, and saturation levels are correct for their formation.

If you saw white lines forming behind a plane at say, 10,000ft, that would be very unusual, and from what I know, almost impossible. But if that was the case, you would have some real evidence about chemtrails being real. Trouble is, it's very hard to judge altitude from the ground based on sight alone.

Several factors in recent years have contributed to this phenomenon. The biggest being the newer, more efficient engines which have a by-product of producing more contrails due to their bypass ratio. ( I think that is the proper wording) Once you have more visual indications of contrails, you will have more people noticing them. Where those people get their information from is key.

If they come into contact with a person with science in mind, they may get a factual answer as many here have offered. If their first contact is with a conspiracy person, they may get the chemtrail excuse offered. How deeply they decide to investigate will likely give them their thought process. Given that most people are a bit lazy, they will take whatever answer they were given that makes sense and stop there.

You don't seem like the average lazy type, so that's a good thing. The only way to find the truth is on your own. I have an agenda. Chemtrail pushers have an agenda. If you look at the pure science side. The unbiased real information, you may come the same conclusion that most do, that based on science, the ability for a plane to make a trail intentionally by spraying anything, and have the trail longer than a few hundred feet is quite impossible. The aircraft cannot hold the necessary amount of anything for that to happen.

The original chemtrail theory is based on the misconception that contrail cannot last longer than a few seconds to at most a few minutes. Since we know that is false, it kind of makes the logical mind question the entire premise after that failure.

But again, please find your own truth by looking at meteorological science. Understand clouds, contrails, and weather at the basic levels. If you truly do that, and still think chemtails are a reality, we can have a fantastic discussion and all may well learn new things.

I'm not sure I follow your logic re the cirrus. My feeling is that they (whoever they may be) realise that strange trails are more visible in a blue sky, and knowing that a lot of people have noticed something, now will only spray if the cirrus are already there, to provide camouflage.
I can only tell you what I saw. I don't believe that any contrails, new jet engines or not, will spread and cover the whole sky within 2 hours. ( If the powers that be are following up on the idea of using aluminium in some form, and really intend to reduce the effect of global warming, then presumably they would have figured out how to make their spray create maximum coverage.) Nor would contrails come from the tail of a plane, nor would they cease and then resume later on. I shall continue watching.

a reply to: CarlGrove

Thank you for a very thoughtful and interesting post. As I said before, I have no Interest I trying to argue with what you saw. I wasn't there so how can I?

A more useful approach may be to establish if there is another explanation for what you watched. That wouldn't be proof of anything of course, but where there are multiple possible explanations, repeated observation can help determine the most likely explanation. For example an often repeated claim about chemtrails on here was that civil airliners do not create grids when operating normally, which my observation thread showed to be a misconception. As each individual belief or perception is proved or disproved, so the overall balance of probability is affected. In the absence of absolute proof, it's the best we can hope for.

I hope you realise I'm not mocking you here, because unlike most others, your observation is not readily explainable by me (though parts of it may be) and you look to be willing and capable enough of looking deeper with what little help I can offer.

If you have a smartphone, the first thing I'd recommend a look at is the Flightradar 24 app. I used this in my own thread I linked you to and it is extremely valuable. You can track and identify most fights above and around you at any given time. With this, next time you see aircraft doing what you described, you can identify if it is one, or several different civil jets making that pattern. I don't doubt what you say, but aircraft in flight can be notoriously difficult to identify and white airliners can look dark grey like military types in silhouette under certain lighting conditions. Eliminate this as a possibility and you will have made a significant step. Alternatively, if you can give your location (town, not address and post code, lol) and post timings for an observation within two weeks of it happening, some of us familiar with the programme can have a look to see if there's a match.

Before beginning with that though, I would like to ask again why you believe contrails cannot persist and spread into cloud cover? It is well established that they can and do, and so understanding this more fully will also help in your observations. Likewise, because you say that cirrus was present when this happened and it didn't happen when the sky was clear, it is my gut instinct to say that you saw contrails that were affected by the prevalent conditions, when the sky is clear and humidity is low, trails aren't left and it's easy to think no planes passed over at all when they did. This is why tracking is do important.

Like I said, I can't speak for your exact experience, but you have described some elements that I'm familiar with. It is these elements that I was wanting to discuss before.

originally posted by: CarlGrove

I can only tell you what I saw. I don't believe that any contrails, new jet engines or not, will spread and cover the whole sky within 2 hours. ( If the powers that be are following up on the idea of using aluminium in some form, and really intend to reduce the effect of global warming, then presumably they would have figured out how to make their spray create maximum coverage.) Nor would contrails come from the tail of a plane, nor would they cease and then resume later on. I shall continue watching.

yes, this is the thing. If something is sprayed from an aircraft that then spreads out over hundreds of miles to get "maximum coverage" then that something must get thinner and thinner and more and more transparent until it reaches invisibility if you think about it.

The only way this effect would be avoided to give us the thick cloud cover that we end up with would be if that was some kind of chemical that could endlessly recreate itself. Only water ice can do this as the nucleation and freezing process triggers further nucleation and freezing from the moisture and aerosols already naturally present in the air reacting to the "kick start" that the de pressuring fan exhaust provided.

When the relative humidity of air reaches 100% or more with regard to water (60% with regard to ice, expressed as RHW and RHI) natural cirrus cloud can form anyway, but sometimes a passing jet will 'tip the balance' and start the process itself.

When you see a contrail disappear quickly, the water vapour has nucleated and frozen in exactly the same way, but then sublimated due to the air being drier, the dry air absorbing the moisture like a sponge). In high humidity this is often not possible so a trail will linger, these are the ones that can also spread.

As for trails starting and stopping,this is possible when planes pass between areas of higher and lower humidity. It's like when you see fluffy clouds in a blue sky. The clouds are high humidity and the blue sky is low humidity, these conditions can exist without clouds so a plane flying through them leaves a trail with gaps in.

There are many online sources where you can read about this, or weather books in libraries if you prefer. None of this addresses the behaviour of the aircraft you observed, but it does address an error in point one of your six.

Thanks for your comments. Certainly I must read up on contrails etc. but at risk of repeating myself, I know what I (or rather we, including my wife) saw -- a military plane in a military-only zone, spraying something from its tail, not continuously but clearly deliberately. And I think this would need to be explained in some non-meteorological way!

a reply to: CarlGrove

Icing testing. There is an NKC-135 used at Edwards AFB that sprays water and other visible chemicals out the boom. During a live test it's sprayed into another aircraft flying in close trail formation behind them, causing ice to form on the trail aircraft. It's so they can test airflow over the wings in live conditions, as well as how ice forms and how it reacts to ice in the real world.

The system periodically needs testing as well. It can also be used to monitor atmospheric conditions by injecting visible material that they know how it will act.

a reply to: CarlGrove

I would need to see an example of what you saw to offer any explanation. My point was to offer the scientific fact that if cirrus clouds were in the sky, there is a better then average chance that the conditions were ripe for persistent contrail formation. (the clouds are the same thing as contrails)

If you get pictures or video of the event you describe, it would help greatly in explaining this. I am sure it's frustrating tryiing to articulate something that nobody has ever seen.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Do you know of any video of this? I would be very curious to see what it looked like and how long the visible affects were.