Chemtrail Debunkers....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Tecumte

 

LOL!!

I guess a sense of humor is lacking in those who seem to "believe" in "chem"-trails?

Clarity: 2nd video, posted up by Matty. OBVIOUSLY crap floating on the breeze, coming into the frame of the video camera....a camera, BTW, that is ZOOMED in telephoto mode, while filming the contrail.

Lack of humor, and lack of photographic lens perspective, lens focal lengths and near/far distortions as a result, too? (**)

(**) Please be aware, in quite a few threads begun in the "Aliens and UFOs" Forum, have been those exact same types of so-called "UFOs" claimed. Call us who are experienced with such nonsense "jaded".....or, just damned tired of the (two choices) ---

The exhibited ignorance of the YouTube poster who calls them "UFOs" (or, "transparent orbs", or whatever);

OR

The same YouTube poster who is insulting the intelligence of his viewers (++)....by WILLFULLY making such ridiculous claims....all the while professing a fake 'innocence', and pretending to actually be "seeking answers"...

(++) Which assumes that the viewers HAVE "intelligence" to begin with. But, from reading comments, that doesn't seem to be a valid assumption, sadly.....in too many instances....

BAH! Humbug! They deserve to be flogged!

And, "No soup for you!!"

Weedwhacker, yoou don't KNOW there just OBVIOUSLY 'crap floating on the breeze', you just pulled that out of your,,,keyboard, you guys try and explain away anything that doesn't fit your , 'nothing EVER to see here move along' Matrix minded viewpoint, why can't 'debunker' types just say 'I'm not sure, maybe we could slow down the frames and enlarge them", why the need to pretend you know everything and just make up crap as you go without really knowing or even looking?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Tecumte

 

Bugs and dandelion fluff.
Nowhere near the contrail.

edit on 3/28/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

How do you know?

Got the same 'scientific proof' you require from others?

reply to post by Tecumte


Actually, I have seen MANY examples of the type of what's commonly called "forced perspective".....with all sorts of lens focal lengths used. It all depends on the effect you wish to make. Wide-angle lenses give on effect, and telephoto ("long") lenses another.

IN that video that Matty put up, it is obvious the camera is zoomed in ("zooming" is equivalent to a "telephoto" lens.....even if the actual zoom is done electronically, the optical effect is similar).

Look it up, anywhere online...a long lens (telephoto) will have the effect of "compacting" the shot....in other words, the depth will be "lost".....and your perception of the distance between dissimilar objects in the shot will be diminished.

THEREFORE, the near-by objects (things only feet or meters from the lens) that pass through the frame will only "look" as if they are "up there" with the other object that is the real subject of the shot....in this case, the contrails.

I would think this is common knowledge?? Anyone who has ever owned a camera, especially an SLR with a variety of lenses, would be familiar with these principles.

ALSO, just pay attention to any number of motion pictures, throughout the history of film making. You will see all sorts of techniques used, for various visual effects.

Sorry, but is is VERY obvious to me, and others, that the so-called "transparent UFOs" are just things near to the lens, at the time it was being shot.

The sorts of items that are likely (and, being they are too close to be clearly visible, as they are OUT OF FOCUS), then....insects and pollen and such are the mos prosaic explanations.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Tecumte

 

Actually, I have seen MANY examples of the type of what's commonly called "forced perspective".....with all sorts of lens focal lengths used. It all depends on the effect you wish to make. Wide-angle lenses give on effect, and telephoto ("long") lenses another.

IN that video that Matty put up, it is obvious the camera is zoomed in ("zooming" is equivalent to a "telephoto" lens.....even if the actual zoom is done electronically, the optical effect is similar).

Look it up, anywhere online...a long lens (telephoto) will have the effect of "compacting" the shot....in other words, the depth will be "lost".....and your perception of the distance between dissimilar objects in the shot will be diminished.

THEREFORE, the near-by objects (things only feet or meters from the lens) that pass through the frame will only "look" as if they are "up there" with the other object that is the real subject of the shot....in this case, the contrails.

I would think this is common knowledge?? Anyone who has ever owned a camera, especially an SLR with a variety of lenses, would be familiar with these principles.

ALSO, just pay attention to any number of motion pictures, throughout the history of film making. You will see all sorts of techniques used, for various visual effects.

Sorry, but is is VERY obvious to me, and others, that the so-called "transparent UFOs" are just things near to the lens, at the time it was being shot.

The sorts of items that are likely (and, being they are too close to be clearly visible, as they are OUT OF FOCUS), then....insects and pollen and such are the mos prosaic explanations.

Interesting, your're using the same 'this is very obvious' rationalization that those that just KNOW what a chemtrail looks like vs a contrail use, not very 'scientific' I might add, while it MAY be some sort of effect as you describe it might not be either.

Originally posted by Tecumte
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

 

Mathias I agree it is very likely weather modification programs are in place IMO) and have been for quite some time. Can I PROVE this at this time, no, but also I can't understand the reluctance by a few here to even consider it.

We have all sorts of "Owning the Weather" type white papers written by the military.

We have "geoengineering" by way of particulate scattering being taught in our shcools to our children.

We have legislation being discussed in our congress such as weather modification technology transfer acts

We have folks in the White House talking about using geoengineering.

We have scientists working on 'studies' allegedly only in the labs but NEVER??? in the field

We have all sorts of patents based around weather modificaton and weather warfare uses.

We have decades of known open air and other testing and experimentation upon an often unknowing public (until many years later)

We have planes coming out in droves doing x'x and o's and flying right at each other and along side each other leaving huge white smokey trails all the while their counterparts fly in and through the soup they made leaving only quickly disapating vapor trails.

We have small private companies engaged in the business of weather engineering.

This list is not complete and I'm sure 'debunkers' can jump on each one of these things seperately and provide a 'plausible deniability' when each thing is only considered seperately,but I have to ask why would anyone not even CONSIDER that all of things things when viewed together might not just provide a clue it is entirely possible (and I think likely) that this science is being attempted in the field. How is this such an unreasonable thing to believe. I'm not saying its PROOF but geeez, the close minded 'debunker' type mentality to even consider that wide spread weather/warfare trials are going on boggles my mind.

It's one thing to say there is no ABSOLUTE PROOF (yet) of which I agree. It is quite another thing to be so closed minded that one can't even contemplate that it is a distinct possibility.

Excellent points you make and I agree. The list you gave may not be complete but it is quite sufficient to provide probable cause to think that these programs are taking place currently. I can say definitely say that these programs are taking place. I just don't know the details as to how and why.

Originally posted by Tecumte

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Tecumte

 

No.
I have a very good idea. Those types of "UFO" are frequently posted.

That begs the question.

What exactly are we seeing that looks to be flying around the plume in this particular video?

Originally posted by Tecumte

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Tecumte

 

Bugs and dandelion fluff.
Nowhere near the contrail.

edit on 3/28/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

How do you know?

Got the same 'scientific proof' you require from others?

Umm...First Phage said he has "a very good idea" what they are. When you asked him what his ideas were, he responded :bugs or dandelions.

He never said he "knew" they were bugs or dandelions, he said he has "a very good idea that they are bugs or dandelions". I can't speak for Phage, but I don't think he was ever trying to imply that he had proof for his "idea".

It seems odd that you are the one who makes it a point to always call attention to explanations that "could be" (such as the "trail straight toward the horizon" picture), but when someone else indicates a "could be" explanation, you are quickly asking him for proof.

Well, those things certainly "could be" bugs. As I explained in my earlier post, there are valid and logical reasons to believe they are "something" closer to the camera rather than closer to the trail. That something may be bugs, or maybe something else -- but seemingly near to the camera.

reply to post by Tecumte

What exactly are we seeing that looks to be flying around the plume in this particular video?

Oh dear....

Someone needs A simple lesson on PERSPECTIVE

The big bad monster is going to get us!!

Originally posted by Tecumte

You tell me step by step exactly how to post my pics and I'll be more than happy to share. Sound good?

Others have already replied, but this is a good guide.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You can also use a hosting site such as Flickr or Photobucket, etc and link the images into your post.

Images are great, but take into consideration the other data such as where you are filming from. It doesn't have to be exact location. Nearest town or city for example.

Here in the UK (Near Sleaford, Lincolnshire) I live south of Upper Air Route UL603. I could film 'chemtrails' all day long when the conditions are right. If I went 10 miles north of my location I could film them 'rocketing' into the sky if I wanted, but that is all about perspective.

www.ead.eurocontrol.int...< br />
As already highlighted in this thread about trails appearing to go up and down.

This guy in Chicago thinks that this contrail, filmed this month, is going straight up!



His description

I'm sitting on Lake street in Oak Park just west of downtown Chicago looking straight west. All of a sudden I see something going straight up off the ground into the sky and leaving a whomping big trail. Luckily I had my video camera and took this footage and I still don't know what it is. The area it was "taking off" from is not anywhere near either O'Hare and Midway the big airports. There's no military base in the area. That we know about. The only thing in that general area might be the DuPage county airport but I can't imagine what would be going straight up from there and leaving this kind of trail.

What do you think it is?

While I was looking on You Tube I found yet another one!



It really does intrigue me why people are so easily fooled by perspective? As an aviation photographer I could go 10 miles north of my location and film 'missiles' rocketing up from the horizon. This video explains it very well and how easily people are fooled by perspective.



TJ

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


"Well, it 'could be" bugs"-SG

Excellent. Now we're getting somewhere. Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't.

I'm simply pointing out what should be becoming obvious to 'debunker types'.

I most often admit I don't know for sure and am simply tyring to understand things as well as possible.

The close mindedness, know-it-all, and derisve attitudes I often find displayed here among these so called 'debunker types' doesn't lend itself well (IMO) to conducting open and above board investigations or research.(That is what were after isn't it???)

How about we try and approach things from an INVESTIGATIVE mindset not a "nothing EVER to see here, move along' type close mindedness. We can both play the 'prove-it' game but is that really the best way to procede at this point with so many unknowns assuming someone REALLY wants to know?

'Official sources' and parroting things from men in white coats won't always easily provide insight into any type of clandestine programs IF they are occurring as these are always the first to be controlled in such events. It really does ALMOST appear at times a few people here are intentionally running interference and being obstructive to anyone who wishes to look at things that might not be told to them on the nightly Mockingbird kept press news.

How about we try and do better? Maybe try and provide some things outside the range of The Matrix? There may REALLY be some things out there you're not going to be told about and you will have to find out for yourself rather than being 'spoon-fed- from 'official sources.'

reply to post by Tecumte


So...do you or do you not agree with my explanation for why I think they could be insects (or something else nearer to the camera rather than being near the trail)??

Originally posted by Tecumte
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

 

Mathias I agree it is very likely weather modification programs are in place IMO) and have been for quite some time. Can I PROVE this at this time, no, but also I can't understand the reluctance by a few here to even consider it.

Who do you mean? I consider it every time someone says they have some evidence....

We have all sorts of "Owning the Weather" type white papers written by the military.

AFAIK we have exactly 1 such paper - which is a hypotetical "what if" study that invents some scenarios and then invents what might achieve or mitigate them - can you link to some others?

There are a lot of military papers on how to DEAL with the weather...but that's not the same thing.

We have "geoengineering" by way of particulate scattering being taught in our shcools to our children.

since when? where? not to my kids there hasn't been.

We have legislation being discussed in our congress such as weather modification technology transfer acts

Which prohibit it......

We have folks in the White House talking about using geoengineering.

And saying "let's not do it until we know a lot more about it"

We have scientists working on 'studies' allegedly only in the labs but NEVER??? in the field

Yep.

We have all sorts of patents based around weather modificaton and weather warfare uses.

Also for a million other things that have never been built or done.....

We have decades of known open air and other testing and experimentation upon an often unknowing public (until many years later)

which were, in every case, completely different in nature to what is supposedly going on now - low level spraying from a/c using sprays and not "modified fuel", using ships and vehicles and ground based projectors, etc.

We have planes coming out in droves doing x'x and o's and flying right at each other and along side each other

How much to you know about commercial aircraft routing, and airspace separation?

In these parts the minimum seperation between a/c flying the same route in the same direction is 5 miles. At 550mph (say), that's about 30 seconds seperation......

leaving huge white smokey trails all the while their counterparts fly in and through the soup they made leaving only quickly disapating vapor trails.

I bet the don't actualy fly "through the soup" much at all - this is a fairly new "accusatino", so I'd be interested in the evidence that exists for it.

We have small private companies engaged in the business of weather engineering.

Cloud seeding? Are you guyst STILL on about cloud seeding?? REALLY??

Let's see - cloudseeing - hardly new, not secret, carried out all around the world, not carried out at high altitude, uses miniscule amounts of material , doesn''t use large jet a/c, etc.

This list is not complete and I'm sure 'debunkers' can jump on each one of these things seperately and provide a 'plausible deniability' when each thing is only considered seperately

Yep - trivially......

,but I have to ask why would anyone not even CONSIDER that all of things things when viewed together might not just provide a clue it is entirely possible (and I think likely) that this science is being attempted in the field. How is this such an unreasonable thing to believe.

Because all the stuff you mention is completely unrelated to each other, or is so totally misinterpreted as to be, frankly, ludicrous (sorry!), or has no possible connection to any actual programme that hypothetically exists simply because the laws of physics do not work that way.

I'm not saying its PROOF but geeez, the close minded 'debunker' type mentality to even consider that wide spread weather/warfare trials are going on boggles my mind.

Looking at science is not closed minded - science actually requires EVALUATION of the evidence, and hte ability to discard evidene that does not stack up.

What is closed minded is refusing to evaluate evidence in terms of practicality, possiblity and actual existance.

Sorry but this "debunkers aer closed minded" is just a perversion of reality!

It's one thing to say there is no ABSOLUTE PROOF (yet) of which I agree. It is quite another thing to be so closed minded that one can't even contemplate that it is a distinct possibility.

I have said elsewhere I am completely open to the possbility that somethign is happening. I am prepared to deal in terms of likelihood, probability, etc., and do NOT requier absolute proof at all.

But what chemtrail supporters post as "evidence" is simply nonsense - unconnected, misunderstood, poor science, psuedo science, unsupported assertions, etc.

If you are not prepared to look at the QUALITY of the evidence then you ahve no place complaining when otehrs do!

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


Mathias, thanks, I agree I think there is grounds to look further, considering all of the things I listed, but most of all I simply do not believe that a simple difference in altitude/humidity explains ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the differences I have seen in trails that look VASTLY different that *appear* to be FAIRLY close to each other and some I am convinced are much lower in altitude that *appear* as rocket plumes vs ones that *appear* much higher that are mere vapor trails.

The 'debunker types' can play the perspective/altitude game as much as they like and claim you 'just can't tell' (and I realize it's not PROOF) but as many times as I've watched and compared I CAN THEORIZE that it may have more to do with the actual chemical characteristsics of the planes output (from whatever source) rather than the atmospheric condtions and I think it is worth looking more into.

The biggest thing that makes me disbelieve it is simply a difference in atmospheric condtions is that as I have said (at least a FEW times now) I live in the middle of Missouri far away from any major airport and we usually only get scattered Kansas City/St.Louis type east/west air traffic that leaves often only vapor trails. But once or twice a week, some weeks on average (and on no particlular day of the week ) we get BLASTED by a huge barrage of jets doing the x's and o's and flying right at each other and beside each other that COMPLETELY cloud and white out a 100% cloudless blue pristine sky within a matter of HOURS! No clouds come in I've watched all day some days, it is ALL created by these brilliant white huge smokey looking exhaust plumes that obliterate the sky in this stuff all the while the 'normal' KC/SL type planes fly through this soup leaving their commonly observed vapor trails.It is as different as night and day, occurring at the same time, and I find the best explantion IMO, is that this *seems* to be some cloud building exercise to possibly seed into. How hard is it to believe if we have KNOWN cloud seeding operations that we *might* also have cloud building operations for the base, is this really that hard to conceive for anyone with a REASONABLY open mind???

We need to get some more pictures posted on here that show a vapor trail and one of these 'rocket plume' type trails together and start comparing them, I have some GREAT pics and footage, I am going to try and get better at posting things like that. If you are able maybe you can help this discussion get out of the 'debunker basment' type thinking and onto a level playing field. Got good pics???

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
Check out the photos and the videos below and tell me that's normal contrails

Mathius,

You have heard of E-3 AWACS and how they function? This is yet another example of how you are lost in the world of aviation? What sort of pattern do you think that an AWACS would make? Would it even cross your mind that it would orbit an area so that it can stay on station while the crew in the rear monitor the returns from the surveillance radar?

The very aircraft flying that day, serial ZH104.

www.airliners.net...

www.raf.mod.uk...

The aircraft is based in Lincolnshire, UK.

www.raf.mod.uk...

E-3 Sentry filmed in Italy during an exercise.









From

cencio4.wordpress.com...

If you can't access the above link then copy and paste the following into a search engine.

'E-3 AWACS contrails over Northern Italy'

TJ

MET Office Hadley Centre - UK Dept of climate change

Options for mitigation sector analysis
www.metoffice.gov.uk...

AviAtion Civil aviation currently accounts for about 2.6% of global fossil-fuel emissions of CO2, but the relative importance of aviation emissions is expected to increase significantly in the future due to rapid aviation industry growth and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from other sectors. While significant, this contribution to CO2 emissions is not the only impact aviation has on our climate. Water vapour in the hot, moist exhaust from high flying aircraft can trigger condensation trails, known as contrails. They are normally short-lived, but — depending on atmospheric conditions — they can last much longer. Observational evidence shows contrails can develop into high-level cirrus clouds. Figure 1 shows a series of infrared satellite images from March 2009. Coil shaped contrails from an aircraft circling over the North Sea are seen to evolve into cirrus clouds covering a large part of eastern England. The ‘aviation-induced clouds’ become indistinguishable from natural cirrus clouds.

www.metoffice.gov.uk...

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

Very good.
You now agree that contrails are composed of ice crystals, can persist, and spread to form a cirrus deck.

reply to post by Phage


No, I don't agree. IMO these clouds were created for this study.

They are not normal contrails.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

I'm confused.
Then why did you post an article which says that

Water vapour in the hot, moist exhaust from high flying aircraft can trigger condensation trails, known as contrails. They are normally short-lived, but — depending on atmospheric conditions — they can last much longer. Observational evidence shows contrails can develop into high-level cirrus clouds.

www.metoffice.gov.uk...

reply to post by Phage


I posted that because that is the study done by Dr Jim Haywood and others that involved the circular clouds. The study will never say the sent a plane out to make fake clouds so we can study them. Of course it is going to say the standard lines used by all the agencies involved..

reply to post by Phage

You are really elevating the discussion Phage.
Keep it up, and you may get another medal.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


Can you point out where the article says that the circular contrails were produced as part of an experiment? Or is that a "secret" too? I can't find that in the link you provided.