Chemtrail Debunkers....

The final pass in cross section A, but 12 minutes later (1247) revealed only a few crystals left at this level. The entire region rapidly decayed and completely disappeared by 1300.

So, I will correct my self once again. It didn't last 39 minutes. It lasted 51 minutes and 32 seconds. Keeping in mind the extra fuel in the exhaust and the slowed down rate of air speed. I don't believe this was a proper test for us to use as an example. We need a test where the plane is flying at normal speed and normal fuel consumption settings. We need multiple engine and fuel types to be tested. This test was to examine the cloud created and but the cloud was not created under normal flight conditions.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

Can you help me out with how a "reflective cloud" can help with geoengineering?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
The next abnormal detail says that they purposefully slowed down the normal air speed. They had to apply the wing flaps to compensate. They were intentionally trying to cause as much exhaust as they could.

Well -- of course they did. The whole part of the study was to see how contrails move moisture from one altitude to the other -- by condensing, freezing, falling, then re-evaporating. To do this, they wanted to create a large persistent contrail that emulates the persistent contrails made by jet engines. This was not a study trying to prove contrail persistence (why would it be? -- they already had 30 years of observational data that told them that contrails could persist for hours), but rather the this was a study on an effect of contrail persistence.

You keep saying that contrails cannot persist more than 20 minutes. That's easy enough to claim, but can you please explain me why they cannot?

Basically, if a thin cirrus cloud can persist for hours under certain conditions, then so can a contrail.

OK I haven't spoken in a while but I have been researching and I just wanted to check the information I had been given here by many members as to why contrail's persist and the condition's required to allow a contrail to persist.
Now the fact's I have been given is that for contrail's to persist depend's on the temp of the air the plane is flying through and the moisture level's.
I just wanted to make sure that these where the 2 factors that effect the length of time a contrail will persist.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

Originally posted by firepilot
Wow, so the space shuttle is a chemplane, as are firefighting airtankers. You are just trying to again throw everything including the proverbial kitchen sink.

Small general aviation planes shooting flares inside storms are chemplanes too. Although I think that you now include firefighting airtankers.

So, tell us, how to do firefighting airtankers make persistent contrails?

The space shuttle is the biggest chemtrail plane in existence. FACT

so what is your new definition of chemtrails - the list you gave previously includes all sorts of things that are not in the "traditional" definition of chemrtails as I understand it.

My understanding of the "traditional" definition is that chemtails are persistant trails left high in the sky to deliberately effect some nefarious purpose in secret - be it climate control, mind control, amplification of HAARP or whatever.

apparently you are no longer arguing that this is the case, or it is not theonly case?

For example what is it that you think that firefighting "chemtrails" are supposed to achieve apart from fighting fires??

What is it that you think Space shuttle exhaust is supposed to achieve other than propelling the Space Shuttle?

Are you now referring to all emissions - effectively pollution in general - as "chemtrails"?

A few of the other examples were given to answer a question about my statement that "chemtrails exist in many forms." I didn't say that firefighting planes leave their chemtrail in persistent contrails. It was just an example of a chem-plane not a chemtrail plane in the normal sense we usually think. I was just giving examples of how chemtrails exist in other forms than the persistent contrail. OK

So a firefighting plane makes a chemtrail but is not a chemtrail plane?? Instead it is a "chem-plane"? But the Space shuttle is a "chemtrail plane"....so presumably not a "chem-plane"?

Can you please define the difference between what you call a "chemtrail plane" and a "chem-plane" so we're al talking about the same thing?

Sorry, but it is difficult to figure out what you are ACTUALLY saying when you use such similar words but seem to expect them to mean completely different things.

reply to post by djcarlosa

The atmospheric pressure is also important as is vertical air movement.

OK so phage you agree that these 3 factors determine how long a contrail can persist for?
I'm sorry if my question makes me sound stupid but I wanted to make sure that I had my facts straight and it will help me with my current research.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


I am a bit dumbfounded by your conclusions but not really surprised a bit. I think I have sufficiently supplied reasons that discredit your theory. If you go back and read my post again. I said 20 minutes to an hour max. But anyway, you are free to believe what you want as am I.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I was asked by Jdub to expand on a few theories I have and give a hypothesis. Since this is the skunk works I thought it was safe to speculate a little bit for the sake of a more fun conversation that doesn't get mired down in drudgery and monotony of "give me proof" "I need proof". I wanted to lighten the conversation a bit. I wanted to light a spark. You don't see that a firefighting plane is a chemplane? It's true isn't it? I mean I had said that chemtrails exist in many forms and they have good and bad effects...well that is one form. It was one of the good effects of chemtrails and chem planes. It does in my opinion at the very least expel the notion that there is no such thing as a chem plane or a chemtrail. Agreed that this is not the normal chemtrail but I wasn't implying that it was.

reply to post by djcarlosa

I said they (four of them actually) are important in determining contrail persistence, yes.
There are other factors as well (turbulence, shear) which play a role but are of less importance.

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

 

I am a bit dumbfounded by your conclusions but not really surprised a bit. I think I have sufficiently supplied reasons that discredit your theory. If you go back and read my post again. I said 20 minutes to an hour max. But anyway, you are free to believe what you want as am I.

OK -- so you say they can only last 20 minutes to an hour. Please explain (or point out the post where you previously explained) why you think this is true.

Why can thin cirrus clouds persist for hours, but you say contrails can't?

reply to post by Phage


so phage would you mind giving me the missing factor I have pressure , temperature and moisture content.
I want to make sure that I have all the fact's here after all I don't want to do my research without all the main factors included.
many thank's
djc

reply to post by djcarlosa


djc --

Have you ever seen the "Appleman Chart"?:
asd-www.larc.nasa.gov...

Please note that this chart was devised in the 1950s, and quite a bit of research has been done since then on contrails, so the chart may not always be an accurate predictor -- but it's a decent "guideline".

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

 

Can you help me out with how a "reflective cloud" can help with geoengineering?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Well I think this should be obvious don't you ? But anyway, your link actually says "a reflective cloud at night" (not sure why you put the night part in there and you did seem to leave that part out this time.)

I am no expert but I will do my best. The reflective cloud doesn't allow as much solar radiation, visible and invisible light spectrum's to reach the Earth.. Other stars in our galaxy also emit these forces so the cloud could potentially still work at night.

Depending on it's altitude the effectiveness varies. Some of the light bounces off the cloud particles. You know that dark material absorbs light waves and lighter material reflects light waves. Like how on a hot Summer day a white T-shirt is cooler to wear than a black T-shirt. So the whiter the cloud the better it's reflective nature.

You are correct in stating that the clouds also prevent the Earth's radiative forces from escaping. Which some geo engineers say negates the whole purpose. But the models suggest that only a slight change in the Earth's total albedo could still have significant impact on Global warming.

One theory is to put large quantities of particulates only at the Earth's poles to prevent the ice caps from melting so quickly. Others say that Global warming is a myth and is actually due to other forces happening in our galaxy. Because other planets are also showing signs of warming. There is another theory about the Earth's vibrations speeding up. Which we all know the faster a vibration the more friction and heat is generated.

Please be more specific with another question if you want me to continue on reflective clouds.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by pianopraze

 

Odd... It seems you're doing exactly what you're claiming others are doing. **attack personal character**, **emotionally goad opponent**,**Become incredulous and indignant**

Chemtrails/contrails, whatever you want to call them, won't show up on doplar radar. **deny everything**

Of course some guy on YouTube is an awesome source and extremely believable,cso you won't believe what I say... **straw man**, **deny everyting**, **Create rumor mongers**,**Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule**

So here's an easy experiment for you.

Next time you see a Chemtrail load up your local weather website and see if it's visible on the doplar radar as your YouTube guy says.

Share results!

edit on 22/3/11 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)

Also used:
**Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule** using "chemtrail" instead of geoengineering and chaff dispersal. By keeping the argument on chemtrail searches will reveal more speculative and less scientific studies and political headlines. Those believing in geoengineering should be aware this is a major tactic and use the correct terminology in their threads also. They are inadvertently shooting themselves in the foot.
**Play Dumb** totally ignore my main main issues, you did not address any of my salient assertions
**Enigmas have no solution** i do not have access to a weather station to do what that guy did
**Change the subject** totally ignored everything I said
**Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs** Explain how the weather ballon evidence showing no contrail could for on those days Chad. Also you totally ignored I showed aluminum chaff made it's way to Mt. Shasta. If you want to address my statements please do so directly, don't use these techniques.
--terms used from here

As to your assertion I am using this techniques, yes I have inadvertently used some in the thread on "what in the world are they spraying" because I got goaded by individuals there. I did so with much less effect as I was doing them unknowingly... as I see some of the geoengineering believers on here doing. I strive to not use any of them now knowingly or accidentally. But they and I were doing it inadvertently, not purposefully and knowledgeably. It's the difference between an amateur golfer hitting a good shot every now and again, and the seasoned pro who knows how to swing correctly. Of course that analogy is reversed because I do not see these as "good" tactics, but it illustrates my point.

Chaff DOES show up on radar, I do not know if other substances do or not, I can not confirm nor deny your assertion that they do not show up on radar. Can you prove your assertion? If this was chaff, it most definitely would as that is what it's designed, in part, to do in these wide dispersals they use in operation and training exercises.

There is good and bad on youtube, this video seems very good and well researched. Using bad videos as a straw man might win you points with those unfamiliar with the technique. This is also an "all or nothing" technique... things are rarely all good or all bad.

I really have no dog in this fight, I'm relatively neutral but have been cast in with the people believing in geoengineering by tactics that have been used when I stated the geoengineering believers have good arguments and evidence. I still am undecided. But I see the geoengineering believers presenting better evidence at this point, and those arguing against are most often using slick tactics and rarely hard logic or evidence.

I'm leaning towards there is SOMETHING here because of all the people using these slick tactics. I am sure military chaff spraying accounts for the high readings of aluminum from the video What in The World Are They Spraying. There is rock solid evidence for it. I like phage's or weedwhacker's thought that gobi sands might in part also contribute to those levels. In short it's probably a mix of answers.

I have never argued against persistent contrails. However there seems to be evidence of spraying of other substances also. There have definitely been tests of spraying, as these have been published. The chaff spraying is known and well documented also.

So between tests, and chaff there is things being sprayed. There is no CONCLUSIVE only CIRCUMSTANCIAL evidence presented so far that there is current ongoing geoengineering.

My main assertion is we must stop it before it begins. If it has begun we must halt it immediately.

Now, as to your suggestion. I will test it when I get a chance. Can someone post a link to the services which will allow me to check where the flights are? Also How do you get the readings for the weather balloons like this guy did? Is there a website for this?

I think I will try to get in personal contact with a local weather man.

I do not however have access to a NWS station as this guy appears to have. Does anyone reading here on ATS have such access? Please pipe up if you do and by some miracle happen to read this.

If you wanted to debunk the video you should have suggested that the NWS data was not backed up by simultanious outside verification pictures. I do not trust anyone, so that would have been a batter argument and also one which is good & logical. Until proven by pictures, these could be rain clouds. They could still be chaff as in the other weather photos also.

I think I have addressed all your salient points. Please don't bother to respond if you want to try those techniques again and not address my salient points. I weary of such and will not address those who continue with such techniques. I don't know you well enough to know if you are using these on purpose but that post used a lot of them. You still owe me an address of my salient post from initial post as well as this one if you wish to continue to discuss honorably.

Originally posted by djcarlosa
OK I haven't spoken in a while but I have been researching and I just wanted to check the information I had been given here by many members as to why contrail's persist and the condition's required to allow a contrail to persist.
Now the fact's I have been given is that for contrail's to persist depend's on the temp of the air the plane is flying through and the moisture level's.
I just wanted to make sure that these where the 2 factors that effect the length of time a contrail will persist.

Yep, I can totally agree with that. Those are the two major factors that come into play on the contrail prediction charts.

Its not a total 100 percent certainty though, those charts can underestimate contrails too, and then it can depend on the engine type too. But good job, star for you, I give credit when its due and you seem to be more open to things than many on your side. And i do appreciate that you take take to put your own thoughts together rather than just post a blizzard of youtube videos

.

reply to post by firepilot

Star for you firepilot!
Not often people on your side are so thoughtful and considerate. Gives me faith in humanity, again.

reply to post by pianopraze


I'm not Chadwickus (he's on the other side of the globe, usually) but I am disappointed in your attack post. It was far too long to address quickly...except for this bit....(because, THIS part is able to be verified, per another thread I read earlier today. I AM sorry, but trying to disparage another's post, based on absent technical knowledge and expertise, is not a great tactic):

Chaff DOES show up on radar, I do not know if other substances do or not, I can not confirm nor deny your assertion that they do not show up on radar. Can you prove your assertion?

Yes....chaff DOES show on radar, because it is specifically designed to!! Else, it wold not be called "chaff".

You must first understand radar, before you attempt to ascribe to it "magical"abilities.

Look into, specifically, the wavelengths used (for weather radar applications. Since, THAT is the issue here. ALSO, otehr types of radar, as in the sorts used by fighter jets and such...check into that as well. WAVELENGTHS matter, just so you get the gist....).

Then, once you understand the radar wavelengths, it will better be possible to understand the limitations of radar....as to what SIZE of particle, and in what DENSITY, the radar can detect.....based on the type, and wavelength of the particular radar under discussion. NO, all radar is NOT created "equally".....

BTW...clouds, composed of ice crystals (and, of course...CONtrails as well....basically the same composition) cannot be detected by radar....NORMAL weather radar. Certainly, a radar could be (theoretically) tuned to a wavelength to detect extremely small particles....but that same radar would also be severely hampered, in practical use. IF you don't understand the science of radars, then you should research.

Research "clutter" as a basic term to describe the sorts of signal "noise" that can crop up. That should get yo started....

To add here....since RADAR is an electromagnetic wave.....yes?? THINK about it. ONE of the (of many) "claims" regarding so-called "chem"-trails relates to the Sun, doesn't it?? THINK hard on that, please.

WHAT are the claims of the "geo-engineering" schemes? Must they somehow interact with some aspects of the EM spectrum...like, from the Sun? Does radar also operate in the EM spectrum??? What ELSE is part of the EM spectrum??

(Are you starting to figure it out, yet?).......



i

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by firepilot

 

Star for you firepilot!
Not often people on your side are so thoughtful and considerate. Gives me faith in humanity, again.

Thanks, I have no problem whatsoever complimenting someone with a differing idea or opinion, but dj has done a good job of using his own words, instead of cut and paste jobs and videos, but also not being obtuse or belligerent. Nor has he called anyone government agents when disagree with him either from what I remember.. And he actually has at times sought at people who may know things, rather than just look at like minded websites, so how can I not commend him for doing so.

doublepost