ACE Aerosol-Cloud-Ecosystem/Glory project

a reply to: Bunkrbuster

So it's connected to something that has yet been proven to actually exist...how does that work, because chemtrails are just a fantasy of the man who started the hoax Will Thomas, and jumped on by those looking to make a quick buck from the gullible.

And nowhere does it say your gullible does it?

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Bunkrbuster

Did you happen to look at the opening statement there's a link to gov patents and talk about devices that could be used for call them chemtrails I guess.

So gov't patents are your argument...sorry but patents aren't proof of chemtrails.

So where exactly is feedback here just calling me gullible,

So where exactly did I say you were gullible?

I said chemtrail pushers like the gullible.

lots of people have I feel more than proven "chemtrails" also where I live is a heavy high altitude flight path and whatever the planes are emitting are not contrials.

Well first thing is no they haven't.

Second thing is how do you know they aren't contrails?

www.google.com...

And just looking for answers here is all.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Bunkrbuster

So it's connected to something that has yet been proven to actually exist...how does that work, because chemtrails are just a fantasy of the man who started the hoax Will Thomas, and jumped on by those looking to make a quick buck from the gullible.

And nowhere does it say your gullible does it?

You're statement those who believe In "chemtrails" I guess I would fall into that category then.

a reply to: Bunkrbuster

And just looking for answers here is all.

Yes it is...

www.metabunk.org...

a reply to: Bunkrbuster

You're statement those who believe In "chemtrails" I guess I would fall into that category then.

If your not giving money to one of these shucksters then you aren't part of the gullible are you...As that is what I said.

As for those who believe in chemtrails, they are misinformed...there is a difference.

a reply to: Bunkrbuster

Just going to toss this out there for you...

Debunked: Patents. As Evidence of Chemtrails, Geoengineering, Existence, Operability, or Intent

www.metabunk.org...

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Bunkrbuster

And just looking for answers here is all.

Yes it is...

www.metabunk.org...

it does state in that page it is "suitable for use in other aircraft vehicles to generate contrails or reflective screens for any desired purpose. So how is that not very well a heavy possibility". Sounds nice and all but clearly it could be used as it states who's to say it's not.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Bunkrbuster

Just going to toss this out there for you...

Debunked: Patents. As Evidence of Chemtrails, Geoengineering, Existence, Operability, or Intent

www.metabunk.org...

This is an interesting site. Like I said just looking for some feed back.
www.reallibertymedia.com...

originally posted by: MissVocalcord

originally posted by: Bunkrbuster
Did you happen to look at the opening statement there's a link to gov patents and talk about devices that could be used for call them chemtrails I guess.

It is just a classification for a lot of things, including e.g. this hair dryer

A hair dryer (1) with a static atomizing device (4) is provided, which has the capability of generating an electrostatically charged microparticle mist of 3 nm to 100 nm.

Sorry had a couple saved
www.google.com...

So not so much on the plausible side then it seems or as far as I can tell from feed back so thanks for the info we'll try better next time

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Bunkrbuster

Just going to toss this out there for you...

Debunked: Patents. As Evidence of Chemtrails, Geoengineering, Existence, Operability, or Intent

www.metabunk.org...

Have you read the actual patent it gives a different picture that as a sighted aid just putting it out there .

Therefore, it is intended that all matter contained in the above description and shown in the accompanying drawings shall be interpreted in the illustrative sense, and it is aimed in the appended claims to cover all such changes and modifications without departing from the true spirit and scope of the invention.

What is claimed is:

1. The method of suppressing the formation of condensation vapor trails normally created by high flying jet aircraft comprising the steps of preheating a hygroscopic material to decomposition temperatures and introducing the preheated decomposed hygroscopic material into the exhaust stream of said aircraft, said preheated decomposed hygroscopic material being introduced in an amount sufiicient to produce a large number of small particles to provide nuclei upon which the water produced by the burning jet fuel can condense to prevent the formation of a visible contrail.

a reply to: Bunkrbuster

Which is just slightly important for stealth aircraft. It doesn't do a bit of good to be incredibly hard to be seen in infrared or on radar, and then leave a huge highly visible trail that can be seen for dozens of miles pointing right at you.

If this was being used on regular aircraft we'd see fewer trails, not more of them.

a reply to: Zaphod58
Which is why the highly advanced U2 plane had a rear view mirror

a reply to: MissVocalcord

The B-2 uses a laser as a check to see if they're leaving contrails and sets off a warning in the cockpit if they are.

a reply to: Bunkrbuster

Have you read the actual patent it gives a different picture that as a sighted aid just putting it out there .

Yes I have, this isn't the first time it has been used as some sort of evidence for chemtrails.

1. The method of suppressing the formation of condensation vapor trails normally created by high flying jet aircraft comprising the steps of preheating a hygroscopic material to decomposition temperatures and introducing the preheated decomposed hygroscopic material into the exhaust stream of said aircraft, said preheated decomposed hygroscopic material being introduced in an amount sufiicient to produce a large number of small particles to provide nuclei upon which the water produced by the burning jet fuel can condense to prevent the formation of a visible contrail.

Your talking about suppressing contrails not the spraying of chemtrails.

You may be a bit confused about the two.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Bunkrbuster

Have you read the actual patent it gives a different picture that as a sighted aid just putting it out there .

Yes I have, this isn't the first time it has been used as some sort of evidence for chemtrails.

1. The method of suppressing the formation of condensation vapor trails normally created by high flying jet aircraft comprising the steps of preheating a hygroscopic material to decomposition temperatures and introducing the preheated decomposed hygroscopic material into the exhaust stream of said aircraft, said preheated decomposed hygroscopic material being introduced in an amount sufiicient to produce a large number of small particles to provide nuclei upon which the water produced by the burning jet fuel can condense to prevent the formation of a visible contrail.

Your talking about suppressing contrails not the spraying of chemtrails.

You may be a bit confused about the two.

Just putting out facts that they are and have been practicing and implementing these types of projects. I didn't mean to drift from topic I would like to post a few other things you all can get a few more laughs out of me then I'll be done.

a reply to: Bunkrbuster

Except people are seeing more contrails. If they were using that they'd see fewer.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h
This is something to keep into consideration IPCC AR5 report did state “If SRM were terminated for any reason, there is high confidence that global surface temperatures would rise very rapidly to values consistent with the greenhouse gas forcing.” [emphasis in original]

I looked on there website and tried following there retraction page from there listed link to find there personal retraction. Page redirected 404 error. So if they did retract it would definitely be more appealing to see them issue the statement.

Like I stated prior to the ACE and GLORY projects which I still feel does have its possibilities in and I didn't state this as a chemtrail contrail statement I believe there injecting chemicals to geo engineer, and
As reports have shown it very we'll has a likely probability for success rate.

What I believe draws concern is to what chemicals would or have been used. According to Wikipedia they talk about the different considerations to be further studied. "Delivery of precursor sulfide gases such as sulfuric acid,[3] hydrogen sulfide (H2S) or sulfur dioxide (SO2) by artillery, aircraft[4] and balloons has been proposed.[5] It presently appears that this proposed method could counter most climatic changes, take effect rapidly, have very low direct implementation costs, and be reversible in its direct climatic effects."

en.m.wikipedia.org...(geoengineering)

Areas of concerns for possible chemicals used.

When dimethyl sulfide becomes pathologically increased, this is known as dimethylsulfidemia, which is associated with blood borne halitosis and dimethylsulfiduria.

Sulfur dioxide is a major air pollutant and has significant impacts upon human health.[34] In addition, the concentration of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere can influence the habitat suitability for plant communities, as well as animal life.[35] Sulfur dioxide emissions are a precursor to acid rain and atmospheric particulates. Due largely to the US EPA’s Acid Rain Program, the U.S. has had a 33% decrease in emissions between 1983 and 2002. This improvement resulted in part from flue-gas desulfurization, a technology that enables SO2 to be chemically bound in power plants burning sulfur-containing coal or oil. In particular, calcium oxide (lime) reacts with sulfur dioxide to form calcium sulfite:

As of 1994, limited information existed on the acute toxicity of carbonyl sulfide in humans and in animals.[2] High concentrations (>1000 ppm) can cause sudden collapse, convulsions, and death from respiratory paralysis.[1][2] Occasional fatalities have been reported, practically without local irritation or olfactory warning.[2] In tests with rats, 50% animals died when exposed to 1400 ppm of COS for 90 minutes, or at 3000 ppm for 9 minutes.[2] Limited studies with laboratory animal studies also suggest that continued inhalation of low concentrations (~50 ppm for up to 12 weeks) does not affect the lungs or the heart.[2]

Hydrogen sulfide is a highly toxic and flammable gas (flammable range: 4.3–46%). Being heavier than air, it tends to accumulate at the bottom of poorly ventilated spaces. Although very pungent at first, it quickly deadens the sense of smell, so victims may be unaware of its presence until it is too late. For safe handling procedures, a hydrogen sulfide material safety data sheet (MSDS) should be consulted[24]

So this is where concern should and yes as with every good cones a bad but they can't even guarantee its approval.

Lastly I want to reiterate the importance of previously stated PARASOL project which is part of what NASA calls the A-Train.

Parasol
Developed by CNES, the Parasol microsatellite was mission is to analyze the characteristics of the light reflected by the Earth and its atmosphere from 2004 to 2013. The purpose of these measures? Understanding how clouds and aerosols influence our climate. To analyze the characteristics of the light reflected by the Earth-atmosphere system, microsatellite Parasol relied on Polder (Polarization and Directionality of the Earth's Reflectances), an instrument developed by the laboratory of optical atmospheric de Lille (CNRS-USTL). The data collected daily through Polder were then cross-checked with the measurements carried out by four other satellites (Aqua, Aura, Calipso and Cloudsat), which flew with umbrella within the A-train, a constellation of satellites are succeeding in the same orbit a few minutes apart.

The scientific mission of Parasol stopped permanently on 11 October 2013. Following this judgment, the Parasol microsatellite was extracted from the A-Train constellation, during maneuvers that lasted until December 18, 2013. In the end, the mission is a success: while life umbrella had been initially set at 2 years, microsatellite has actually remained operational for eight years, communicating continuously its data to engineers of the CNES throughout this period.

Oct 2013 it was pulled from the A-Train satellite group following a judgement? Interesting enough. Even after searching I can find no reason why this was done and the source for this info was directly linked from Nasa page www.nasa.gov... and links to

parasol.cnes.fr... And the above explanation is the translated script of that link.

Cannot locate any info on to why PARASOL was pulled due to judgement on Oct 11 2013
That would definitely help with some reasoning so if anyone has a better search method please look up.

Why is PARASOL questionable?

Term used in reference to various proposed technical solutions to global warming -- e.g., shooting particles into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight back into space, creating what is called the parasol effect. Or, alternatively:


putting large mirrors in orbit which would modify the insolation received by Earth -- either increasing or decreasing it, as the need arises;
modification of Earth's albedo [the extent to which the Earth reflects light] with reflective or absorptive materials spread over portions of its surface;
alteration of rainfall patterns through the creation of artificial seas; and
depositing of iron in the ocean to encourage algae growth.

The fact that IPCC stated clearly in there AR5 report that it would have definite reverse affects if they pulled from commission. Would that be a reason to pull the project considering the report came out right around the same time. Doesn't sound right to me so sorry for the sidetrack and tons of info but I do feel this has some credibility to it let me know.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Bunkrbuster

Except people are seeing more contrails. If they were using that they'd see fewer.

Does that in itself debunk this? I don't understand.

a reply to: Bunkrbuster

You pointed to:

1. The method of suppressing the formation of condensation vapor trails normally created by high flying jet aircraft comprising the steps of preheating a hygroscopic material to decomposition temperatures and introducing the preheated decomposed hygroscopic material into the exhaust stream of said aircraft, said preheated decomposed hygroscopic material being introduced in an amount sufiicient to produce a large number of small particles to provide nuclei upon which the water produced by the burning jet fuel can condense to prevent the formation of a visible contrail.

As having something to do with this. That is a system to suppress contrails, which means that if it were in use, there would be fewer contrails. People have been seeing more contrails since the 1990s, which means that system can't be involved.