If you want to discuss how real chemtrails are, do your part.

Doh.. Double post or something

a reply to: Bspiracy

At 15 miles from an airport a jet is at no more than 3-5000ft high. I live 85 miles away from Manchester airport and traffic leaving there passes overhead at 17-22,000 ft and has never left a contrail I've seen. What you appear to be saying is that it is not only humid, but also tens of degrees below zero from ground level where you are observing these trails from the airport. The laws of physics are the same for civil and military aircraft. How do you know you're not wrong? Do you know anything that would use an airport that can climb to 30,000ft in 15 miles, or 3 minutes flight time? The BAC Lightning was famous for such feats. What do you mean by 'J's? This sounds potentially like it could be a contrail from a high altitude holding pattern, have you checked this?

a reply to: waynos

Debate the fine points all you want. My 15 mile statement was a layman's guess.

The j"s leading from the airport are real and apparent several times a year. The level of humidity in my area rivals every city in the US and sometimes claims the prize as "most humidific"

a reply to: Bspiracy

I'm not saying they aren't real. I'm sure they are. But the fine points, as you put it, are pretty important when trying to nail down some facts. You say 15 miles was a laymans guess, but normal airport traffic wil travel up to 100 miles before it begins to leave a contrail, and that's here in cold and humid Britain. You might live in the most humid spot on earth, but unless the water content of the exhaust freezes you aren't going to see any contrails from your local airport traffic. So you see, visible contrails from a plane only 15 miles away from its own airport would indeed be a remarkable observation. Accuracy is everything. Are we also to take then that your descriptions of "oily" clouds, and that they were at low level, are also just guesses? Would that be a fair assessment?

One kind of condensation you WILL see from low level airport traffic in high humidity conditions is aerodynamic contrails, but these are transient and disappear quickly, or even appear to be carried along by the plane, rather than trailed, as I photographed here;







In the top one there is a trail from the wingtips, but this sublimated in seconds. In the 747 pic below, the condensation created a thick cloud over the wing due to the low pressure there, but never made it past the trailing edge and sublimated immediately, making it lok as if the 747 was carrying a cloud. If it had been minus 30 degrees, this would have looked even more spectacular.

a reply to: thorfourwinds

To play that game, I am hardly a novice.

Evidently, and it does you no credit.

Chronic barium intoxication disrupts sulphated proteoglycan synthesis: a hypothesis for the origins of multiple sclerosis

You're doing it again.

Has the existence of barium in 'chemtrails' been established? No.

Has even the claim that 'chronic barium intoxication' is responsible for MS been established? No. It is a ten-year-old hypothesis and not one PubMed reader has even commented on it.

Your other link is to a nut blog and the claim about RFMP/VTRPE it contains has already been debunked in this thread.

Your strike rate so far is a big fat zero.

a reply to: waynos

alright..
you said this
quote start
I'm not saying they aren't real. I'm sure they are. But the fine points, as you put it, are pretty important when trying to nail down some facts. You say 15 miles was a laymans guess, but normal airport traffic wil travel up to 100 miles before it begins to leave a contrail,
quote end

I'm about to try and reference the page 7 Lisbon pic post..( it isn't working as I copied/paste the link so I referenced the previous page]
pic fom previous post on page 7

I live in Mobile Al.... Google this please. I don't offer where I am normally because I've actually been attacked in different manners on other discussions stemming from this forum... That's been a while though and I doubt those that did attempt are following this discussion.

It's very similar in geographic terms. If you notice in the Lisban pic, some contrails end(or start) at the city. This is the same for my airport. Some contrails start within a relatively few miles from the airport and then turn towards whatever direction the planes is heading

Am i lucky to see this? maybe so but it obviously confuses you..

Whatever the case, contrails are common in my area for a multitude of reasons. The j's I describe were offered soley as an illustration towards the fact that I am comfortable that contrails are real and that I understand the many conditions they possibly appear.

b

because i have an issue with spelling Lisbon

a reply to: payt69

hilarious..
I've purchased this super friggin soaker as a weapon against the elite..
b

a reply to: Bspiracy

I know of Mobile, Airbus were going to build the KC-45 there before Boeing threw a hissy fit about you Southerners getting "their" aerospace jobs.

You seem to be the one who is confused, however. I never said you won't see contrails over an airport. I said you won't see contrails caused by aircraft USING that airport. That's because they are too low. The contrails you see overhead are caused by passing traffic that is routed over your airport, but who's journey start and end points are both hundreds of miles away from it.

As a tiny illustration of that, here are two A380's spotted from my garden on the same day.

The first is from Manchester to Dubai and has travelled 85 miles from the airport and climbed to 21,000ft in that distance, no contrail.




The second one is a Lufthansa one returning to Germany from the USA, Passing over the UK en route. Whilst cruising at 35,000ft, it leaves a thick contrail.



Furthermore, there are three contrails visible in the sky near Manchester airport right now that are nothing to do with the Airports traffic as transatlantic flights by Delta, KLM and Air Berlin have just passed over, here is a screenshot just taken, with the Delta flight highlighted. Just because there is an airport close by, it is a mistake to assume any plane you see is using it.




The contrail will only be visible where the conditions for it to exist are right, the sky is not uniform and so contrails may or may not persist and may only persist for a short distance. That distance will be the same for any aircraft passing through, which may be an explanation for what you saw.

a reply to: waynos

Airbus is here with an awarded contract @ Brookley field Mobile has it's infrastructure being rebuilt within the transportation department as we speak.
Contrails (and chemtrails) may exist wherever cloud formations exist. Your reliance upon colder temperatures doesn't apply everywhere.

Your examples mean nothing as they pertain to your geographic location alone. Just as Lisbon or Mobile has it's own examples.

Are you saying contrails cannot exist under the altitudes I describe within my location as opposed to yours?

Chemtrails are the point of this discussion and contrails forming in my location vs yours has no impact on the finality of what they truly are imo.

All I can say is this... I see LARGE J, L or whatever letter you assign, contrails leading directly from the Mobile Regional airport from within 6 miles (no longer an educated guess as I checked google with a distance legend).. It happens and whatever photos you show of planes flying in different atmospheric conditions without contrails isn't a refutation of the reality I see

I ask you this.
I see a contrails with the end of a greater width leading directly from the airport and by the end of a day I see many more coming from the same direction with the only difference being the trails have swayed in a general direction in whatever direction the wind is blowing. I'm supposed to listen to your view from across the seas that this isn't possible?.. These trails are a figment of my imagination?

bah..

I applaud your tenacity and ability to seek and find pics of planes from different areas and wherever else,... the fact remains that myself and the rest of the city occasionally sees contrails forming at low altitudes from departing planes that leave a distinctive trail which resembles a J or L.... Now that I'm debating the point, either L or J works depending on the trajectory of whatever plane decides to fly..

If it REALLY matters to you that I prove this, the next time it happens I will priv message you with pics... or show here ( but by that time people may have lost interest in this meager squabble.

b

friggin dbl post stuff again

b

a reply to: Bspiracy

I think you are missing Waynos point. The contrails you see certainly do exist. You just don't know where they are coming from. If you use a flight tracking software app, you can verify the altitude and where the plane came from to understand this better. If you ever see a contrail in your area below 20,000 feet, it's a HUGE deal. THAT would peak our interests as a possible chemtrail. The reason is, it's not usually cold enough at lower altitudes to form persistent contrails.

originally posted by: thorfourwinds
Greetings:

One has to admit, the chemtrail believers have posted some pretty damning evidence of strange goings-on in the sky over Austin, Texas.

Chemtrails? Watch This! Then Try to Deny It - YouTube

Published on Dec 20, 2013
(Truthstream Media.com) The chemtrails hardly get any more blatant than this.

Just what is up with what we've all been seeing up in the sky?

Using this video and all the links that go along with it, is exactly why I wrote the OP. If you personally went out to verify this information from an unbiased source, you would see what we see. How does anyone in that video KNOW what's in the contrails? They looked up, saw lines in the sky, and said "this isn't natural!". It's man made contrails. Until you or someone can explain why those CANNOT be just normal contrails as has been seen worldwide for centuries now, why am I expected to believe that some bozo can determine the chemical makeup of clouds from 6 miles away by sight alone?

Now, you have seen the start of a pattern here. Because you are a good person and honest, you did look at the links we provided and you have seen that so far, the things you thought were true, may not be. At some point, you will realize you are being lied to by these chemtrail pushers. Much like the Tanker Enemy videos.

And again, for dramatic affect, contrails can and do persist for hours if the conditions are right. If that's true (and it's verifiable by many real sources) how can anyone claim to see a chemtrail? It's like calling all horses unicorns with invisible spikes.

a reply to: thorfourwinds

Smoking Gun Proof Of Atmospheric Spraying - YouTube

Dane Wigington really?

Here are some of Mr. Wigingtons claims of truth...debunked.

www.metabunk.org...

www.metabunk.org...

As for Geoengineeringwatch, you may want to see how he lies...



He is a well known huckster that takes money from the gullible.

a reply to: thorfourwinds

As for this video...the first segment gets debunked here...

A LINGERING CONCERN
If conditions are right, newly formed contrails will begin feeding off surrounding water vapor. Like vaporous cancers, they start growing and spreading. In time, they can expand horizontally to such an extent that they become indistinguishable from cirrus clouds, those thin, diaphanous sheets often seen way up high. These artificial cirrus clouds can last for many hours, and the amount of sky they end up covering can be astonishing. One study showed that contrails from just six aircraft expanded to shroud some 7,700 square miles.

www.pbs.org...

Do I need to go on, because if he misrepresents what he sees in the first 30 seconds how is anything else that is said in the video not more of the same...misrepresentation of facts.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Bspiracy

I think you are missing Waynos point. The contrails you see certainly do exist. You just don't know where they are coming from. If you use a flight tracking software app, you can verify the altitude and where the plane came from to understand this better. If you ever see a contrail in your area below 20,000 feet, it's a HUGE deal. THAT would peak our interests as a possible chemtrail. The reason is, it's not usually cold enough at lower altitudes to form persistent contrails.

Greetings:

You are assuming that all planes in question show up on flight tracking software.

We have it on good authority that the planes laying chemtrails do not show up on flight tracking software.

Stay tuna-ed.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Thank you. Perhaps I have been mislead somewhat.

It is starting to get clearer now.

Again, is there a LIST, or are ALL organizations and people who think that 'contrails' have a different look to them since the jet fuel was 'upgraded'?

You guys lay out a pretty good debunking of all things 'chemtrail'.

Again, thank you and I will be much more careful in looking into this phenomena.

originally posted by: thorfourwinds
a reply to: Astyanax
Greetings:

To play that game, I am hardly a novice, and I can assure you that the relevant information that I post will last a lot longer than one hour.

But, thank you for your opinion, and that's all it is, just your opinion, which is completely off-base, IMHO.

As far as following links and doing a bit of the legwork yourself, you will find that this
Med Hypotheses. 2004;62(5):746-54
is next to a label: Links

Which, of course is the Abstract

Chronic barium intoxication disrupts sulphated proteoglycan synthesis: a hypothesis for the origins of multiple sclerosis

supporting my claim:

"The high levels of Ba stemmed from local quarrying for Ba ores and/or use of Ba in paper/foundry/welding/textile/oil and gas well related industries, as well as from the use of Ba as an atmospheric aerosol spray for enhancing/refracting the signalling of radio/radar waves along military jet flight paths, missile test ranges, etc."

Document from the National Institute of Health concerning Geo-Engineering’s grave effects on our ecosystem’s and our health

PubMed is NOT the NIH. It is a service provided in part by the NIH. It is a search engine. PubMed gives the abstract and a link to the original source. If you click on "Linkout" the source is listed under "Full text sources". In this case it is Elsevier.

originally posted by: thorfourwinds
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Thank you. Perhaps I have been mislead somewhat.

It is starting to get clearer now.

Again, is there a LIST, or are ALL organizations and people who think that 'contrails' have a different look to them since the jet fuel was 'upgraded'?

You guys lay out a pretty good debunking of all things 'chemtrail'.

Again, thank you and I will be much more careful in looking into this phenomena.

It's actually not too hard to not be mislead. There are a couple of things to look out for when researching a particular topic.

1: One thing I find very alarming is when contradictory views aren't allowed on a forum, website, blog or whatever. This is indicative of cult thinking, where only one side of the story is allowed to prevail. Independent research is discouraged, and those who hold different views are painted in a particular corner and dehumanized (paid shill, government agent etc).

2: Pay attention to what the sources are for any given point. If no sources are credited, or if they lead back to the in-crowd only, tread carefully. Make sure that you can check things for yourself, look up the science backing up particular statements yourself and see what you can make of it. For instance, if someone claims that contrails never persist, ask yourself whether that's a true statement, and find out what the science on contrails tells you.

3: And number 2 leads to this point: pay attention to how people respond to your asking questions about the main points of the held beliefs. If asking critical questions is encouraged, you're in good hands. But if it leads to your being banned, questions being deleted, your being called a shill etc, you can be pretty sure you've encountered cult-thinking. In that respect pay attention to how on this site and on sites like metabunk, anyone can ask anything about contrails/chemtrails (as long as you do so in a civil way, which you do). The same isn't true for sites like geoengineeringwatch or lookup.\

4: Many (if not all) key items that make the chemtrail CT what it is have been debunked already. I know it must be a hard thing to do for a believer, but if the truth is the truth, then you should be able to point out the errors in the debunking. I know that Mick West welcomes corrections to the explanations on his website, so if you find any errors (which you should, if chemtrails are true) point them out to him, and over here as well so we can all learn something.

5: Familiarize yourself with contrail science and aviation knowledge as much as you can, if only to be able to rebutt the skeptics. This is one BIG disadvantage chemtrail believers have: rarely do they know anything about the related fields, which makes them look uneducated whenever they speak of those fields. But on the other hand, it will also help you understand whether chemtrails could be real, and if so, in what way they might exist and who might be creating them and how such a feat might be accomplished, if possible at all.

6: Check current circumstances and see whether it's likely that persisting contrails might show up in your area. Some tools are:

Contrail forecast: cloudsgate2.larc.nasa.gov...

Earth weather: earth.nullschool.net.../wind/isobaric/250hPa/overlay=relative_humidity/orthographic
(set for rH at 250 mPa (about 30.000 ft)). The blue patches indicate high rH at that altitude, and that's where contrails are likely to persist.

www.flightradar24.com...
Check what flights are flying nearby, at what altitude, where the jets come from and where they're going. Most jets are displayed in here, but not all of them.

Good luck!

a reply to: thorfourwinds

Again, is there a LIST, or are ALL organizations and people who think that 'contrails' have a different look to them since the jet fuel was 'upgraded'?

Just google chemtrails, as there are some that have been around since the begining of this, and some have fell away from the chemtrail game but new people fall for it everyday.

You guys lay out a pretty good debunking of all things 'chemtrail'.

Again, thank you and I will be much more careful in looking into this phenomena.

Well most of us have been around this topic for many years and have tried to do as much research as possible into it, so we try to help when the topic comes around like it has lately.

And if I was a bit harsh with some of my replies I am sorry, but I don't see anything good coming out of being scared of something that is well studied scientifically.

All I can say is good luck on your search for the truth, but just remember we do it to help.

originally posted by: Bspiracy
a reply to: waynos

Your reliance upon colder temperatures doesn't apply everywhere.

Then how do the ice crystals that make up a contrail freeze, if cold doesn't apply everywhere?

Your examples mean nothing as they pertain to your geographic location alone. Just as Lisbon or Mobile has it's own examples.

Are you saying that traffic only routes over Manchester Airport without landing, but doesn't route over Mobile or Lisbon? That is the only way my example wouldn't apply for that was the only point it was explaining.

Are you saying contrails cannot exist under the altitudes I describe within my location as opposed to yours?

You never mentioned any altitudes. I simply say that airport traffic that is local to you won't create any. The altitudes that contrails form at depend on several factors, as discussed, but unless it's tens of degrees below zero at the level at which the plane is flying, the moisture in the exhaust cannot be cooled rapidly enough to freeze before sublimation. Even with extremely high humidity, it still needs to freeze. If you're walking about with a heavy winter coat on because it's minus thirty outside then yes, you may see a jet contrail very low down. Otherwise no. That's not to say you haven't seen any, just that they will be higher up than you surmised.

Chemtrails are the point of this discussion and contrails forming in my location vs yours has no impact on the finality of what they truly are imo.

But it can have a very large impact on what people believe they are seeing if they don't fully understand what contrails actually are and how and why they appear.

All I can say is this... I see LARGE J, L or whatever letter you assign, contrails leading directly from the Mobile Regional airport from within 6 miles (no longer an educated guess as I checked google with a distance legend).. It happens and whatever photos you show of planes flying in different atmospheric conditions without contrails isn't a refutation of the reality I see.

I don't doubt that you see them. I just saw a flaw in you linking them TO that airport that I wanted to talk about.

I ask you this.
I see a contrails with the end of a greater width leading directly from the airport and by the end of a day I see many more coming from the same direction with the only difference being the trails have swayed in a general direction in whatever direction the wind is blowing. I'm supposed to listen to your view from across the seas that this isn't possible?.. These trails are a figment of my imagination?

bah..

Again, you misunderstand my point completely. It's not what you saw that you imagined. It's the tie to your local airport that makes no sense. Traffic creating what you saw will be passing over as they would be too high to have landed or taken off anywhere near you.

I applaud your tenacity and ability to seek and find pics of planes from different areas and wherever else,... the fact remains that myself and the rest of the city occasionally sees contrails forming at low altitudes from departing planes that leave a distinctive trail which resembles a J or L.... Now that I'm debating the point, either L or J works depending on the trajectory of whatever plane decides to fly..

If it REALLY matters to you that I prove this, the next time it happens I will priv message you with pics... or show here ( but by that time people may have lost interest in this meager squabble.

b

Pics would be great if you can do that. But my only quibble is your insistence that these trails are "low level". This is where I think you've gone wrong. How are you determining that they are low trails?