Chemtrail Photo, WOW!!!!

None of the soundings show RHI > 72%, despite
the fact that the PIT rawinsonde must have passed
through contrail A on its way to the stratosphere. To
support a persistent contrail, the maximum PIT RHI from
the sonde would need to be increased by 35% or more.
Another sounding taken over western OH yielded RHI =
117% at 225 hPa. Natural cirrus clouds were passing
over the Wilmington, OH station at the time. Because it
is theorized that natural cirrus clouds can only form
adiabatically for RHI exceeding 145% or more (Sassen
and Dodd 1989), the dry bias appears to be consistent
in both clear and cloudy skies. To account for the dry
bias, a correction formula was developed by assuming
that most of contrails observed by Sassen (1997; his
Fig. 5b) should have occurred only in supersaturated
conditions. To include most of his contrail observations
above a new line representing RHI = 100%, it is
necessary to specify that RHI = 100% for the sonde
value of RH = 16% at -70°C and RHI = 100% at RH =
72% and -36°C.

www-pm.larc.nasa.gov...

More mental gymnastics to explain observations that disagrees with the common understanding of contrail formation.

And some final gyrations:

According to the classical contrail formation theory,
contrails can persist when the ambient air is supersaturated
with respect to ice (that is, the environmental
relative humidity with respect to ice (RHI) is greater than
100 percent), but not with respect to water. In Sausen
et al. (1998), the use of ECMWF reanalysis data
required a contrail parameterization to compute contrail
coverage since the RHI in the ECMWF forecast model
rarely exceed 100 percent. The RUC-2 model contains
a more sophisticated cloud and moisture scheme that
allows for ice-supersaturation. Assuming that the RUC-
2 upper tropospheric moisture variables are accurate,
we can follow a much simpler statistical evaluation of
potential contrail frequency. For each 1°×1° grid
location where the criterion for persistent contrails
occurs at any level from 400 hPa to 150 hPa, a
persistence indicator value is given a value of 1. The
indicator value equals zero when none of the levels
satisfies the persistence criterion. The frequency of
potential contrail frequency over a time period becomes
simply the frequency of the persistence indicator.

www-pm.larc.nasa.gov...

So Stellar, some might ask, what do you think is going ON? Well lets take a look at what has been proposed in the past?

Probably the best-known of the aerial geoengineering proposals was that put forward in 1997 by Edward Teller and entitled ‘Global Warming and the Ice Ages: Prospects for Physics-Based Modulation of Global Change’ subsequently popularised in the Wall Street Journal in an article entitled ‘The Planet Needs a Sunscreen’.

Teller proposed deliberate, large-scale introduction of reflective particles into the upper atmosphere, a task he claimed could be achieved for less than $1 billion a year, between 0.1 and 1.0 percent of the $100 billion he estimated it would cost to bring fossil fuel usage in the United States back down to 1990 levels, as required by the Treaty of Kyoto.

Characteristic of the politics of Teller is the fact that he both ridiculed the idea of global warming and at the same time put forward what he represented as a solution to global warming. ‘For some reason,’ Teller observed sarcastically, ‘This option isn't as fashionable as all-out war on fossil fuels and the people who use them.’

www.spectrezine.org...

Teller says that cooling caused by volcanic eruptions shows this technique would work. For exmaple, the erruption of Mexico's El Chichon in the 1980s cooled the Northern Hemisphere by about one-quarter as much as the average prediction for global warming expected by 2100.

According to Teller, the director of the U.S. Global Change Research Program's Coordination Office has been promoting such geoengineering for three decades, and one National Academy of Sciences report a few years ago commented on "the relatively low costs at which some of the geoengineering options might be implemented."

Teller and his colleagues presented their proposal for geoengineering at the 22nd International Seminar on Planetary Emergencies in August 1997.

www.ncpa.org...

Both the Pentagon,s aerosol operations and its limited nuclear wars are deeply interconnected. We can trace the beginnings of Operation Cloverleaf right to the Strangelove brain of Dr. Edward Teller, father of the hydrogen bomb and proponent of nuking inhabited coast lines to rearrange them for economic projects.31 Before he died in 2003, Teller was director emeritus of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, where plans for nuclear, biological and directed energy weapons are crafted. In 1997, Teller publicly outlined his proposal to use aircraft to scatter in the stratosphere millions of tons of electrically-conductive metallic materials, ostensibly to reduce global warming.32

Shortly after Teller,s presentation, the public began seeing frenetic chemtrailing. In 2000, CBS News admitted that scientists were "looking at drastic solutions for global warming, including manipulating the atmosphere on a massive scale." CBS confirmed that the plan to load the air with tiny particles would "deflect enough sunlight to trigger global cooling."33

Teller estimated that commercial aircraft could be used to spew these particles at a cost of 33 cents a pound.34 This gives credence to a report by an airline manager, forced by a compulsory non-disclosure agreement to remain anonymous, that commercial aircraft have been co-opted to assist the military in consummating Project Cloverleaf.35 A 1991 Hughes aircraft patent confirms that sunscreen particulate materials can be run through jet engines.36 A science textbook now used in some public schools discusses the sunscreen project by showing a large orange-red jet with the caption, "Jet engines running on richer fuel would add particles to the atmosphere to create a sunscreen." The logo on the plane says "Particle Air."37 The implications of this crucial information should not be understated. A program to make America,s millions of annual jet flights a source of specially designed particulate pollution is serious business.

www.rense.com...

(It's rense but that article happens to be well ) sourced.

So it's a global warming preventative measure? Is that the reason Bush and the gang is just denying global warming or treaties that would seriously impact industrial nations?

What alternative evidence do we have that Teller's plan might in fact have been put into action?

The proposed revisions address two categories of particulate matter: fine particles (PM2.5), which are 2.5 micrometers in diameter and smaller; and inhalable coarse particles (PM10-2.5), which are smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter but larger than PM2.5. EPA has had national air quality standards for fine particles since 1997 and for coarse particles 10 micrometers and smaller (PM10) since 1987

EPA last revised the particulate matter standards in 1997. Under terms of a consent decree, EPA agreed to propose whether to revise the particulate matter standards by December 20, 2005; and committed to finalizing any revisions to the standards by September 27, 2006.

Proposal to Revise the National Ambient Air Quality

It will be noted that in October of 1997 a change in the reporting system of visibility data was reduced from a former maximum of 40 miles to a limit of 10 miles. It is a reasonable question to ask as to why that change was made, and whether or not it was made in anticipation of certain events to follow that involve large scale aircraft aerosol operations over large scale geographic regions.

It is observed that there are highly significant degradations in the visibility data immediately following this change in the reporting method. Immediately after this change, the dramatic increase in visibility reports of less than 10 miles is quite apparent.

The graphs shown are taken from climatic archive data available for Santa Fe, NM from Jan 1994 to Mar 2001. Three different time periods are shown to aid in demonstrating the magnitude of change which has occurred in visibility. The first graph shows all data available inclusive from Jan 1994 to Mar 2001. The second graph shows the transition zone during which the visibility standards were altered. This graph showns a period from Jan 1996 to Dec 1998; the change in reporting standard was made in Oct 1997. The third graph shows recent data, where visibility below 10 miles is now a regular occurrence. This graph shows the period from Jan 1999 to Mar 2001.

www.carnicom.com...

Obviously i don't think Teller's public disclosure and the visibility standards declining so sharply is just some kind of coincidence but i know some here will believe ANYTHING as long as it means that they have not been fooled and that they can continue believing as their , equally well indoctrinated, peers do.

So in closing some of 'chem freaks' do in fact do research and do in fact present it. If there was some way we could have ensured that people like you actually read it and considered it we would but clearly we are not managing such a feat.

And NO, i don't really want to debate stupid chemtrails ( or whatever they are) when the same types who deny them won't accept far, FAR more obvious facts.

Stellar

[edit on 20-9-2007 by StellarX]

reply to post by Essan


Wow, someone actually read my post. Actually when I lived in Oklahoma a few years ago I watched a single plane fly in the grid pattern seeding the sky for clouds. Normal jets do not go back-and-forth in the sky and then turn and do it from the opposite direction to form a grid with its own contrail.

This was over the University of Oklahoma which is in a small city, and could not have been crop dusting.

Oklahoma suffers a lot of droughts especially in the summer which is when I witnessed this occurring. Cloud seeding is thought to aid precipitation. I watched the grid pattern turn into wispy clouds and begin to drift with the wind, which is what I assumed was the purpose. From what I understand of cloud seeding it would have been designed to drift towards the farmlands in that area. If anyone followed my link they would see that could seeding takes place all over the country.

Since I have moved to Oregon I have only seen chemtrails once, and it was during the only drought that we have had since I have been here.

It's making me nuts to sit here and read this argument going on between people insisting that it's some kind of sinister plot versus people who deny it exists at all when I already presented a perfectly mundane explanation.

Originally posted by mantic
This is an interesting read on the subject, for those who refuse to believe that these things have been around dusting us off, for a looong time.

Link to Article

I dont know how to edit my posts, please excuse me for replying to my own.

It should say:

The link below (now above) is an interesting read on the subject.

Chem-Trails are real, the linked article provides reading and links that should prove this to you.

Please bear in mind, Everything that you believe to be true, is a lie.

Originally posted by sir_chan

[edit on 18-9-2007 by sir_chan]

Mainly over the south eh? Well, that explains ALOT!

Discovery Channel
Can experts alter the forecast in one of the world's largest countries?
Controlling The Weather

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Soylent... you asked how I know they are not just con trails (in my pics), well... I don't, but... I know that these trails last much longer and spread out much further, and they don't look at all like what I am use to seeing in the sky when other planes pass over. Everything becomes very cloudy after and then usually rain!

Originally posted by defcon5
[like:

Aerial Chemical Spraying:

Ah, operation Ranch Hand. Now those were the good old days...

Originally posted by sharplee

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
The government doesn't need to have an 'official story' on what 'Chemtrails' are, as they are ACTUALLY normal, everyday, persistant contrails Contrails caused by high flying aircraft.

If you want to prove this wrong, then you may as well start by answering the following question.

Why can't Contrails persist and fan out into clouds?

they do fan out into clouds. look at the sky. i can't do all your research.

s

That's the whole point. They do persist and they DO fan out into clouds.

The ice crystal theory simply does not explain the full range of evidence that we witness on a daily basis.
The chemtrail grids that we see being generated, often occur below the altitude where ice contrails can form, and below the required temperatures. In addition the "chemtrails" begin as contrails, and then spread out into much larger cloud formations, ofter covering the skies from horizon to horizon.

It is perfectly reasonable to assume that aircraft do indeed fly in grid patterns and criss cross at certain places. I have personally seen it, many, many times in actual aircraft, and now, that I am on holidays, I will prove it by having maps of these jetways.

There is also no evidence to support that Chemtrail planes are flying below the altitude at which 'normal' Contrails form. If you have some, give it to us, please.

This entire sordid tale is detailed in: The Chemtrail Smoking Gun: - Proof of global atmospheric geoengineering ( www.lightwatcher.com... )

After going through to that link and visiting; and reading the sublinks, there is not an iota of evidence there. If I missed something, then please tell me.

And NO, i don't really want to debate stupid chemtrails ( or whatever they are) when the same types who deny them won't accept far, FAR more obvious facts.

Given that with current understanding of Contrails, (which by the way "are not well understood"), there is some doubt about the formation of Persistant Contrails, we must not jump to conclusions and somehow think that this points to some massive conspiracy with the use of hundreds of planes spraying crap above our heads. Other than the doubt of persistant Contrail formation, there has not been another shred of evidence pop up that I've EVER seen since 2004.

Good work though, you finally answered the million dollar question.

[edit on 21/9/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]

Originally posted by Bspiracy

My point in posting though is if this isn't a conspiracy, why don't Russia and Japan have these trails?Just about the rest of the world is getting these and some stories from citizens concerned in other countries never saw these trails until American military exercises were performed.

So if you can find these chemtrail pics from Russia or Japan then I will be surprised.

www.informaworld.com...=a778783829~db=all~jumptype=rss


Oh, and just found this useful paper which should keep some of you busy for a while

Of course, along with all the dozens of other research papers referred to, it's all disinfo

[edit on 21-9-2007 by Essan]

thanks essan,

seems as if the main academics in this field are Sassen,Minnis and Travis.

is that correct ??

thanks

snoopyuk

C'mon...you whine because the ozone is burning up, you whine because we are doing something about it and protecting us from the sun's "evil rays"...what the hey! we can't win for losing here! Let these people do their job and quit spying on them for heaven's sake!

Originally posted by snoopyuk
thanks essan,

seems as if the main academics in this field are Sassen,Minnis and Travis.

is that correct ??

thanks

snoopyuk

I think Minnis is the leading expert atm

But he works for NASA so probably still thinks we landed on the Moon and that Mars is uninhabited .....

Let's simplify this thread a bit, simply for the fact that I think alot of information clouds the obvious reality. In fact lets simplify it down to an equation.

A=contrail
B=chemtrail

When a jet flys over and leaves a trail there ARE 2 types basically. One that is obviously caused by ice crystals forming and then dissipates rather quickly after forming.

The other type of trail cannot possibly be ice because as it dissipates and falls closer to the ground, it DOES NOT MELT, therefore is some kind of solid.

Talk all the science you want there is a DIFFERENCE between the two which can CLEARLY be watched from the ground. That IS evidence. In fact that is EYE WITNESS evidence.

The ball to prove evidence does not fall on the chemtrail believers, it falls on the skeptics of Chemtrails to prove that they are NOT!!! So any person who claims that chemtrails do not exist what exactly is the stuff that obviously is NOT MELTING as it falls to the earth?

However maybe you skeptics don't go outside much and see the 2 very distinctly different types of trails. Here is some more information to disinfo your disinfo.

Brian Holmes of www.holmestead.ca has investigated these eco-crimes for the past several years. Because of his efforts, many within Canada and on the net have become aware of the ongoing spraying operations. Like other serious investigators who have studied this phenomena, Brian's work has been maligned, and there are ongoing attempts to discredit him and his sources.

Some months ago, a Chemtrail insider that Brian nicknamed 'Deep Shield' came forward with specific and detailed information about this mysterious program, corresponding with him via e-mail. A transcript of the communications with Deep Shield and the Shield Project can be read online at: www.holmestead.ca... For those of us who have studied chemtrails carefully, the revealing dialog rang of the truth.

Since then we have been able to study, and verify a number of Deep Shield's primary claims. The anonymous insider gave Brian's readers some valuable clues to follow if they wished to investigate deeper into the history and hard science of chemtrails. A primary clue was to investigate the term 'geoengineering.'

www.lightwatcher.com...

[edit on 21-9-2007 by sir_chan]

Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 21/9/2007 by Mirthful Me]

Originally posted by sir_chan
Let's simplify this thread a bit, simply for the fact that I think alot of information clouds the obvious reality. In fact lets simplify it down to an equation.

A=contrail
B=chemtrail

When a jet flys over and leaves a trail there ARE 2 types basically. One that is obviously caused by ice crystals forming and then dissipates rather quickly after forming.

The other type of trail cannot possibly be ice because as it dissipates and falls closer to the ground, it DOES NOT MELT, therefore is some kind of solid.

I see a lot of type As, so do you have pictures of type Bs close to the ground?

originally posted by xtrozero
I see a lot of type As, so do you have pictures of type Bs close to the ground?

I don't need a picture to know what I see.

How do you know they are type A=contrail. Prove it.





[edit on 21-9-2007 by sir_chan]

Originally posted by sir_chan

How do you know they are type A=contrail. Prove it.

Surely the onus is on your prove that the experts - like Minnis mentioned above - are wrong and that their research is flawed and invalid?

And what of his predecessors that have been studying the phenomena of such persistent contrails - those that some like yourself claim are chemtrails - since at least the early 1970s? What were they observing and studying? Their pictures show exactly the same contrails as those we see today. They describe exactly the same phenomena of contrails persisting and spreading out to cover the sky. Only difference is that there's been a huge increase in air traffic in recent years, so it happens more often and is more noticeable.

I've personally never seen any contrail that behaved differently to how a contrail is expected to behave. Nor any pictures of one forming at a low altitude (although in theory they can form at any altitude) nor of them 'falling' other than in the form of virga, which also occurs with natural cirrus clouds.

reply to post by sir_chan


Your arguement is flawed.

When a jet flys over and leaves a trail there ARE 2 types basically. One that is obviously caused by ice crystals forming and then dissipates rather quickly after forming.

The other type of trail cannot possibly be ice because as it dissipates and falls closer to the ground, it DOES NOT MELT, therefore is some kind of solid.

First of all, at minus 50 degrees Celcius, it is unlikely that Ice will just melt and/or disapate. Do you REALLY think ICE dissipates at minus 50 degrees Celcius? Whatever you think, the answer is no. If the conditions are correct for Ice crystals to form, it will NOT quickly melt or dissipate, but it will slowly dissipate.

Second, the other type of Contrail obviously doesn't exist, as it is perfectly reasonable to expect Contrails to persist in the atmosphere... not to mention there is no other evidence. Got a link other than text that shows the 'Chemtrails' falling?

The differance you're seeing in Contrails is:

• Contrails which disipate before Ice crystals form.
  and
  
• Contrails which do not disipate before Ice crystals form.
  

There is a very fine line between Conditions for those dramatic diferances can occur, and obviously the Air is not entirely uniform. I suggest you look at some of Essans links.

Talk all the science you want there is a DIFFERENCE between the two which can CLEARLY be watched from the ground. That IS evidence. In fact that is EYE WITNESS evidence.

Nope.

It's people drawing a conclusion from something which can easily be explained.

The ball to prove evidence does not fall on the chemtrail believers, it falls on the skeptics of Chemtrails to prove that they are NOT!!! So any person who claims that chemtrails do not exist what exactly is the stuff that obviously is NOT MELTING as it falls to the earth?

*Yawn*.

However maybe you skeptics don't go outside much and see the 2 very distinctly different types of trails. Here is some more information to disinfo your disinfo.

Project Deepshield?

Run a search for Hoax on ATS and you may want to search for Project Serpo. You should know that there are very bad people who like to trick people into BS which is a perpetual effect which quickly gains momentum with people who're trying to find the truth.

Originally posted by sir_chan
I don't need a picture to know what I see.

How do you know they are type A=contrail. Prove it.

I'm just asking a simple question. I have been flying in the Air Force for 25 years and depending on the humidity levels I know what hot engine exhaust does in cold air. I also know depending on air turbulence and vortexes off the wings and tails of the aircraft these straight contrails will form squiggly patterns.

Now to get back to my question, these contrails do not float to the ground just as a cloud doesn't float to the ground. (fog is a cloud too, but I'm talking about once a cloud forms at what ever altitude it doesn't just float down) Now if you are saying that you have seen chemtrails that indeed come all the way to the ground I’m just asking everyone if there are any pictures of them close to the ground. I see 100s of normal high altitude contrail pictures, but none close to the ground to maybe put some validity to being actual chemtrails.

Chemicals would indeed float down to the ground, but are normally sprayed at lower levels otherwise they dissipate. Even something as a super strong nerve agent will dissipate rather quickly making it harmless. That is why most nerve agents would be sprayed in a watery or jell form to increase the effectiveness duration. Since these contrails are not quickly descending then that tells us it is a vapor and not a liquid or jell, and at those altitudes it would be totally useless to spray vapor chemicals. It would also be mostly useless to spray water or jell base too at high altitudes since you would have little control on where it would go with such a long descent.

So my friend why do you “know what you see” and what you see are chemtrails and not contrails? I’m not trying to debate you on this for I’m just trying to connect the dots that lead to your conclusions.




[edit on 22-9-2007 by Xtrozero]

Originally posted by sir_chan
Thank you Defcon5 for that link. The response gives very credible evidence to support the Chemtrail theory.

No, what you have is a rebuttal written by the person who wrote the website. Do you honestly think that he allowed Mr. Schlatter equal response time. Heck no, because it does not fall into his agenda to allow himself to be refuted. If he allowed someone to actually pick apart his theories he would have a website full of blank pages. Anyone can sit and pick apart what someone writes, then not give them a response back to it, because no one (outside of lawyers) write so precisely as to not leave some loopholes. This often happens in science when you try and over simplify a complex subject so it is easily understood by an audience who will not understand the details.

I’ll take a known NOAA scientists word on the subject as fact a lot faster then some guy who is afraid to even post his own real name.

Originally posted by sir_chan
When a jet flys over and leaves a trail there ARE 2 types basically. One that is obviously caused by ice crystals forming and then dissipates rather quickly after forming.

Really, perhaps you can explain this quote:

Jay,
Yes, we certainly did. Contrails were so thick that they became clouds. We often said that we created weather over Europe. They would persist for many hours, maybe days. We flew a different route coming back than going in partly to avoid the contrail clouds that we created. There are some pictures of contrails on my web site - none of these are shown to be very heavy but there were time when we were near the end of the bomber stream and the contrails were so dense that it was no dfferent than flying in clouds. A thousand or more planes (4000 internal combustion engines) can make a lot of contrail at 25000 feet or more.
Hope this helps.

Willard Reese- 457th Bomb Group

So were WWII B-17 bombers also spraying these chemicals?
Most were so heavily loaded they were barely able to deliver their bombs and make a round trip into Germany and back, let alone tons of chemicals, which served no purpose, as well. If they had to return before dropping their bombs, they would have to release their load over the English Channel to make it back to base.

Originally posted by sir_chan
The ball to prove evidence does not fall on the chemtrail believers, it falls on the skeptics of Chemtrails to prove that they are NOT!!!

Why does the burden rest with us, we are not the ones making spectacular claims, you are.

It’s up to you to explain why there are persistent contrails observed by WWII pilots which became cloud cover.
It’s up to you to explain the photos that I provided of persistent contrails prior to the 1990’s.
It’s up to you to prove to me that aircraft, which I was in charge of ground servicing, and I personally observed make persistent contrails, were in fact spraying some mysterious substance that my crews did not load on the aircraft, nor provide weight and balance for.

I’ll be waiting on that proof….

[edit on 9/22/2007 by defcon5]

I was coming home from work one day and looked up to see a jet at medium altitude flying from west to east above the general area. Behind the jet was a very thick chemtrail. He was aligned parallel with another, very thick chemtrail still hanging in the air. And another. And another. There were a total of 7 trails including the one he was making so far. Out of curiosity when I got home I continued to watch the aircraft, as it made several trips across the sky that evening, from west to east to west to east, leaving these trails aligned approximately in parallel across the sky. By the time he was done there were a total of 12 trails, and by this time many of them had begun to spread out, and look like what could only be called 'drippy', you could see vertical streamers as if the heavier parts of the trail where falling towards the earth.

Whatever is happening, it is not logical to conclude that just because you don't witness it yourself, other people are not witnessing it.