Stratospheric Aerosol Geo-engineering aka "Chemtrails" DEBUNK THIS !!!!

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


Dude your source looks like more of an ad for weight loss or an infomercial. If you are going to try to convince us of a fuel that has chemicals in it to make chemtrails, or contrails...., try again. I am not buying the information you provided. There are regulations by the government of what you can put in jet fuel.

I been very busy lately and haven't had much time to spend online. But in the wake of Hurricane Irene, I wanted to post these 2 video documentaries .... "Owning the Weather"

Discovery Science


Chemtrail research

I just finished reading the entire thread and boy am I exhausted

Mathias you are a brave soul for initiating and following through this thread and fending off the usual attack dogs that so routinely infiltrate and attempt to derail such threads. It is analgous to an inquisition. Now I don't believe you are a scientist of a related sort and many of your detractors seem to have some sort of scientific background that may or may not be a red flag in itself. You are attempting to connect the dots and present a very compelling case especially with regards to the potentiality of conflict of interest re; Batelle.

Of course every jet in our skies do not leave a persistent contrail, but from my own experience, there are some shady aircrafts that leave them(chemtrails?) I live right next to an airport and am along many flight paths. The strange northward bound ones that leave this "persistent contrail" fly at a high to very high altitude and no sooner than they pass do the skies cloud over to a grey overcast that has historically been non-existent in my parts. I can see if you live in England or somewhere it is always cloudy that you would never notice this, but my neck of the woods has historically been one of the sunniest places on the continent and over the last few years not so much.

The funny thing about these anomalous aircrafts are the routes...there are no major airports that aircrafts of this magnitude should be flying to! They are flying directly into the arctic with the next stop being Siberia???

Another coincidental note is that after these jets fly over and 20 minutes later the skies get grey (from what initally was a crystal clear morning) I hear non-stop military jets/fighters all day long. These "contrails"/"cloud seeding"/"Chafing", are obviously done to hide or cloak military aircraft and other aeronautical secrecies.

Another possibility is the aluminum/barium atmospheric deposits that is to combat some very strange goings on around the arctic with regards to ozone and uv radiation. Agian the sun and atmosphere are not the same as they once were to the average layman. Magnetic pole shifts and/or arctic environmental changes may account for some of the secrecy relating to this clandestine operations.

The Canadian Government has put a muzzle on Environment Canada's Scientists in a suppression of information reserved for fascist states. What is so secretive?? This links a summary of a recent Environment Canada Report.

news.nationalpost.com...-97538

An editorial questioning the suppression of information.


www.thestarphoenix.com...

Scientists are human after all and a majority of their livelihood and funding come from specific sources, all which have an agenda. This agenda will never be public knowledge, highly compartmentalized, and alot of research and information will always be suppressed to benefit certain corporations. We must all continue to be quasi journalists in the absence and decline of mainstream journalism, and try to connect the dots for those (corporations/militaries) that deem themselves above the law or society in general will continue to have free reign and a monopoly over both our governments and the population.

reply to post by Goldcurrent


No-one actually argues that jet contrails are not changing the skies with more induced cloud than there used to be - it is a given really, since there are obviously more contrails now than in the past.

And het effects of it are the subject of a great deal of public debate - even in Canada - despite all the supposed censorship (which I see isn't actually censorship at all - but a reduction in the Canadian Ozone monitoring network, and restricting journalist access to Canadian Govt employee-scientists - very naughty of you to give it a false label like that!!)

Did you actually have any evidence to provide that this is a part of a deliberate programme of some sort, or that the contrails contain enything other than expected products of combustion of hydrocarbons??

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Of course I don't have any concrete evidence for what I propound. If I did I am sure that some gov't agency or coprporate agency would put the muzzle on me as well

I am merely providing preliminary observations from a vantage that might help further connect the dots to an unravelling mystery that has been greatly underreported. These contrails do not just form clouds in the jets path but seem to induce a haze that just has not been common ever. The increase in air traffic is plausable but the coincidental factors of the northward bound jets/ensuing haze, and invisible (because of said haze) fighter jets that are extremely loud, just don't sit well with me. There is obviously something going on that the general public is just not aware of.

reply to post by Goldcurrent


The extensive haze that can develop from contrails has been documented as far back as 1940 - and yes it is more common now - as you'd expect with more contrails to cause such haze.

connect-the-dots is fine - as long as you can justify the assumptions involved.

It is my experience that chemtrail believers have never been able to do so.

Don't get me wrong - if there is "somthing" going on I want to know about it.

But the level of evidence so far provided to support the contention that there is something going on is, at best, unconvincing IMO.

reply to post by Goldcurrent


Just FYI those planes that are heading north, not sure which side of the country your on, but most of them are probably heading to Europe or Asia. For example a flight from New York to Hong Kong will fly a route which will take it over northern Canada, right over the north pole then down through Russia, Mongolia, China ect. Something leaving from Seattle to London, flyes way up through BC into the NWT and over greenland. Why do they do this? Because it is actually the shortest route between the two points. So just because an airliner is going north doesn't mean it's going to stop in the north, it's called the great circle route, on a globe the shortest distance is not a straight line but an arc.

Just thought i'd share my knowledge
Cheers

reply to post by Goldcurrent


Thanks, for joining the discussion and for your contributions to this thread. It helps to have personal experiences such as yours to consider when investigating this subject.

I fully admit I am not a scientist or an expert in the fields of weather and aviation. But I am a concerned citizen from California who has been around airports all my life. SFO to be exact. Which is one of the busiest International airports on the West coast.

The persistent spreading contrails (chemtrails) that I see now days, were absolutely non-existent in my area while I was growing up. It is clear to me that these are not normal jet contrails.

Keep looking up

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

The extensive haze that can develop from contrails has been documented as far back as 1940 - and yes it is more common now - as you'd expect with more contrails to cause such haze.

There is absolutely no documented case of a single jet causing such haze that occurs today. Any documentation you are referring to was caused by multiple aircraft, most likely during a war scenario.

I must give you credit where credit is due. You are a very good dis-info troll.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

So you have documentation that proves that every time I see a trail spread out into a wide cirrus haze, that it is NOT a contrail but rather a chemtrail.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

The extensive haze that can develop from contrails has been documented as far back as 1940 - and yes it is more common now - as you'd expect with more contrails to cause such haze.

There is absolutely no documented case of a single jet causing such haze that occurs today. Any documentation you are referring to was caused by multiple aircraft, most likely during a war scenario.

who said anything about a single jet? I see no reason why you think Goldcurrent is talking about a single aircraft? He specifically mentions "planes" - plural

The earliest description I have of a contrail spreading out presumably refers to piston engined a/c, since it is in WW2, and is written by a pilot famous for flying recconnaisance missions - so would appear to be talking about single aircraft - I apologise for his lack of foresight in not being more explicit, but he was killed in 1944 -

The German on the ground knows us by the pearly white scarf which every plane flying at high altitude trails behind like a bridal veil. The disturbance created by our meteoric flight crystallizes the watery vapor in the atmosphere. We unwind behind us a cirrus of icicles. If the atmospheric conditions are favorable to the formation of clouds, our wake will thicken bit by bit and become an evening cloud over the countryside.

The fighters are guided towards us by their radio, by the bursts on the ground, and by the ostentatious luxury of our white scarf ...

- Antoine Saint-Exupery

I must give you credit where credit is due. You are a very good dis-info troll.

Your idea of disinfo is a laugh - it includes anything supportable by science and relevant to contrails.

Whereas what you consider "info" is false information that you yourself have created, that others have created that you have posted, and a great deal of stuff that has little or no bearing on what you think it does. You are even on record here on ATS saying you don't care whether your evidence is accurate or not!!

And apparently I am a disinfo troll??

well at least I care whether my info is accurate or not - if you find something I have posted that is incorrect I will apologise and retract it. If you did the same you'd have twice as many posts as you do now - 1 retraction/apology for every other one you ever made!!

Your concept of disinfo is as useless as your evidence chemtails exist.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

So you have documentation that proves that every time I see a trail spread out into a wide cirrus haze, that it is NOT a contrail but rather a chemtrail.

Yes, the documentation is listed throughout this thread and other chemtrail threads here on ATS and other websites. If you don't believe that the documentation proves it completely to your satisfaction well then believe what you want.

I don't have documentation that can prove what is in the chemtrails or what the purpose for the chemtrails are. But I certainly have seen enough documentation that proves chemtrails are not normal jet contrails and that persistent spreading contrails that last for hours are a relatively new phenomenon in aviation that can not be explained as condensation from the engine.

I have not seen any documentation that proves to my satisfaction the arguments put forth by the people who think that chemtrails are just normal contrails. I have not seen any sufficient documentation that proves that the persistent spreading contrails that we see now days that last anywhere from a couple hours to the entire day. Have ever existed before the late 90's.

The longest persistent spreading contrail in the past lasted 48 minutes. And that was created on purpose by slowing flight speed while at the same time increasing the fuel consumption settings. In the most perfect conditions for contrail formation.

So no i'm not buying into all your BS about the chemtrails being normal.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


So, Matty - insufficient evidence for you of persistent contrails before 1990 huh?

Those B-17's over Germany in 1944, the ones that affected the weather over England as they formed up - what were thy spraying do you think??

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

A lot of people on this thread have claimed that a contrail can only persist for less than one hour, but (as I posted back on page 29) here is a paper publisked back in 1972 about persisting contrails by atmospheric researcher Robert Knollenberg. This paper mentions multiple trails, but it also says that trails can last for hours and spread out into an overcast of cirrus clouds. Considering that contrails are in fact basically the same as clouds it seems obvious that they CAN persist as long as cirrus clouds.

I mean, why wouldn't they? If the conditions exist for a cloud to persist, then the conditions exist for contrails to persist. It's only logical that they do. If contrails couldn't persist, then that would not make any sense.

Anyway, here is that paper:
Measurements of the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persisting Contrail
(This links directly to a PDF file)

Here is an excerpt:

... If sufficient air carrier traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in ice budget in individual contrails...

By the way, I have my own personal memory from the 1970s, because I grew up near a rural area, and a big topic of discussion on the TV "Farm Reports" was the fact that the proliferation of the jet age of the 1960s and 1970s has had the effect of creating more cloudy days, due to the fact that the jet contrails could persists turn into clouds.

I specifically and vividly remember this because I was very interested in aviation and aerospace as a youngster, So I remember watching these contrails with interest, and I remember them sometimes being long-lasting and persistent. Sometimes one would spread out so wide, its width would cover wide swath of sky.

I am still semi-interested in aviation today as an adult, and I still note that sometimes contrails persist, just like I remember them doing in the 1970s.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


We've gone through that report before. Look through it again. The claim in your quote is not backed up by the actual data in the report.

Read part 3 on the third page and it will confirm what I stated earlier. They made a persistent contrail on purpose by slowing flight speed and increasing fuel consumption. The did it in perfect conditions for contrail formation.

Yet the longest a persistent contrail lasted was still only visible for less than an hour.

EDIT:
Notice that your quote states "if sufficient air carrier traffic exists" That means if many many planes fly in the exact same area them maybe the accumulation of contrails will cause them to persist. It is not referring to a single jet causing a persistent contrail.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

Read part 3 on the third page and it will confirm what I stated earlier. They made a persistent contrail on purpose by slowing flight speed and increasing fuel consumption. The did it in perfect conditions for contrail formation.

Yet the longest a persistent contrail lasted was still only visible for less than an hour.

Did you miss the bit in that section where it says:

An extensive band of contrail cirrus had already developed by the time we were at altitude (1400 MDT)

-

that was the 1st day - 16 Sept - they could not sample their own contrails on that day because of potential confusion between theirs and that which already existed.

The 19th, when their contrail and associated virga was visible for an hour (ie even in an hour the contrail had spread...hmm..) wasn't perfect contrail weather - there were only isolated cirrus clouds - indicative of marginal conditions. The given conditions were -38.2 C, and a pressure of 326mb - if you plot those on Appleman chart you will find it is right on the edge of "maybe contrails" and "no contrails" if there is 100% RH.

And they did not fly at a high fuel consumption either - it says the engines are capable of burning 1200 lbs/hour EACH....and they flew at a setting that gave a TOTAL consumption of 1500 lbs/hr.

Well done for trying to read the article - not so impressed with your comprehension of it tho

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


What's your point? I think it's you who has misunderstood when you read my post. I never stated that they flew at maximum fuel consumption settings. I said increased fuel consumption.

My most important part of my statement is still the fact that the contrail lasted less than an hour. According to that report when they made the contrail they observed it from start to finish.

Good try at attempting to distort the facts. But this always where your arguments fall short.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


You are accusing someone of "distorting the facts"....yet, one can easily reference the Introduction from that report as just one example of the fact that persistent spreading contrails have been known about, and understood to exist for many years.

Go to report, read the first page, first paragraph.

It is often observed that contrails spread beyond the initial width....

....If sufficient air carrier traffic exists, and entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails.

If one wished, one could take the time to find many more references to persistence for hours.

"Cherry-picking" is a term to apply to the quibbling over that one item that was argued in posts above.

Perhaps I'll take the time to cite more examples, that was only paragraph number one......

(edit) --- Think I'd better provide the link again, for convenience:

Measurements of the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persisting Contrail

(Highlighted to show Example #2, right there!! Just on the first page.....)





.

reply to post by gman1972


Where I live (and I'm hesitant to give a precise location), a flight coming from Directly south, would have nowhere to go but straight over the north pole into Siberia or possibly Scandinavia. If anyone can provide some flight paths from the U.S. that go over the north pole to Russia, Asia, or Europe, that would be great. I know of no flights that depart to Europe or Asia out of Canada that fly this way since it would not be feasable. These are obviously aircraft that are not tracked as passenger or commercial. As an aside for the seasoned travellers; have any of you flown over the arctic on a passenger jet?