What in the World are They Spraying [Official Trailer]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by sandwiches

 

Update: Just for fun, I checked out the poster of that YouTuvbe vid up above....name is "TrutherD1" ( ..seems I've seen THAT name mentioned, recently, on another ATS thread, another equally ridiculous topic...what a "funny" coincidence!!

).

SO, as experiment, just for grins and giggles, made attempt to post comment on video. Well, surprise! (Not really)...like MOST of the YT "chemtrail" videos..."Comment Being Reviewed" pops up.

Seems the 'true believers' don't want their utter nonsense tripe being sullied by facts, and contributions from people who know better. YuP!! All they want is the 'sheep' to bleat in agreement. Boot-lickers to suckle at their feet. Fantasy world begets fantasy (and denial). Very, very sad and tragic.



Yeah, I've run into him and his kind before, too. They cannot presents facts, they cannot refute the things brought before them as an explanation, and they cannot allow anyone to sully their message as being "truth". Then they proclaim that "everyone" is learning and listening to their message. I've done several counts though, actually counting which videos are really about "chemtrails", and are not reposts or something tagged as "chemtrails" because it's all a part of their paranoid delusion, but actual real, new videos...and have found only 30% or less actually qualify. So they exagerate their numbers, the importance of their "intel", and the amount of "evidence" available. Some theory.

This is about the thread about chemtrails. Saying Plaines are spraying stuff in the air that when falls to the ground stops things from growing. I remember reading somewhere how farmers were paid to not farm in places. And to grow only the amount they was told to grow and no more. Something to do with keeping the cost of food on a continuous upscale in price. Now I read here about this spraying and I cant help but to add two plus two = 4.

reply to post by weedwhacker

According to NASA contrail science, -35C plus humidity and atmospheric pressure are required for contrails to form.

We should not see contrails in clear blue, warm dry skies.

Other planes that day were seen sporting no contrail at all.

reply to post by sandwiches


?????

We should not see contrails in clear blue, warm dry skies.

Did you personally go up to FL300, or FL310...or FL350, or any latitude in between, and take the temperature? Was it 'warm' up there???

(Rhetorical question...here, let me add some more reading material...)

Actually, found a picture (everyone likes pictures...):



AND, then...well, you can just use the 'next' buttons on that website and get an education, but HERE is the next image, just to hammer it home:



Oh, and you DO know that water vapor is invisible to the naked eye, right?? Here, first step in you lesson on science is gonig to be this Wiki article. I know, they show a photo labeled "water vapor", ostensibly supposed to be a photo of 'vapor' (but, since you really can't see it in the gaseous state, it would be a bloody boring photo...so what you see there, is a bit of condensed vapor...which means it's already forming into liquid droplets):

en.wikipedia.org...

Read, and try ot understand the physics of water, its gas state, its liguid and frozen states, and how clouds form. It is EVERYTHING everyone has been telling, since day one, regarding contrails.

Only difference is, contrail formation is induced by the airplanes. Naturally-occuring clouds will also be created, but by normal forces of nature. Contrails just mimic clouds.




[edit on 8 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker

To be sure, we can use atmospheric sounding data and the NASA appleman chart.

Typical contrail duration is seen to max out at about 2 mins. This is supported by various contrail studies of commercial airliners. Unmarked military planes were seen living far different trails.

The conditions required for indefinite persistence are very specific, requiring temperature, humidity AND a certain amount of particulate matter. This is not taken into account by common contrail science. The NASA appleman chart's "Max T Persistence" line does not mean indefinite persistence. While accurate to 98% predicting NO contrails, it is only 25-35% accurate at predicting YES contrails.

So what conditions are required for indefinite persistence?

[edit on 2010-6-8 by sandwiches]

reply to post by sandwiches

So what conditions are required for indefinite persistence?

Same conditions that result in clouds. Unless someone is also going to deny the existence of clouds, too?

People focus a little too much on the 'Appleman' chart...and think that it is the ONLY method of accurately predicting contrails. It isn't the ONLY method, and it is by no means ALL-INCLUSIVE and all encompassing.

Wasn't hard, took only moments of searching (and just the tip of the iceberg):

Here are the references, I copied from the END of this document (A 'User's Guide' for a computer calculator for contrail formation):

VI. References
Appleman, H. S. 1953: The Formation of Exhaust Condensation Trails by Jet
Aircraft, Bulletin American Meteorological Society, 34, p 14-20.
Busen, R. and Schumann, U., 1995: Visible contrail formation from fuels with
Different sulfur content. Geophysic. Res. Letters, 22, p 1357-1360.
IPCC 1999: Aviation and the global atmosphere. A special report of IPCC
working groups I and III, Cambridge University Press, 373pp
Schmidt, E. 1941: Die Entstehung von Eisnebel aus den Auspuffgasen von
Flugmotoren. Schriften der Deutschen Akademie der Luftfahrtforschung,
Verlag R. Oldenbourg, Muenchen und Berlin, Heft 44, p 1-15.
Schrader, M.L. 1997: Calculations of aircraft contrail formation critical
temperatures. J. Appl. Meteorol. ,36, 1725-1729

[edit on 8 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker

Same conditions that result in clouds. Unless someone is also going to deny the existence of clouds, too?

You do realize clouds form at ground level, correct? Where is all the additional particulate coming from?

People focus a little too much on the 'Appleman' chart...and think that it is the ONLY method of accurately predicting contrails.

Again, it is not accurate at predicting YES contrails. It is accurate at predicting NO contrails. When you're dealing with contrails, don't you think you should use recognized contrail science?? By the way, in my NASA contrail science thread, I discuss updates to the chart which was reviewed in 1992.

It isn't the ONLY method, and it is by no means ALL-INCLUSIVE and all encompassing.

What other methods can we use? (No peeking at my thread!)

How about common sense and observation?

reply to post by sandwiches


You posted this only TWELVE MINUTES after I provided a lot of lengthy information for you to read, and THAT would have answered this question:

Where is all the additional particulate coming from?

But, this is a gem:

You do realize clouds form at ground level, correct?

What, exactly, is the point, there??? That stratus clouds form, and sometimes so low to the ground that we call it "fog"?? Are the goalposts on wheels, now??
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NO...stop!!

I see exactly what you're doing. Parroting the nonsense from that particular website, and repeating their lies and misinformation almost verbatum.

Why not try to understand, by asking IN YOUR OWN WORDS for a change?

Or...no, won't work with you, this much is obvious by now. NO....better it just IGNORE the science, and throw in with the pseudo-nonsense wannabe "scientists" hucksters who spout this crap. Yeah, believe them, but don't pay attention to those who actually KNOW stuff.

There was a time, in ages past, when the travelling "medicine man" would appear in the village, and offer his 'potions' to 'cure' anything, any illness....sometimes these charlatans would also promise to "make it rain", if there was a drought...or any number of things, whatever the 'need' was. He could read the mood of the townspeople, and scam them as necessary.

These "chemtrail" promoters are no different...but just as clever, and they certainly know how to milk gullible, trusting sheep....enjoy your cheese.



[edit on 8 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker

You're tricky.. you added those references after I had already started my reply. You did not just suggest I consider the IPCC? Didn't climate-gate teach you anything?

The appleman chart is 98% accurate at predicting NO contrails. Prove it's not and I'll consider your sources. Again, it was reviewed in 1992. It's -35C requirement is clearly sufficient for determining whether or not contrails should be forming in your area.

But why argue science when you can see chemtrails vs. contrails in the same sky almost any day of the week (at least near me).

Look up.

reply to post by sandwiches

The appleman chart is 98% accurate at predicting NO contrails.

Oh...whatever, if YOU say so, must be true. WHO CARES?!?

I am 100% accurate in predicting NO contrails too. I predict NO contrials at 10,000 feet MSL.

There. 100% accuracy. Big deal.

reply to post by sandwiches


There you go....not understanding the complexities and variables...again.

The appleman chart.... was reviewed in 1992. It's -35C requirement is clearly sufficient for determining whether or not contrails should be forming in your area.

Quick hint: AFTER you've done some learning, come along and tell us what the temperatures are at altitude...say, oh.....ABOVE FL280, just to narrow it down (since FL280 is usually just about the lowest cruising altitude for large jets...rare they'd be that low, because it increases the fuel consumption rate. BUT, jumbos, when very, very heavy, sometimes must "step-climb", and will gradually change cruise altitudes, as they burn fuel and their gross weight goes down).

Mean tme, here's some MORE to learn from: (Perhaps you could do yourself, and US a favor and go take some flying lessons, or something! THEN you will get a good dose of meteorology. But, based on your posts, and beliefs...on second thought... :shk: ...)

www.pilotoutlook.com...






[edit on 8 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker

Altitude should be determined with triangulation, radar, in-flight, etc. You can then use that data with the appleman chart.

Please keep an open mind and continue your investigation.

reply to post by stars15k

Well, surprise! (Not really)...like MOST of the YT "chemtrail" videos..."Comment Being Reviewed" pops up.

Yeah, well, I had been commenting a lot on search results for "chemtrails", so regular (500 msgs/week, logged with a program) deniers were filling up my comments.

I have since relaxed my efforts to share what I've learned about chemtrails and have become less targeted. If you check the latest half dozen or so videos you will find no such blocking.

In a few short months I've captured pretty much everything.

reply to post by sandwiches


How then do you explain this study of contrails conducted during the 2003 European heatwave?

reply to post by Essan

It would appear to be long and uninteresting.

How do you explain such drastic, random, impossible changes in the atmosphere seen in thousands of videos all over the net?

reply to post by sandwiches

Altitude should be determined with triangulation, radar, in-flight, etc. You can then use that data with the appleman chart.

You really don't understand, do you??

In 'altitude' above...do you mean to determine the altitude of the clouds and/or contrails?

First...oh, I'm all ears. Describe how to 'triangulate' for cloud height! No, I know how it COULD be done...rather, I'd like you to show that it IS done, by meterologists, on a regular basis. (Hint: Silly notion, really!)

Second....radar! No, unfortunately for your fantasy, radar will not paint cirrus clouds, nor contrails. Radar waves don't reflect off of ice crystals...liquid water, yes. Big drops of water, surrounding cores of ice (aka developing hail)? Yes. Mountains? Yes. But, not ice.

Third...in-flight. Well! NOW you're catching on. Quite often weatehr observations (especially for aviation dissemination) use PIREPS (pilot reports) to determine clud heights. ALTHOUGH, when a meteorologist looks up and observes a cirrus formation, he/she also knows how to estimate its altitude, BASED on the type of cloud form they see!! (Haven't you been reading my links?)

Oh, and STILL with Appleman? Now I know you aren't reading my links...Appleman is ONE tool, but not a complete tool.



But, the irony inherent in this statement is amazing:

Please keep an open mind and continue your investigation.

MY 'investigation'?? I (and others) are the ones trying to teach YOU!

Because...I have seen hundreds and hundreds of contrails, in my lifetime, not only from the perspective of having LEARNED, already, about them...not only have I seen them from below, as YOU only can...but also from other perspectives --- that is, ABOVE them, looking DOWN on them below me...from the SIDE, looking across at them, and from INSIDE, as I've flown through them.

Try getting a better education on this subject, it will be less embarrassing for you in future.

Originally posted by sandwiches
How do you explain such drastic, random, impossible changes in the atmosphere seen in thousands of videos all over the net?

In what way are they drastic, random or impossible? And by impossible I assume you mean inexplicable by meteorologists and atmospheric scientists? But have you actually asked such people if what these videos show is possible?

(and btw your local TV weather presenter is probably not a meteorologist)

reply to post by sandwiches


YOUR reply to Essan, when he offered something to help you learn was:

It would appear to be long and uninteresting.

....yet you had nerve to admonish ME to have an "open mind" and keep "investigating"?

Truly, mind-numblingly :shk:

Oh, and the YT video...I watched with sound off, but I only needed to waste a minute and a half of my time, not the nearly four minutes...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

BTW...yet again, I went to that video on YouTube, and ONCE AGAIN, the person who posted it is filtering comments. Tried to post, but get "Comment Pending Approval".

WHY IS IT, do you think, that MOST of these YT "chemtrail" posters do NOT want any comments that are other than complimentary, and agreeable to their paranoid delusions???

ANY ideas on that? Hmmmm?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


I saw very normal, average contrails. SO WHAT?

Contrails. Youcansee them forming, as is the case, BEHIND the jets that are flying by...

Contrails. (repeat after me...)...Contrails.

[edit on 9 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by Essan

In what way are they drastic, random or impossible? And by impossible I assume you mean inexplicable by meteorologists and atmospheric scientists? But have you actually asked such people if what these videos show is possible?

(and btw your local TV weather presenter is probably not a meteorologist)

Wow, very presumptious. We don't have to agree. I just thought we were having fun asking each other stupid questions.

reply to post by weedwhacker

....yet you had nerve to admonish ME to have an "open mind" and keep "investigating"?

I'm already familiar with the paper. I was simply feeling sarcastic and humourous.

WHY IS IT, do you think, that MOST of these YT "chemtrail" posters do NOT want any comments that are other than complimentary, and agreeable to their paranoid delusions??? ANY ideas on that? Hmmmm?

I've got a little experiment you can do that will prove you are delusional. Search YouTube for "chemtrails". In the first two pages of results, comment on each video. How many times did you see Comment Pending Approval? Zero? PS. Calm down. lol.

Contrails. Youcansee them forming, as is the case, BEHIND the jets that are flying by...

And of course, sometimes very obviously not even made by planes.

Contrails. (repeat after me...)...Contrails.

Keep telling yourself they are contrails. Maybe it will become true.

reply to post by sandwiches


WoW!

A video, of clouds "not even made by planes"!!!

AND, you fell for that crap? Why, because of "Cliff Carnicorn"? He's a nutjob (or a charlatan...or both).

At :10 -- A cloud, perhaps even a contrail fragment. "10 minutes later"? So, the clouds are still there, look perfectly normal. They stand out because of the angle of the Sun...

At :20 --?? Clouds. "5 minutes later"? Clouds. What's the point?

At :34 -- Clouds. IF you have never seen clouds with that sort of "washboard" appearance, then you haven't been looking long enough. It is very, very normal.

At :43 -- More clouds, and the setting SUN (again)...really, why bother to go on, his video is crap, IF trying to show anything other than normal coulds


Looky...not hard to find pictues, on the ole' Web:

altocumulus clouds

More

and again...

undulatus altocumulus

At sunset