Chemtrail Reporting Database?

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by cogburn
I live in Santa Barbara. For the past 3 weeks we've had clear blue skies. This morning was clear. Today there were no less than 6 aircraft criss-crossing the skies with lingering contrails that, within 4 hours, had created a haze of clouds.

Check your local weather forecast, sounds like there may be a cool change coming in which is why the contrails would be lingering.

reply to post by Chadwickus
Thanks for making the unfounded assumption that I have no experience with coastal weather patterns and resulting cloud formations and at the same time assuming that I have a complete ignorance of the fluid dynamics.

Cheers!

You know seizue (hope thats right, reply didn't work), I respect your opinion.

However, I am convinced what you saw was a product of the particular weather that day.

Depending on high altitude air temp at any given time, contrails can stick around for the better part of 4 hours. Now, if you consider how packed our skies are with airplanes, then 4 hours of traffic could do this, easily.

I really did give this theory about 6 months of my life. I studied often on the subject. But I'll tell you what, it was the combined efforts of both a meteorologist and an airplane expert on this very site that confirmed this phenomenon was the product of a relatively new form of transpo being perpetuated to almost the tipping point.

If this was an actual phenomenon, and one wrecked, how much of this stuff would be found on a single area of land? Everything would die, unless its a very inefficient poison, and then, why would they use it?

reply to post by Chadwickus


Your logic there is pretty solid... But I think we need to find a way to get over this.. I think its a waste of breath to try and help some people out. Cause as soon as you try, they start backing you into a wall of semantics and personal remarks rather than discuss the issue or do any of their own research.

Originally posted by cogburn
reply to post by Chadwickus

 

Thanks for making the unfounded assumption that I have no experience with coastal weather patterns and resulting cloud formations and at the same time assuming that I have a complete ignorance of the fluid dynamics.

Cheers!

Just stating, from you description as to what the cause of it may be.



...I was right though wasn't I?

[edit on 5-2-2009 by Chadwickus]

In any case, when I got off from work today (2/4/09 - Los Angeles), at 5:30 p.m., it was still light and the sky was covered with chemtrails; and the ones that really bother me - the ones with the dark, whispy stuff hanging/feathering through them. I've taken some photos of these types over the Los Angeles area. I would upload them but can't find my usb cord.

Originally posted by lel1111
In any case, when I got off from work today (2/4/09 - Los Angeles), at 5:30 p.m., it was still light and the sky was covered with chemtrails; and the ones that really bother me - the ones with the dark, whispy stuff hanging/feathering through them. I've taken some photos of these types over the Los Angeles area. I would upload them but can't find my usb cord.

Is there a cool change coming in? Any rain forecast in the next couple of days?

Again, ideal conditions for contrails to linger.

Howdy folks. As you may have noticed, I did a bit of house cleaning. For some odd reason this subject is contentious in the extreme, with little to no middle ground. However, decorum and civility are required, as is staying on topic. The topic is not avatars. It's chemtrails and whether or not there should be a national database of some sort. Eyes on the ball, gals and guys.

Thanks...

reply to post by cogburn


Chem-trail database... hmmmmm..... well last I checked Chem-Trails was a term coined on Art Bell, and it's a load of hogwash, I'd say at least 89 if not 99% of "CHEMTRAILS" are actually condensation on wingtips, that's right, condensation, it gets bigger like a cloud and disappears, that's what condensation on wingtips does at that altitude, but if it isn't condensation and you can prove it's not... it could be jet-fuel, they occasionally dump it, but not to kill you, I guess the only Chemtrails I can think of that are real chemichals meant to do harm are the cropdusters... please if you can prove to me your CONtrails are chemichal in nature please do so, it seems like a past time invented by people looking for UFOs when they couldn't find any...

reply to post by Chadwickus
Not at the time according to SBA and Vandenburg, but thanks though.

reply to post by Razimus
That would be exactly the point. I want as much data as possible. I've definitely seen quite a collection of images that are not easily explained as vortex patters or exhaust condensation.

However I've seen hundreds more "chemtrail" images that are people simply misreading contrails. These can easily be eliminated through a strict vetting process of photos and data submitted. We'll log everything, but only those images with a sufficient "WTF factor" will actually be included in the study. What is that "WTF factor"? I'm not sure yet. I'm trying to devise a way to eliminate the wheat from the chaff. Any input would be appreciated.

Tying images to a geographic location and heading allows for matching to commercial flight paths and assessment of weather conditions before, during and after.

I'm looking to create a point for some serious, disinterested, empirical evidence collection. Illness outbreaks (like the fabled Morgellons), weather patterns and other outside data points could then be correlated with something other than anecdotes.

It would just be one baby step closer to putting the issue to rest, one way or another.

reply to post by cogburn


The current radar shows a nice big front heading towards Santa Barbara right now:


These are the conditions I was talking about, cool change, increased humidity.

Actually Im all for the Ops idea, as long as it is compared to real time weather data. Its actually one way of disproving the theory once and for all

The data from California earlier shows strong evidence of likely persistant contrails

369.0 7886 -35.3 -43.3 44 0.23 208 68 316.2 317.1 316.3
342.0 8409 -39.1 -40.5 86 0.33 213 69 318.0 319.3 318.1
323.0 8797 -42.3 -47.3 58 0.17 217 70 318.8 319.5 318.9
306.6 9144 -45.1 -49.5 61 0.14 220 71 319.6 320.2 319.7
300.0 9290 -46.3 -50.5 62 0.12 225 71 320.0 320.5 320.0
266.7 10058 -52.1 -56.1 62 0.07 230 79 322.4 322.8 322.5

While the previous few days show that there is no where near enough humidity for persistent contrails to occur

393.0 7576 -30.1 -44.1 24 0.19 131 20 317.4 318.1 317.4
390.5 7620 -30.4 -44.4 24 0.19 135 22 317.5 318.2 317.5
373.6 7925 -32.9 -46.4 25 0.16 110 21 318.3 318.9 318.3
357.5 8230 -35.4 -48.3 25 0.13 95 21 319.0 319.6 319.1
327.3 8839 -40.3 -52.2 27 0.09 125 25 320.4 320.8 320.4
313.1 9144 -42.7 -54.2 27 0.08 110 30 321.1 321.4 321.1
300.0 9440 -45.1 -56.1 28 0.06 115 23 321.7 321.9 321.7
299.6 9449 -45.2 -56.1 28 0.06 130 24 321.7 322.0 321.7
286.1 9754 -47.7 -58.0 30 0.05 120 24 322.4 322.6 322.4

weather.uwyo.edu...

My 2 cents.

Don't believe all Scientist or weathermen.

This has been studied and been proven and the gov't has even written they do some of it, do your research and you will see.

You say we don't know what we are talking about and I say your wrong but that's my opinion understand.

If members don't believe then don't write in this thread and let the ones that do alone.

My bad today, sorry bout that.

reply to post by OzWeatherman
Just saying stuff is nice. Proving it is better. Your data was far better than mine. Thanks for the link! I may know a thing or two about physics, but I make no claims at being a weatherman or climatologist.

You get a star.

Note: Weather maps are not data. They are representations of data. Not to mention that map reflects conditions 15 hours later, which is far from being accurate enough to draw a conclusion. "Proof" like that is just as valid as saying that chemtrails cause global warming.

[edit on 5-2-2009 by cogburn]

If you're going to set up a database for chemtrail observations, you first need to be sure you can differentiate between chemtrails - which apparently persist for a long time and may spread across the sky - and normal contrails - which also may persist and spread across the sky.

Given the meteorologist can predict when contrails will persist and spread across the sky and many other people cannot, it poses problems regarding reliablility of any reports.

It's likely that - if they exist - most chemtrails are not visible from the ground - there is, after all, no reason for supposing they will be.

reply to post by cogburn


Your welcome

Hopefully you could understand the data, part of my job actually involves launching weather balloons (check darwin airport, Australia for my balloon launches), so understanding the data is critical, especially with respect to contrail forecasting

Any questions let me know

reply to post by OzWeatherman
Don't get me wrong, it took a minute or two to understand what I was looking at and what it meant.

I do have a question, albeit perhaps one that may not easily be answered.

The data from the observation station nearest a report would be a sound, scientific means for the start of a "credibility index", which would then be able to not only indicate the likelihood of the observation being a chemtrail but could provide hard data as to why it may not be a chemtrail. It could both vet and educate at the same time.

All that being said, could a range of values be generated between which it could be said that a contrail is "suspect" under the prevailing weather conditions? What do you think would be values that would be acceptable and why?

[edit on 5-2-2009 by cogburn]

Originally posted by cogburn
[All that being said, could a range of values be generated between which it could be said that a contrail is "suspect" under the prevailing weather conditions? What do you think would be values that would be acceptable and why?

[edit on 5-2-2009 by cogburn]

Well, the data generated only shows whether or not a persistent contrail is likely. I guess one would have to rely on the half hourly METAR observations for the data to contradict the actual weather.

Sorry if Im way off, I dont think I fully understand what you are asking

Originally posted by cogburn

The data from the observation station nearest a report would be a sound, scientific means for the start of a "credibility index", which would then be able to not only indicate the likelihood of the observation being a chemtrail but could provide hard data as to why it may not be a chemtrail. It could both vet and educate at the same time.

If we had an atmospheric sounding that indicated - based on temp, humidity etc at the altitude at which a given aircraft was flying - no persistent contrail should form according to known meteorology, and a persistent contrail did form, then we might have evidence that either a) meteorology is wrong or b) a chemtrail is being spread.

However, this has never been demonstrated. Nor has anyione ever demonstrated why a chemtrail should be visible from the ground!

Unless chemtrails are ice crystals forming manmade cirrus clouds - ie contrails - why shoud we see them???????