NAVY and NASA - The REAL "Chemtrails"

reply to post by Imagir


What suspends the barium?

Otherwise it would fall quickly....

reply to post by Imagir


I would love a source for these inexplicable findings.

Can you provide the source for all of us here?

Thank you every one for the informative thread.

It is very interesting to read about all sides of this debate.

So far it is quite clear that there are many trails made by flying objects that leave chemicals behind them for various reasons.

There can be much discussion about why they are there, but there are plenty of trails, like the example in the OP of this rocket.
It leaves a big trail of chemicals, doesnt realy matter what you call it.

I agree.

I havn't looked into the whole "chemtrail" thing, but there is no doubt that a rocket was used to shoot chemicals into the atmosphear in order to creat an artificial cloud.

I don't really see how the skeptics could even attempt to say this didn't happen, and as I belive Zorgon said, If they did this then it's silly to think they havn't tested this sort of thing with planes before using rockets.

Originally posted by Imagir
reply to post by Phage

 

In the zones where these “strange” tails in the sky happen, analiysts are found, in the air and on the ground, an Aluminum and Barium increases, absolutely inexplicable.
As you know the contrails have a limited persistence in the atmosphere, others "trails" remain suspended for HOURS.

The Barium is an essential element for the corrected operation of HAARP and other projects that have as application field the terrestrial atmosphere.

Barium and Aluminum will be found in almost any soil and in most any dust.

What about that one day you drove past a hospital, and then people died in the hospital that week? Did you cause it? Or that time you had carrots, and a lot of old people in America died over the course of the next month?

I bet if we test the soil in your yard, it will have aluminum and barium. Maybe that means YOU are secretly spraying your neighbors with you car exhaust.

So tell us exactly how long ice crystals can last in cold thin air?

reply to post by fieryjaguarpaw


It would seem that Phage was right (see first page), the ambiguous placement of chemtrails in the title has turned this into another long repeated chemtrail vs contrail thread. I admit I got drawn into that debate as well...

Now that's out of the way, i'll get back on topic.

Fieryjaguarpaw: No one is denying that a rocket was launched high above the atmosphere to release a cloud of chemicals. To say that jets could do the same thing is quite the leap of logic.
Firstly no jet aircraft can reach the altitude that this test was carried out at.
And secondly the rocket released a cloud that visibly lasted for a few minutes, chemtrails, as defined by chemtrailers are supposed to last for hours and are lines in the sky, not clouds.

So if anything the title of this topic should have been chemclouds not chemtrails.
Semantics I know but as I mentioned above the topic went from NASA space experiments to the same old chemtrail rubbish

reply to post by zorgon


Starred and Flagged, Zorgon, and yet another magnificent post. You should write a book, you know that? I haven't read all the way through yet, but be assured that I will.

Hundreds of licenses exist regarding the climatic control. Some of they can easy be found through a search on Google Patents or directly from official site US Patent. In some of these licenses it is spoken explicitly about spraying of chemical substances in the atmosphere citing BARIUM and ALUMINUM.

Techniques of manipulation and climatic control that have use of of chemical substances scattered in the air by military airplane tankers.
The same chemical substances who serve to system H.A.A.R.P
in order to upgrade own functionalities.

The European Parliament and Russia has denounced the system H.A.A.R.P., defining it a very dangerous military weapon.

reply to post by Imagir


Sources?

You can't just state things as fact without the facts to back it up.

Take a leaf out of Zorgon's book, back up what you're saying.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Imagir

 

Sources?

You can't just state things as fact without the facts to back it up.

Take a leaf out of Zorgon's book, back up what you're saying.

Right, Chad, FACTS.
This is only one source.......

US Patent No. 4.686.605 - Method and apparatus for altering a region in the earth's atmosphere, ionosphere, and/or magnetosphere.
Inventors: Eastlund; Bernard J. (Spring, TX)
Assignee: APTI, Inc. (Los Angeles, CA)
Appl. No.: 690333
Filed: January 10, 1985
Current U.S. Class: 361/231; 89/1.11; 244/158R; 380/59
Intern'l Class: H05B 006/64; H05C 003/00; H05H 001/46
Field of Search: 361/230,231 244/158 R 376/100 89/1.11 380/59

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

System H.A.A.R.P is a project to modify the terrestrial climate, going to quite manipulate the electromagnetic field with the use of waves ELF (Extreme Low Frequencies). At page 19 of the license that is to the base of project H.A.A.R.P., “Method and instrument in order to alter an area in the atmosphere, ionosphere and/or magnetosphere”,

Quote:
“It is suggested also to release wide barium clouds in the magnetosphere so that the photo ionization will increase the density of the cold plasma, in such a way to produce an electron precipitation through an increased interaction whistler-mode.”

According to this license, therefore, the plasma increases of density if it enters in contact with the Barium.

How they can be created of Artificial Barium Clouds in the magnetosphere?
The simpler method seems through uses of appropriate Airplane.

Chemtrails. Yes, I believe that can also be called CHEMTRAILS

[edit on 24-9-2009 by Imagir]

Originally posted by Imagir
Hundreds of licenses exist regarding the climatic control. Some of they can easy be found through a search on Google Patents or directly from official site US Patent. In some of these licenses it is spoken explicitly about spraying of chemical substances in the atmosphere citing BARIUM and ALUMINUM.

Techniques of manipulation and climatic control that have use of of chemical substances scattered in the air by military airplane tankers.
The same chemical substances who serve to system H.A.A.R.P
in order to upgrade own functionalities.

The European Parliament and Russia has denounced the system H.A.A.R.P., defining it a very dangerous military weapon.

Oh BS, Norway and Russia have not criticized HAARP, thats just something you chemtrail believers make up and tell people. Norway has a very similar verson of HAARP.

I am pretty sure KC-130 and KC-10 tankers are a bit busy with wartime ops, to go up there sprinkling pixie dust all around. Of course chemmie have yet to actually show us a pic of modified aircraft. Do you think that it goes through the engines? Or are the fuel tanks just filled with power?

And if you are claiming is refueling aircraft, well the other guy on here showed pics of airliners. Its almost like you chemmies think every aircraft out there is a possible chemtrail aircraft. One chemtrail promoter says it is military planes, another will say it is airliners, another says that it is UFOs flown by reptilians, and others claim that magical sylphs are actually eating the chemtrails.

One thing never changes, when chemtrail believers try to talk about aviation, they get most everything wrong. They havent even learned yet what chaff is, yet that has been used since WW2. They think air refueling is just a ruse for chemtrails too, and they have yet to explain how a grid = spraying. Apaprently there is a right and wrong angle for aircraft paths to intersect

reply to post by firepilot


European Parliament.RELATION A4-0005/99 (14 January 1999)
"on the atmosphere, the emergency and foreign politics
Commission for the foreign policies, the emergency and politics of defense"
on. Maj Britt Theorin
on. Olsson,
Commission for the protection of the atmosphere, the public health and the protection of the customers. (*Procedure “Hughes”)

In particular about HAARP, paragraphs N. 7, 26,27,28,29,30 of this resolution.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by Imagir]

Originally posted by Imagir
Quote:
“It is suggested also to release wide barium clouds in the magnetosphere so that the photo ionization will increase the density of the cold plasma, in such a way to produce an electron precipitation through an increased interaction whistler-mode.”

Magnetosphere

Earths Atmosphere

Big difference.

there is no such thing as chemtrails........i have the intelligence and facts to back this up.......and if you don't agree then i will post 50 plus responses using said intelligence and "facts" against you

while were looking at official sources for things that are denied to exist....can someone point me out to some gov't or regulatory agency findings that describe the amount of corruption and gross bribes and payoff's in the financial system...gee i couldn't find any.....this financial crisis must just be something no one could see coming....

these arguments come down to belief system and what is facts for one vs. facts for another.....some have faith in official sources for things that others deem are "conspiracy's"....if it is not from an official source then it is "conjecture" or a "hoax" or unsubstantiated to them......some mod started a good thread on this line of thinking......about the frailty of logic behind the "show me the proof" crowd bascially stating the obvious using the metaphor that any good criminal who get's away with a crime does not LEAVE EVIDENCE....so "debunking" something that is denied/conspiracy because there is a lack of offical evidence is a stretch......but what is one to do...put blind faith in conspiracy's.........study for hours brain-storming the plausibility of alternative theory and how they connect together.....I think sometimes people just need to realize that their opinion should be open-minded.....i guess some people are not comfortable saying well maybe....maybe not...they need to believe they KNOW and then strengthen their belief by trying to convince others.

But the thing about life is this ....life is what you make of it.....what you believe.....and having strong beliefs in something is necessary to have a strong belief system which keeps people sane... so changing your modus operandi is not something i expect from reading my .02$

[edit on 24-9-2009 by cpdaman]

reply to post by neformore


Absolutely right neformore.

But this is only an example of how these procedures interact in heavy way with the terrestrial atmosphere.
In other licenses it is spoken about "upper atmosphere" or simply "atmosphere".
But essential thing issue is that ATMOSPHERE is a FIELD of numerous and… dangerous EXPERIMENTS...
Here other patents.....

US No. 4.686.605
US No. 6.315.213
US No. 5.286.979
US No. 4.948.050
US No. 4.412.654
US No. 3.813.875
US No. 5.003.186
US No. 3.899.144
US No. 5.224.663

reply to post by Imagir


Not to disparage all patents, but the existence of one doesn't mean the underlying idea has been, or will be, put to use. Some patents are certifiably bone-headed....case in point:

A method of swing on a swing is disclosed, in which a user positioned on a standard swing suspended by two chains from a substantially horizontal tree branch induces side to side motion by pulling alternately on one chain and then the other. United States Patent 6368227

The point being that one can scour the Internet and find all kind of patents....but doing so doesn't truly indicate that the idea has any real use.

reply to post by MrPenny


I don't understand.
The point is't "the patent" and "which patent" (who knows....).
The point is that exist that technology and the HAARP projects use that kind of technology.
Ant for its own better operation HAARP uses BARIUM, Aluminum and other chemical substances.
The European Parliament and Russia have admonished the USA on use of HAARP technology.

Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw
I agree.

I havn't looked into the whole "chemtrail" thing, but there is no doubt that a rocket was used to shoot chemicals into the atmosphear in order to creat an artificial cloud.

I don't really see how the skeptics could even attempt to say this didn't happen

Straw Man. They don't. The experiment was intended to help understand these:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d3c3fb9de278.jpg[/atsimg]

And see if, as suspected, the likes of the space shuttle may be partially responsible for the increase in observation of noctilucent clouds in recent years.

, and as I belive Zorgon said, If they did this then it's silly to think they havn't tested this sort of thing with planes before using rockets.

Straw Man. No-one has said they haven't.

But what most people call chemtrails are normal contrails produced by commercial airliners, and well known for the past 50 or more years.

It's a bit like arguing that because there was a nuclear test which produced a big cloud, then all cumulonumbus clouds are produced by a secret govt operation

What we do know is that cirrus clouds - which is what contrails (or chemtrails as some call them) are - have increased in frequency as air traffic has increased. And this is simply because aircraft produce exhaust. Just like your car. More aircraft means more exhaust mean more contrails. Not surprising most 'chemtrails' occur in areas of heavy commercial aircraft activity!

If the temperature and humidity at 30,000ft was the same at sea level then every car would be producing what some call 'chemtrails'. Cars do produce exhaust fumes - but we don't really see them. Such fumes tend to occur though where humans breathe air. And IMHO are rather more worrying than similar occurences at 30,000ft. But no-one raises this as a big issue. I wonder why?

Maybe it;s just a case of "out of sight, out of mind"? We can't see car exhaust fumes but we can see contrails produced by aircraft exhaust. So whilst invisible car exhaust kills us we blame it all on (relatively) innoculous aircraft exhaust which we can see?

[edit on 24-9-2009 by Essan]

Originally posted by Imagir
reply to post by MrPenny

 

I don't understand.

That appears to be obvious....my apologies I didn't make myself better understood.

Regardless of what you think the "point" is....here's the point; the existence of a patent for any technology is a poor indicator that the technology is actually in use.

It's a suggestion....try not to rely on the existence of patents to support a position that posits the real world existence of such technology. It is poor supporting documentation.