Painting the sky..(pics)

Originally posted by dexxy
Affirmative Reaction etc,

It would be a good idea to discuss the characteristics of 'contrails'. When do they form, under what conditions, how long do they last, what is their size, what type of dispersal patters are common. Thus we could at least see if 'chemtrails' fit the characteristics of 'contrails', or are something entirely different.

One of the other potential confusions I see happening here is that some of the photos posted show cloulds under the 'potential effect of HAARP', which deflects from the original discussion of 'chemtrails'.



[Edited on 16-12-2003 by dexxy]

While I know very little about HAARP other than it studies electromagnetism of the ionisphere, and has a large facility outside of Fairbanks, AK, and stands for High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program. Other than that, I don't know much about it, but will try to read some. I have been to Alaska frequently, and Fairbanks as well and have seen what we call the "elephant cage", a large antenna that looks like a bunch of wires on poles, forming a cage like contraption.

As far as studying contrails, several of us here have posted many websites with factual scientific research. Here's some you may want to look at...

www.borderlands.com...

asd-www.larc.nasa.gov...

Scientific info, not just people running scared...

Originally posted by Bangin

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction
You are using the exact same tactic as another moron we all know about...Yasser Arafat. He sends out suicide bombers to kill innocent women and children, then when the Israelis retaliate by killing the terrorists, he claims it to be an unprovoked attack.

You missed one piece of information in your statement.
"He sends out suicide bombers to kill innocent women and children, then when the Israelis retaliate by killing the terrorists (*and innocent women and children*), he claims it to be an unprovoked attack."

It is completely unfair to compare billybob to Arafat.

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction
Just remember this...everyone here can see the trail of feces you laid to get to this point...

I've seen useless text come across my screen behind several names. I just wanted to make that clear.

Your opinion, Bangin, and again, it differes from mine. You can defend the troll all you want, but it doesn't excuse the utter balderdash and personal attacks he has posted in this thread against those who disagree with him. I stand by my comparisin, as it is IMHO, totally accurate. I never said Billiboob sent out homicide bombers, just that he attacks first, then claims to be the injured party when the obligatory retaliation comes. I'm sorry if you didn't grasp that...I came here to discuss a topic that interests me and to hopefully enlighten some people to some scientific fact, not to have to defend myself and my affiliations from a moron named billyboob....

For information on HAARP, here is their home page
HAARP Home

Strangs things are happening in our Alaskan skys, I have seen most all described here. Our cloud cover permits unobserved testing, and let me tell you, when it is clear, last summer everyone at the barbershop I was at went outside to observe a high flying aircraft that was dispersing a charcoal colored substane that was falling out in a triangular pattern - it was obvious...that the fallout was not from contrail.

The aurora borealis activity has been high. Some nights are incredible displays. Most people are unaware that the aurora can actually be heard, I might add also. above the Artic circle the display is sometimes accompanied by a strange sound, as if a strofoam cup is being crunched up. I heard this on the Slope 3 yrs ago, in the Barrow area, and it is freaky..lot of static in the air accompanies this.

I have 2 photos I would like to share. one, I took, about three months ago on my way into Anchorage and is a very different display of light, taken at 830 am. It was so beautiful and different I was compelled to pull off a snap a pic. I have never seen this before-



The second photo is the most unusual aurora photo I have seen, and was in the Anchorage Daily News, on the front page, a couple of weeks ago. I cannot supply a link as it is not on their site, however it was so unusual I scanned and retained it and will gladly e-mail anyone that is interested, in jpg format. Just u2u me and I will send.

If you go to HAARP Home be sure to read the technical side on this site. It is scary-

Note- I cannot get this pic to post in this reply- I guess I have to plead temporary insanity and ask for help


[Edited on 16-12-2003 by Journey]

Originally posted by Journey
For information on HAARP, here is their home page
HAARP Home

Strangs things are happening in our Alaskan skys, I have seen most all described here. Our cloud cover permits unobserved testing, and let me tell you, when it is clear, last summer everyone at the barbershop I was at went outside to observe a high flying aircraft that was dispersing a charcoal colored substane that was falling out in a triangular pattern - it was obvious...that the fallout was not from contrail.

The aurora borealis activity has been high. Some nights are incredible displays. Most people are unaware that the aurora can actually be heard, I might add also. above the Artic circle the display is sometimes accompanied by a strange sound, as if a strofoam cup is being crunched up. I heard this on the Slope 3 yrs ago, in the Barrow area, and it is freaky..lot of static in the air accompanies this.

I have 2 photos I would like to share. one, I took, about three months ago on my way into Anchorage and is a very different display of light, taken at 830 am. It was so beautiful and different I was compelled to pull off a snap a pic. I have never seen this before-



The second photo is the most unusual aurora photo I have seen, and was in the Anchorage Daily News, on the front page, a couple of weeks ago. I cannot supply a link as it is not on their site, however it was so unusual I scanned and retained it and will gladly e-mail anyone that is interested, in jpg format. Just u2u me and I will send.

If you go to HAARP Home be sure to read the technical side on this site. It is scary-

I've been to that site, Journey, but have not seen anything relating to seeding the atmosphere withanythig other than electromagnetic and radio waves.

I have also been to the Barrow area on many occasions, as well as Shingle Point, Inuvik, and most other areas covered byt the DEW LINE. I have had the Northern Lights seemingly totally encircle my aircraft. It's eerie, but I chock it up to EM from the sun. The recent EM storms radiating from the sun can account for much of the unusual activity seen as far as light shows go. I'd like to see the other pictures you have, as well as the one with the "triangular" airdrops...that sounds very interesting.....

The one that I am trying to post, and for some reason I cannot get it up- is the one I wish to discuss. U2u me and i'll send to you

You can click here for Journey's picture. It will not allow me to post the image.

www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/uploads/ats3970_Knik_River_Light-.jpg

Originally posted by billybob
basic indoctrination, you mean. you have to much faith in the dogma of instutionalised brainwashing, uh, i mean learning.

Perhaps. But it sure is FAR better than the alternative: gross ignorance. Besides, if you had actually ever taken part in the "institutionalized brainwashing", you would know that old-style brainwashing is a thing of the past. Most schools teach kids to think and reason for themselves. Trouble is, most kinds don't seem to pick it up too welll.....

'evolution' is not understood, although i'm sure you will argue until you're blue in the face that it is.

You betcha! There is not a scrap of evidence in the fossil record to support your claim. On the contrary, the fossil record supports puntuated equilibrium as the most probable mode.

it DOES happen in leaps. i'm not saying overnight, but darwin's THEORY is full of holes,

Huh? Don't tell me you are still hung up on Darwin! His theory was abandoned years ago! Did you think that scientists still used Darwin as the basis for evolutionary theory?

and catacalysmic enviromental changes cause rapid changes in the look and feel of the flora and fauna on earth.

Yep. Punctuated equilibrium. But not leaps and bounds, as you claimed.

ozone hole, anyone? decimation of rainforests? global warming? polution? radiation?

ummmmm... none of the above are even close to being "cataclysmic environmental change"! They are all very SLOW processes. Nothing at all like what scientists consider to be cataclysmid events. Those would be things like large meteoroids striking the planet, huge volcanic erruptions, major earthquakes, major hurricanes, huge tidal waves, etc. The term "cataclysmic" implies a sudden, extreme event, not a subtle slow one.

you're on your own here. my theories are mine. i'm just saying the web of power can still be proven for the last century. the brown shirts and bookburners haven't had time to cover their royal asses, yet. but, yes, i think it goes back as far as sumeria, at least.

You mean Sumaria, I suppose? I have to admit, that's the first time I've heard Sumaria propsed as the source of the NWO! If it really is, then they sure ain;t doing to bad for a village that started out as basically a poverty township formed out of the dregs of a devastated society, rejected by all its neighbours, conquered and reconquered numerous times over the centuries, etc. Why do you place the origin of the NWO in acient Sumaria?

i have no proof or disproof,

Clearly! But you must have some reason for believing that the NWO originated in ancient Sumaria. Would you mind telling us what those reasons are?

Here is the second picture that Journey was wanting to share with us. I am amazed.

Courtesy of Journey:

Thanks Bangin, and also darkanser who both tried to get the upload through my hard head

The recent auroral activity has been awesome, and I feel is related to HAARP, and many others here wander as I do.

I also want to add that credit for this pic gos to Daryl Pederson, Anchorage Daily News. As it was not on their site, I scanned, and retained original front page.

The same night I saw beautiful displays, but not this particular one.

Poor quality due to scan of newsprint but still awesome photo. And one that causes wonder.

Nice pics, however, there was recently several huge outbursts from the sun caused by not one, but two large sunspots , that can probably account for the auroral activity seen. I do consider HAARP to be bad mojo though.

Just the new guy's two cents.

Welcome aboard Dramon, and this is a neat site- be aware though- very addictive!
I recieve a regular forecast from Univ of Fairbanks- and predictions are based on sun spot activity. However, it seems now that most activity(that I observe) sighted is occuring outside of these projections-
An indicator of HAARP at work? And when I say strong displays- well, you can read a book by the light of them on occasion, how bright they are.

Originally posted by Dramon
Nice pics, however, there was recently several huge outbursts from the sun caused by not one, but two large sunspots , that can probably account for the auroral activity seen. I do consider HAARP to be bad mojo though.

Just the new guy's two cents.

I must agree with Dramon's evaluation that this is most likely due to the recent cosmic storms caused by the sun's explosive activity (and welcome aboard...don't let the trolls get you down like I sometimes do! ) However, I don't see a problem with the little I know about HAARP. Haven't seen anything sinister about it, other than it's within a restricted no-fly zone. It's not NEARLY as restrictive as Dreamland, which will get a military aircrew debriefed and sent home just for dragging a wingtip through it. I've seen the antenna, nothing new. Had one similar in the Philppines used for super ultra low frequency radio comm with subs....never caused me any *tick..tick..tick..bwaaaw* ...problems...

[Edited on 16-12-2003 by Affirmative Reaction]

Originally posted by dexxy
Affirmative Reaction etc,

It would be a good idea to discuss the characteristics of 'contrails'. When do they form, under what conditions, how long do they last, what is their size, what type of dispersal patters are common. Thus we could at least see if 'chemtrails' fit the characteristics of 'contrails', or are something entirely different.

That sounds like a good plan to me!

There are two main types of contrails: exhaust and aerodynamic. Aerodynamic contrails form from the sudden changes in temperature and pressure of air flowing around the structure of an aircraft. You can often see these in very humid, tropical conditions, when planes are landing at coastal airports. You get streamers of contrails forming around the engine mounts, wing, slots, slats, flaps, ailerons, elevators, spoilers, rudder, wingtips, etc. Any place that there is a sudden extreme change in aerodynamics, that causes the pressure to drop drastically, thus forcing the moisture present in the air to condense out as water droplets. You do sometimes also get these types of contrails at altitude, in extremely humid conditions. You also often see these contrails forming around military aircraft doing extreme maneuvers at airshows (no, I'm not talking about the colored smoke trails they leave: those are different).

The other type of contrail is the one that forms in jet exhaust. Basically, these contrails will form any time that conditions of ice supersaturation are present. Chemmies will often claim that contrails require a certain level of humidity in order to form, but that is totally incorrect. They usually throw around the figure of 70% RH as being a necessary minimum for contrail formation. Unfortunately, they got the figure totally out of context from a comment made by a researcher on contrails.

The truth is somewhat different. A second of logical thought will show you that this claim is just plain stupid. The term "relative humidity" refers to the amount of water present in a sample of air, compared to the amount necessary for condensation to occur. So an RH of 75% means that the atmosphere contains 75% of the amount of water vapor that is needed before it will start condensing out as visible droplets of water. 100% RH means that the humidity is at the point where visible droplets of water are forming all over, and we call that phenomena "mist" or "fog" or "cloud".

However, contrails are not made of water droplets. They are made of ice crystals.

Relative humidity is usually measured by looking at the difference in the readings of two thermometers, one of which is "wet bulb" and the other "dry bulb". What that means is that one thermometer has a wet cloth wrapped around its base, while the other doesn't. Evaporation from the wet cloth keeps that thermometer cooler than the other one, so it will show a lower reading. When the humidity is very low, then evaporation from the cloth will be very efficient, and there will be a large difference in readings. However, when the humidity is at 100%, nothing can evaporate from the wet cloth, so both thermometers will show the exact same reading.

Clearly, you cannot measure relative humidity when the temperature is below freezing! It is impossible to do so, since the water vapor present in freezing air does NOT condense as water, but rather as ice crystals, and the physics of that are very different. Therefore, in temperatures below freezing, you cannot talk about relative humidity, but rather about ice supersaturation, or humidity with respect to ice. That is a VERY different animal. But chemmies never have been able to grasp this concept, so they continue to talk about needing 70% RH in order to form a contrail. Garbage.

The other thing that chemmies don't seem to understand is that changes in humidity are amplified at low pressures. High altitude = low pressure. Think about it. As an illustration, if you have one thousand "particles" of air per cubic foot at sea level, then you might have only two hundred "particles" of air per cubic foot at 30,000 feet (NOTE! These are NOT real numbers! I'm just using them to illustrate the concept in simple terms.) So let's say that you need one "particle" of water for every "particle" of air to reach 100% humidity, and you add 100 "particles" of water to your cubic foot of air at sea level. You now have 100 particles in 1,100, which gives you 16% humidity. If you add another 100 "particles", you now have 200 particles in 1,200, which is 32% humidity. When you get to 1,000 particles in 2,000, you have 100% humidity, and you get condensation. (Once again, these are NOT real numbers! I?m just trying to illustrate the general concept).

But if you add those same hundred particles of water to your cubic foot of air at 30,000 feet, you only started out with 200 particles of air, so you now have 100 particles of water in 300 particles total. That's already 50% humidity! Add another 100 particles of water, and you now have 200 in 400, which gives you 100% humidity.

Get the idea? At high altitudes, you don?t need very much water at all to get high humidity, and adding just a LITTLE bit of water makes a HUGE jump in humidity.

Combine that with the difference between Relative Humidity and Ice Supersaturation, and you have a major, major different set of things happening!

But chemmies totally ignore all of this, and pretend that the atmosphere is exactly the same up where jets fly, as it is down at sea level. Go figure....

So what does all of this have to do with contrail formation?

Easy! Jet engines burn hydrocarbon fuel (basically, jet fuel is just refined kerosene). When you burn hydrocarbon fuel in oxygen, the biggest by-product you get is water. You also get some soot, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur compounds, etc. But MOST of what you get is water vapor. In fact, for every pound of jet fuel that a plane burns, you get about 1.5 pounds of water. That is a LOT of water! Of course, the exhaust is pretty hot! Several hundred degrees, in fact. Way too hot for the water to condense. Only after it cools down below freezing, a few dozen feet behind the engine, then the water can condense into ice crystals.

Of course, the water will ONLY condense into ice crystals if the ice supersaturation is high enough. If not, then it wont. The water that comes from burning the fuel is not enough, by itself, to ensure that the there is always water in the exhaust to reach ice supersaturation. Far from it. But if you add in the atmospheric water vapor that was up there in the air before the plane got there, then TOGETHER with the water from the fuel, you get a high enough percentage to reach ice supersaturation. So you get a contrail.

Simple, right? Nothing complex about understanding this stuff.

So, obviously, you will never get a contrail if there is no water vapor in the air already, since the jet fuel doesn?t supply enough by itself. On the other hand, if the air is already pretty close to ice supersaturation, then the extra water added by the burned jet fuel is MORE than enough to cause immediate condensation into ice crystals WHICH STAY THERE! Chemmies never have been able to figure this part out, but there is nothing complex about it. If the air was already pretty humid, then the little bit of extra water from the engine PUSHES IT OVER THE LIMIT, so that it is now well beyond saturation, and forms a cloud that stays up there for as long as the air stays humid!

To make it even easier, you can think of it like pouring water into a pot with a hole in the side. The water in the pot represents the existing humidity of the air. The additional water that you pour in represents the water coming from jet fuel combustion. The hole in the side of the pot represents 100% humidity. When the water level gets high enough for the water to run runs out of the hole, that represents a contrail forming.

If the pot starts out empty, and you pour in a glass of water (representing the extra water that came from the jet fuel), No water comes out. Nothing happens. No contrail. The water never even gets up to the level of the hole. That represents what happens when a jet flies through dry air. Even though it added water, there still wasn't enough to even form a contrail.

If you start off with some water in the pot, but not yet up to the hole (representing medium humidity) and you pour in your glass of water, then you get just a little water running out of the hole for a bit, then it stops. In other words, you get contrails that barely manage to form, then fade out. In other words, your additional glass of water was just enough to get up to the level of the hole, but no more.

If you start off with lots of water in the pot, almost up to the hole (representing high humidity) and you pour in your glass of water, then you get lots of water running out of the hole for a long time. In other words, you get contrails that stick around for a while. Your extra glass of water took the level way up above the hole, so took a while before for it all to run out.

But if you start with the pot already full of water, you don't even need to add any to make a contrail! Just the passage of the plane moving through the air will be sufficient. So when you DO pour in your glass of water, not only do you have contrails that stick around for ages, you also have water overflowing from the top of the pot, so your contrails are actually spreading out and getting thicker! This is what happens when you start out with air that is ALREADY ice supersaturated. The plane itself can trigger the contrail formation (what chemmies call ?mega-sprayers?, because the contrail seems to come from all over the plane), and the EXTRA water from the exhaust sends the whole air mass over the edge, into a cascade of condensation. The contrail spreads.

Pretty simple, isn?t it?

I reckon this is actually a pretty good analogy, and makes it very easy to understand. Except for a chemmie. ( Chemmies will tell you that the pot is not really a pot, but rather is actually a secret alien artifact kept hidden by the NWO, that there is never enough water in the pot for it to overflow, that there is no hole at all in the pot, that its all a lie made by the TPTB, and that you are not pouring water into the pot at all, but rather you are pouring in blood mixed with aluminium and barium! )

So there you have it. That's about as simple as I can make the explanation. I hope that makes it clear for you.

Originally posted by StuartAllsop

Originally posted by dexxy
Pretty simple, isn?t it?

I reckon this is actually a pretty good analogy, and makes it very easy to understand. Except for a chemmie. ( Chemmies will tell you that the pot is not really a pot, but rather is actually a secret alien artifact kept hidden by the NWO, that there is never enough water in the pot for it to overflow, that there is no hole at all in the pot, that its all a lie made by the TPTB, and that you are not pouring water into the pot at all, but rather you are pouring in blood mixed with aluminium and barium! )

So there you have it. That's about as simple as I can make the explanation. I hope that makes it clear for you.

You had a really good post going right up until this point. I was really hoping you were trying to get the thread back on track like I was after I offed the troll and put him in the iggy box, but you dropped the ball at the two yard line....

[Edited on 16-12-2003 by Affirmative Reaction]

Thanks for the warm welcome - very much appreciated.

I've looked into quite a bit of everything myself and have always been interested in conspiracies and what not.

It would be nice to see someone do an actual scientific investigation of something like chemtrails (contrails), but even if there is a very small chance of there being a real conspiracy would they be able to get lab time or any other sort of corroborating testimony from other scientists? Could it be done alone?

The scientific establishment routinely denies, ridicules and outright rejects anything they don't agree with - sometimes it doesn't even matter if you've done everything by the book. In a situation like this, I could see almost insurmountable difficulties in getting info out to the public, whether it be about chemtrails or libraries under the sphynx.

Originally posted by Dramon
Thanks for the warm welcome - very much appreciated.

I've looked into quite a bit of everything myself and have always been interested in conspiracies and what not.

It would be nice to see someone do an actual scientific investigation of something like chemtrails (contrails), but even if there is a very small chance of there being a real conspiracy would they be able to get lab time or any other sort of corroborating testimony from other scientists? Could it be done alone?

The scientific establishment routinely denies, ridicules and outright rejects anything they don't agree with - sometimes it doesn't even matter if you've done everything by the book. In a situation like this, I could see almost insurmountable difficulties in getting info out to the public, whether it be about chemtrails or libraries under the sphynx.

If research is done using the scientific method, with ample and complete documentation, the scientific community will embrace it. One plus with a possibly volitile subject like this would be to have those from both sides of the debate do the research together, documenting both on paper and on video. Positive proof/disproof is difficult to ignore...but it must be above reproach.

So far, no research on so called "chemtrails" has been done. All claims are simply hearsay....

howard: Hey I won�t deny that it is possible to do these things. There is, however a huge gap between the possible and the practical.

billybob: not so huge. depends what the goal is. if the pentagon can build a $50 000 dollar hammer or toilet seat, imagine the money they can throw at the REAL projects!

howard: I�ll have to speak with central dispatch about that. You were supposed to be targeted on Friday.

howard: The devils is in the details, but this is what separates the wheat from the chaff.

billybob: the elephant in the room is being obfuscated by these devil tactics. chaff, eh? devil, eh?

howard: well no one has come forth with any tangible proof so far. I predict that no one ever will, because chemtrails do not exist.

billybob: i thought we established it was possible. so, how can you make such an unequivocable statement?

howard: So, if weather modification is the reason, tell me, what is wrong with our weather that they need to �fix� or modify?

billybob: this was clearly illustrated in the "owning the weather 2025" doc. more like 2001.

howard: Now it is true that contrails do have a measurable impact on the weather and the climate (google the research by Patrick Minnus)

billybob: so why would this NOT be exploited?

howard's link-

About lidar.com
This site is owned by Gary Spiers. I maintain this site independent of my professional duties as supervisor of the Laser Remote Sensing Group at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and JPL is not responsible for the content of this site. If you wish to contact me concerning my professional duties then please use [email protected]

billybob: JPL/nasa = old boy network

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Bangin
Why did you call me Jason?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
howard: OOPs sorry, forget I did that.

billybob: huh?


STUART: Well, we are trying to wake him up and show him the truth, but he refuses to even look, and insists on continuing to believe in his "chemtrails", despite the total lack of evidence....

billybob: We? multiple personality disorder?

Stuart: It is, clearly and obviously, impossible to determine just from looking what the chemical makeup of a cloud is.

billybob: you said it.

okay, and now my apology:
i'm sorry some get so heated and insulting here. i don't believe calling someone a disinfo agent is an insult. if you have taken it as such, please forgive me. AR is the only one who's been outright rude to me, but i love him just the same.
as thinking men, and lovers of conspiracy, you have to admit, if there WAS a conspiracy and a huge cover-up attempt, that experts in the field would be used at online forums like this one(especially this one!). convincing the unscientificly oriented would be as simple as convincing a kid that the sun rises in the morning because of the air heating up, and sets due to the evening cooling.
to say there is no proof is true(at least i have none). proof is difficult. to say there is no evidence is ludicrous. to say eye witness testimony is moot is misguiding. on some of the links to other forum threads(thank you howard, some good stuff there. i especially like the wink, wink, nudge, nudge undercurrent among the rudest and most vocal(metaphorically) disuaders(those sites must keep you pretty busy, too. oh, well, i guess someone's gotta do it, yeah?)).
i read the exact same thing that i have stated. old folks like me don't remember CONtrails(i like that) in the sixties, seventies and eighties ever looking like how 'chemmies' are alleging chemtrails look nowadays.

i frankly have no idea what this is, but the guy who wrote it seems to:


What!!

I hope you just wrote this wrong.

What F.A.C.T. that tHey ARE trying to hide it from the pilots? -(this is what the other guy wrote -bb)

Maybe you know more than you're admitting to!!

Tell me more about the facts!

ALuminum/ Barium exist in the snow behind your heads up display.

Tell me there are no KC-135's/ DC-10's/ EC-3's with ASPEX or MASS systems on them.

Tell me that SWMS aren't in place and being used for weather mod.

Tell me that ACE, FIRE, SUCCESS, pathfinder, SASS, ARM, TRADEOFF, triana, BACIMO 2000, CHANCES, cargsun2, SPADE, WCOMP, GEWEX, NEXRAD, UNEP, WCRP, EUCREX, INDOEX, CLIVAR, RFMP, modis and the contrail forecast are for our good humor.

Tell me you've studied the 'atmospheric sciences' of weather modification and 'climate engineering' and know what the potential is.

Tell me you've studied Nikola Tesla's writings.

Tell me the drought won't last long, is simply cyclical and wasn't the product of anthropogenic influences.

Tell me that Cambridge, Texas T&M, Colostate, Washington, U of A and so many other incredible institutions don't have the ability to apply their sciences to the atmosphere.

Tell me that Zhang, Frey, Ackerman, Menzel, Lawson, Heymsfield, Aulenbach, Jensen, Wolf, Rutledge, Bodansky, Dickinson, Fogg, Trenberth, Houghton, Jamieson and Laroussi haven't figured out what to do with our ever changing climate.

Tell me the 9th, 12th, 18th, 55th, 88th and the 109th are only dates on the calender.


And I'll believe you!!

Let me know if you want to do more research yet!! Not tryin' to be a hack, but there's a lot out there for all of us to learn!!

peace and love to all. even AR, ya hothead.

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction

Originally posted by Dramon
Thanks for the warm welcome - very much appreciated.

I've looked into quite a bit of everything myself and have always been interested in conspiracies and what not.

It would be nice to see someone do an actual scientific investigation of something like chemtrails (contrails), but even if there is a very small chance of there being a real conspiracy would they be able to get lab time or any other sort of corroborating testimony from other scientists? Could it be done alone?

The scientific establishment routinely denies, ridicules and outright rejects anything they don't agree with - sometimes it doesn't even matter if you've done everything by the book. In a situation like this, I could see almost insurmountable difficulties in getting info out to the public, whether it be about chemtrails or libraries under the sphynx.

If research is done using the scientific method, with ample and complete documentation, the scientific community will embrace it. One plus with a possibly volitile subject like this would be to have those from both sides of the debate do the research together, documenting both on paper and on video. Positive proof/disproof is difficult to ignore...but it must be above reproach.

So far, no research on so called "chemtrails" has been done. All claims are simply hearsay....

Well, I'd have to agree to disagree with you on this one. There have been many a well documented research topic that was shot down, only to find out that it was valid later - and no, I'm not talking about science in the 1500s.

Scientific reasearch these days is conducted more like good ol' boy politics - the reason pure and simple is patents and money. You control the patent, you make the money. Even in fields such as anthropology, mathmatics, etc. where you won't make any real money or get any patents, there is the prestige and subsequent bragging rights to contend with.

Granted most stubborness tends to arise from highly theoretical work such as that on black holes and mathmatics, but considering the amount of vitriol sometimes spouted by these supposed researchers of truth, it would not surprise me to see them reject something out of hand simply because they did not find it first, or it wasn't found by someone within their own hierarchy.

Just because I state this, however, doesn't mean I buy fully into the chemtrails thing. I could see it being carried out by our government, but not on the scale hinted at in this post - too many planes, people, etc. involved.

I was in the Marine Corps and then worked for the Air Force and can tell you that a fleet of planes, such as described here, would require all sorts of support personnel - medical staff, mechanics, food prep., ground control, radar, various tech people - the list goes on and on.

While it is possible to cut these things to a bare minimum, it would mean that your reach would be very small and limited to small geographic areas. Then again, something sprayed as an aerosal into the atmosphere, at altitude, could potentially reach hundreds of thousands.

I just don't know - if it happens, then I suspect that it only happens over a few states (5 or less) and I would further suspect that these states are relatively close to each other - via travel by air. Again, refuelers either in the air or on ground would make that irrelevant - and would reduce the number of staff and facilities needed to carry out such an operation, but I still feel doubtful about some widespread spraying over the entire North American continent.

Great explanation, Stuart.

But you are right, The concept of supersaturation can be a little tricky to grasp.

Originally posted by Dramon

It would be nice to see someone do an actual scientific investigation of something like chemtrails (contrails), but even if there is a very small chance of there being a real conspiracy would they be able to get lab time or any other sort of corroborating testimony from other scientists? Could it be done alone?

The scientific establishment routinely denies, ridicules and outright rejects anything they don't agree with - sometimes it doesn't even matter if you've done everything by the book. In a situation like this, I could see almost insurmountable difficulties in getting info out to the public, whether it be about chemtrails or libraries under the sphynx.

Actually Dramon, there are thousands of scientists around the world studying the atmosphere on a daily basis.

Some, like Dr. Patrick Minnis also study contrail formation and persistence. In fact, it is widely believed that Dr. Minnis, used to post at Chemtrail Central under the name �Canex.� You can go to the forum archives and look up all of his old posts if you want.

But, back to the subject of atmospheric science. Like I said, there are literally thousands of scientists around the world in different countries studying the composition of the atmosphere, the transport and fate of atmospheric pollutants, etc. There are numerous sampling and analysis programs, LIDAR research, and other investigations ongoing right now.

IF, chemtrails were real and as widespread as claimed, how is it that these scientists are unaware of chemtrails? Surely you would think that at some point, the data collected by these research programs would start to become tainted by the components of chemtrails. Surely at some point, the collected data and analytical results would start to vary from the scientists were expecting based on their models and mathematical predictions of atmospheric behavior. Surely they would begin to try to identify the source of the deviations.

Why is it that not one of the atmospheric scientists world wide, has come out and said, there is something strange going on?

Here are just a few of the interesting projects and scientists that would probably be impacted by �chemtrails� if they were real.

geo.arc.nasa.gov...

www.aber.ac.uk...

www.hiaper.ucar.edu...

www.meteor.uni-frankfurt.de...

earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

Perhaps Dramon, you should conduct a little research into the subject yourself and report back to us.