chemtrails cloaking nibiru?

reply to post by tsurfer2000h



Okay. Tell me, what do those photos represent/show/suggest to you?

reply to post by ZombieJesus


Here I think I found your chemtrails in question.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b68e4e729edd.jpg[/atsimg]

Oh, those are just contrails my bad..Here is a link to see more interesting contrails..

flickrhivemind.net...

i have just one question,

everynight..and i mean everynight..no matter how hazy it is outside
i see a star,
been seening it everytimes im outside at night for the past year or so,
what is it? venus..ive heard but im not totally sure...
what do you guys think?

reply to post by gateway30


i been thinking about this ever since i heard about nibiru..also where im from

This is probably the best 'busted' video I've come across so far.
In this amazing video (it's part 2 of 2) you can see some pretty strange flying around by a few planes. They are not flying from A to B but filling the sky in one area with whatever mess they put up there. This is not a collection of shots but a single video camera filming the planes as they fly around in one take.

It is plainly clear and quite obvious they are spraying something in the sky, they turn it on and off. When they are not spraying you see they are still making contrails, dissapating quite quickly as contrails do, then they start up the spray again and it's altogether quite different.

reply to post by Human_Alien


What do they mean to me? Do you really want me to answer that question? Well you still insist on calling contrails chemtrails and still can't provide any answers to the questions that are asked about chemtrails. Is that a satisfactory answer for you?

reply to post by Hammaraxx


Excuse me, Sir or Madam.....regarding that video?

Not withstanding the horrible soundtrack.....as I watched, what I saw were airplanes in holding patterns.

Know what a holding pattern is?

en.wikipedia.org...(aviation)

www.thefreedictionary.com...

pilotsweb.com...


Every pilot who continues to learn, and advance towards their Instrument Rating learns what a holding pattern is.

I got MY Instrument Rating in 1977....so, I happen to know a bit about it.....of course, since I ALSO flew for a major airline for over twenty years....well....it all adds up.

Helps to understand, when you have the experience. Just wish some would pay attention to those of us WITH the experience......

reply to post by Human_Alien


Why are you raising strawman arguments? It's obvious you are trying to avoid the issue.

The issue is that you claim to know people that know the answer. Why haven't you asked them berfore. All of this sniveling whining about not doing experiments yourself has nothing to do with the issue of asking someone for an answer. Instead you offered to play middle man and ask me to do the work.

It seems that you are working extra hard to avoid providing any evidence for these ludicrous claims of chem trails.

reply to post by gateway30


OP, I hope your ban is temporary because I want you to see/read this.
U2U when you're back!

Hubble telescope zeroes in on green blob in space
news.yahoo.com...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Hammaraxx

 

Know what a holding pattern is?

Thank you for those links.
Apart from the first one, they are very informative and quite supportive to the idea that something is strange about the flying in the video. I happen to live quite close to an international airport, I know of holding patterns, I didn't know as much as I did prior to following your links though, I've only flown an areochute, they don't require instuments.

With your experience, how would you rate the behaviour of these pilots in a holding pattern?
They appear to be far less than 1000 feet apart at times.
They don't seem very good at sticking to a pattern do they, perhaps they were distracted by that horrible soundtrack?

Main issue though:
The on and off trails and the two different types of trails, one that sticks around and the type that dissipates very quickly, why is that?

I would rather it be a hoax too, but I long for the beautiful blue skies I remember 20 years ago.

reply to post by Hammaraxx

The main things that make me suspicious: stop start trails, the forming of grids, the fluorescent colour of them if the (sun is in the right spot - you know what I mean), they don't fade like they 'should' but turn into overcast clouds where there was previously none, they bugger up a beautiful blue sky (I can't remember the last time I saw a real blue sky free of clouds), AND there is a history of using planes to spray stuff for all sorts of reasons, not all bad.

Let me see if I can help you out a little bit and help you understand the things that you have mentioned above..

First the stop start trails..

I am sure you know what a contrail is correct? Okay then this explains a bit on the trails you are seeing that starts then stops.

Since the engines are on constantly, it seems a bit odd when you see contrails with gaps in them, or even contrails that stop and start. If the engine is pumping out a constant amount of water, then why is the trail not constant? This puzzle is sometimes seized on by people who think that persistent contrails are actually “chemtrails”, or some kind of deliberate spraying operation. But it’s actually very simply. The amount of water in the exhaust is pretty constant, but the amount of moisture in the air is not. The humidity varies with altitude, and a layer of low humidity can be sandwiched between two layers of high humidity. As a plane climbs or descends through this layer, then the trail will only form in the areas of high humidity, and so look like it was “switched off” in the area of low humidity. You can get the same effect with temperature. A warm layer of air can actually lay on top of a colder layer in what is called an “inversion” (you’ll hear this on the weather sometimes, referred to as an “inversion layer”). When a plane flies through this inversion layer, the trail can be “broken”.

contrailscience.com...

Well I could sit here and copy/paste a bunch of information for you,but I will give you the link that should help you understand more of what you may be seeing.

contrailscience.com...

There are those that want to say that the site I linked to is all BS and yet the site does explain very simply the things that you are trying to figure out.I hope this will help you out.

reply to post by Hammaraxx

......perhaps they were distracted by that horrible soundtrack?

Funny...

But, seriously...answers below:

They appear to be far less than 1000 feet apart at times.

I didn't check the source of the video, to get location....BUT, 1,000 feet vertical separation in holding patterns?? Quite normal! The defining altitude used to be 28,000 feet and below....1,000 feet vertical was normal separation for many years....above 29,000 (FL 290) was 2,000 feet....BUT about ten (or more) years ago, the RVSM standards (Reduced Vertical Separation Minimums) have become more common. Even ABOVE FL 290. RVSM-certified? 1,000 feet separation.

Next:

They don't seem very good at sticking to a pattern do they,,,,,

Check, again, the holding pattern links. (NOT sure, since I didn't analyze them fully....so I'll tell you, and sorry if it is repeat info...)...


The "standard" holding pattern has various definitions, and depends on altitude....AND airplane type. For small, General Aviation types, the expectation of ATC is the "standard rate turn" for the 180s....airliners, due to their faster speed, and limited bank angles, CANNOT turn at "standard rate" (3 degrees per second turn rate)...it works out to roughly "half" standard rate. ATC knows this, and airspace allowances are made to accommodate. THIS IS WHY SOME HOLDING PATTERNS HAVE SPECIFIC "MAX" AIRSPEEDS ASSIGNED> (for airliners, and other turbojets).

There are the "MAX" airspeeds, per various altitudes (as you look at the links) for both piston and turbojets, as you will see...those speeds define the boundaries of the airspace requirements, FOR the holding patterns. AND, they also allow for the various "entry" methods, that may exceed the actual hold patterns....AND, they allow for wind drift, and other mistakes of pilots who do NOT have INS/GPS equipment onboard.....

....and, speaking of INS/GPS....those systems can integrate into our autoflight systems....(and is what we use) ....and when assigned a hold, instead of the 1 1/2 minute outbound leg of the oval "racetrack" (refer, again, to the links)....we can ask ATC, and be granted, specific leg LENGTHS....a common request is for "10", "15" or even "20 mile legs". THAT can be programmed into the Flight Management Computer (FMC), when in the "HOLD" page menu....and the autopilot then flies what you've programmed....AND, it compensates for winds, and flies an actual ground track (which makes ATC happy, since that is what THEY see and expect).

ABSENT that technology, flying a holding pattern is more of a mental and technical challenge, IF you want to be accurate....you use the knowledge you can grasp while following the inbound course (based on a VOR signal, for example) and noting your heading,in relation to the course....this is the angle you need, for whatever prevailing winds exist. THEN, you make the turn for the 'outbound' leg....and, it is either timed (ONE minute at low altitudes, one and one half up higher...OR, if there is DME, a defined leg length ---- much as is done with the INS/GPS ---- and (if you are "dead reckoning", with no GPS) you have to include the wind correction angle you noted before, on the inbound leg....PLUS/MINUS (as appropriate) based on what you guessed affected you in the 180 +/- turn....to account for any drift, either way....it is a learned skill....and is harder to write about than to just DO! (Of course....the autopilot, and modern flight management systems, do it for you...IF you program it correctly in the first place...SO, yo have to have a mental picture, to be correct...that is basic.....).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I just found this video, and it's flippin' HILARIOUS, with the ATC communications that start and end it....a controller with an obvious New York accent (I'm guessing at JFK) frustrated by some foreign pilots.... ("TAM" is an airline out of Brazil....they may or may not still be in business, I will have to check....).

Anyway, in the middle is a good lesson (for the aspiring General Aviation pilot) who wants to learn holding patterns....just the way to visualize the entries.



(THE key, as I always told MY students, is to be able to visualize what you are doing by picturing yourself as if looking DOWN from above. It is a key concept for ALL pilots to keep in mind, as well as the other dimensions of space and direction too. Helps if your situational awareness also includes North, as a reference....)

reply to post by weedwhacker
Thank you weedwhacker,
They are wonderful replies, you have explained holding patterns very well and yes, they could very well be using a holding pattern in that video. Your explanation of on and off contrails makes perfect sense too, however, I am still not entirely convinced these planes are not spraying something.

The on and off trails and the two different types of trails, one that sticks around and the type that dissipates very quickly, why is that?

The holding pattern video you embedded can account for the manurers, I didn't realise it could be so complex.
You may have very well exposed this 'chemtrail' video as normal behaviour, I'd still like to know why the certain type of trails (chem or con) can stay in the sky for longer than a sky writers message tends to when that didn't happen, ever, from my own observations until quite recently (past decade).

You don't deny that aircraft has been used for spraying many things in the past do you?
MoD test of aerial spraying over Norwich
US planes sprayed Wiltshire with Sarin
Inquiry into spray cancer claims
How can we be sure it's no longer going on?

reply to post by Hammaraxx

You don't deny that aircraft has been used for spraying many things in the past do you?

NO. Of course not.

However....when you pay very close attention to these three articles, you will notice that #1 and #3 actual both refer to the same events....BOTH from the 1960s....and further research will find that they were associated with Cold War studies of potential chemical warfare (from an enemy such as the USSR, at the time) and the patterns that might have prevailed....in order to develop a possible defense/response strategy.

#2 is news to me....I will guess it's on the same vein, however. IN any case, as I said.....FURTHER research into the distribution methods, and the materials in at least #1 and #3 will show that the procedure is NOTHING at all like is described by the current crop of "chemtrail" advocates.

In Cold War England, for example....the (on later examination, very bad idea) spraying, even IF thought ot be benign at the time...was down at LOW altitudes. In fact, SOME of the distribution of the test chemicals was done using lorries....trucks, driving at street level!!!

(BTW....IF that were the intent, is a MUCH better way of distribution, than from over seven miles above!!! Given the variables of winds, atmospheric turbulence, etc.....).

Your links, reproduced below, for reference:

MoD test of aerial spraying over Norwich
US planes sprayed Wiltshire with Sarin
Inquiry into spray cancer claims

How can we be sure it's no longer going on?

Many reasons.....not the least of which is the sheer implausibility of the concept AS SUGGESTED by the many, many so-called "chemtrail" claimants. THEY are confusing normal airliner contrails....period.

This has turned into an Internet version of the old "Urban Legend" idea. Similar, too, to the children's game of "secret". IN case you're not familiar: Where a "secret" is whispered around a table....and, after several tellings, the last person is asked to say what he/she was told....usually, the result does not resemble the initial information...as it passed from person to person.......

reply to post by weedwhacker
Again, thank you for your well thought reply,

Many reasons.....not the least of which is the sheer implausibility of the concept AS SUGGESTED by the many, many so-called "chemtrail" claimants.

I don't know about implausibility, dropping an Atomic bomb (two actually) on a civilian city should be extremely implausible, but that too happened. War? Are we not in one now?

THEY are confusing normal airliner contrails....period.

Absolutely, there a too many videos and pictures posted on the Internet that are obviously contrails. It is those videos that help discredit the idea that something is being sprayed. But again a contrail that stays in the sky for hours and becomes overcast clouds? c'mon.

This has turned into an Internet version of the old "Urban Legend" idea. Similar, too, to the children's game of "secret". IN case you're not familiar: Where a "secret" is whispered around a table....and, after several tellings, the last person is asked to say what he/she was told....usually, the result does not resemble the initial information...as it passed from person to person.......

I too played "secret" as a child, we knew it as "Chinese whispers", I don't know why. And yes, in most cases, the panic and jumping to conclusions that any trail left by aircraft is a 'chemtrail' by some, and some of the guesses as to what is going on is just noise.


The government or the aviation industry could easily put this to rest if they wanted to.
1) Observe type of aircraft and weather conditions that allow the creation of long lasting, cloud forming contrails (we'll stick with that term for now).
2) Reproduce it.
3) Invite media and others interested to examine said aircraft before flight, using al sorts of chemical testing etc.
4) Take air quality samples regularly through the next 24 hour period.
5) Have one group of media go up in the said aircraft to verify the actual plane being witnessed by the other media group on the ground is the one they have vetted.
6) Publish the results and make a really BIG deal about it.

An argument for not doing so would be "why entertain crack pots?"
Well, one reason alone, crackpots under a delusion can do some pretty dumb things, why not nip that in the bud, so to speak?

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


Not quite the representation you asked about. If I remember correctly you were talking about looking up and seeing that lattice work.
Giving me a satellite image is comparing apples to orange.

Please post a classic photo of the criss-crossed vapor trails (more than 6 trails in one picture) then please explain it again, to the audience what we're looking at.
Oh, please choose one of those rural photos. Out in the country.....away from any major airport in case you were inclined to go that route. Thanks!

reply to post by Hammaraxx


Very nicely put. Your mannerism is to be commended and applauded. I guess I'm burnt out from going at it with the same old people thread after thread, week after week. And my biggest problem is, why are they on these threads anyway. I just don't understand it.

If they know the 'truth' (that they're just contrails) then I don't understand what's it to them what I think?

But the fact that they hang out on these chemtrail threads, ready to ambush any chemtrail talk, really sets the suspicion bar pretty high.

There is no room to deny this phenomenon (whether it's chemical or some innocent new-fangled kerosene fuel that's now being used. Not to mention, the planes making U-turns .....). But to sit on the side lines and make us look like we're nothing but crazy confused conspiracy theorists again.......gives reason to pause and wonder what their REAL objects are!

If it's to educate us and prove that we're all just mistaking then...they are the wrong people to do the job. Whose going think a bunch of anonymous posters are qualified?

Like you suggested, it would need to come from professionals in a reenactment scenario.....with scientists, a camera crew, an AP reporter and perhaps a statement from the POTUS in an attempt to solidify some of his country which seems to be growing more divided with each passing day.

Originally posted by Human_Alien
And my biggest problem is, why are they on these threads anyway. I just don't understand it.

Because your claims are wrong or, at the very least, unsupported even by your own purported evidence.

If they know the 'truth' (that they're just contrails) then I don't understand what's it to them what I think?

If you know the "truth" (that they are "chem cocktails"), and you claim that there are "thousands of scholars" who know this, then I don't understand why you can't provide any links to peer-reviewed material supporting your position.

But the fact that they hang out on these chemtrail threads, ready to ambush any chemtrail talk, really sets the suspicion bar pretty high.

Attacking the character or motivation of people who disagree with you isn't equivalent to attacking their arguments and rebuttals.

There is no room to deny this phenomenon (whether it's chemical or some innocent new-fangled kerosene fuel that's now being used. Not to mention, the planes making U-turns

.....).

Saying, "There is no room to deny this phenomenon..." is not a substitute for supporting your own claims.

Did you even bother to examine weedwhacker's explanation of holding patterns?

But to sit on the side lines and make us look like we're nothing but crazy confused conspiracy theorists again.......gives reason to pause and wonder what their REAL objects are!

You can wonder all you want, but wondering isn't evidence.

If it's to educate us and prove that we're all just mistaking then...they are the wrong people to do the job. Whose going think a bunch of anonymous posters are qualified?

I could say the same thing about your claims. If you truly think the evidence is so firmly on your side, then where is it?

Like you suggested, it would need to come from professionals in a reenactment scenario.....with scientists, a camera crew, an AP reporter and perhaps a statement from the POTUS in an attempt to solidify some of his country which seems to be growing more divided with each passing day.

Why should anyone bother to engage in an expensive "reenactment scenario" to debunk claims you can't even provide evidence for?

reply to post by UndeadDinosaur

Why should anyone bother to engage in an expensive "reenactment scenario" to debunk claims you can't even provide evidence for?

Are you not concerned by some of the things delusional people do?
Shootings, bombings etc
Imagine if one of them shot down a civilian plane, even a military one for that matter?

If you had the ability and the finance to provide proof once and for all that the whole chemtrail thing is just ignorance and they were just harmless contrails, wouldn't you?
To save one poor sole from the torment of their own mind, or one or more being killed for it?

I dearly hope you'd say "yes!".

reply to post by Human_Alien

You appear to have exhausted any real contribution to add to the discussion and you've been frank with us that you have no idea what a chem trail contains.

You think something odd is happening and you best evidence appears to be that others recognize the fallacies in your thinking and want to help you learn something.

You ask for experts and list reporters and POTUS. You could figure this out on your own with the good information supplied to you, but that would require you to make an effort. That's all it takes - your initiative to learn.