German Military Sued Over Chemtrails....

Originally posted by Caji316
Karesten Brandt has files charges against the German Military for weather manipulation.

No he didn't. And if you don't believe me I'll give you his email address so you can ask him yourself.

All he did was complain about a NATO exercise in which chaff was deployed, which then went on to mess up European weather radar for a day (the radar we use is unabe to differentiate between chaff and rain so it looked like it was raining when it fact the skies were clear)

Just to add some credence to the whole "do chemtrails really exist" question, here is a photo I took last year in August above Glasgow International airport.

reply to post by crompton


and your evidence is ???????????

Originally posted by Nefarious

Likely the same fallacy others use. Since contrails can persist then chemtrails must not exist - that is the absurdly fallacious argument used by too many here.

I don't think I have ever seen an argument like that.

One of the characteristics that chemmies often use to identify chemtrails is persistence - if "it" persists longer than some time period (I've seen 20 & 30 mimnutes commonly used) then "it" is a chemtrail.

When that happens it is perfectly reasonable to point out that persistant contrails have "always existed" (at least since 1940....), so simply saying that all persistant contrails are chemtrails seems unlikely.

Some chemmies then say that not all persistant contrails ar chemtrails, but all chemtrails are persistent.

when then invites the obvious question how do you tell between a persistant contail and a chemtrail?

Originally posted by crompton
Just to add some credence to the whole "do chemtrails really exist" question, here is a photo I took last year in August above Glasgow International airport.

Nice shot, and very unusual.

But not actually inexplicable in terms of normal atmospherics.

Your photo has all teh characteristics of an aerodynamic contrail coming from the top of hte a/c's wings.

the physics is pretty simple - the top of the wing is a low pressure area, so as the air pressure decreases across it the temperature decreases - that's your basic gas law.

As the temperature and pressure decrease the ability fo the air to hold poisture also decreases, and if conditions are right some moisture will condense out.

A fuller explaination and some links and photos can be seen here

So to me it has all the characteristics of a known phenomena.

How can you tell it is a chemtrail and not anything else?

Originally posted by ParkerCramer
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

I did not ask about the guy that runs it...................Do they get their funding from NASA????

I believe you know the answer to that.

OK - no HE does not - it is a single person, not plural, so "they" is not correct.

Also, you appear to be one of the resident "Chemtrail" debunkers. I see you posting hundreds of claims backing your position, do you have any not coming from a govt. agency, or funded by a govt. agency??

Dunno - I don't always check where the funding of the organisation that publishes the info, or where the academics study, comes from.

I believe this is a fair question.

Why?

Does the source of the funding make the information any more or less accurate?

I presume you are going to start with the government conspiracy theory - covering it up, etc. ,etc?

Who ever makes the parts for these chemtrails is up in corporations that support
the players in the government. Corporations run the American government as well.
GE payed for and kept on using Tesla power patents until they now make the
parts for any good Tesla airship. GE parts might be burning up the atmosphere
and making trails as well. You are in a MK ULTRA pickle as no one gets the blame.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by crompton

 

and your evidence is ???????????

Look at the photo I have linked to. Notice the two jets of rainbow coloured particles emerging from the fuselage and mixing with the engines condensation trails which are white. It is a very fair assumption that a rainbow coloured emittance is some sort of concoction as it is obviously not water vapour.

reply to post by crompton


So if it's rainbow coloured it can't be water vapour, because rainbows are ......... oh

(though to be honest I don't find the photo very conclusive of anything in itself)

Originally posted by crompton

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by crompton

 

and your evidence is ???????????

Look at the photo I have linked to. Notice the two jets of rainbow coloured particles emerging from the fuselage and mixing with the engines condensation trails which are white. It is a very fair assumption that a rainbow coloured emittance is some sort of concoction as it is obviously not water vapour.

No it's not water vapour - because you cant' see water vapour. And you are right - you do not get rainbows from water vapour - it does not refract sunlight.

If you can see water in the air then it is water droplets or ice crystals.

And what is a classic rainbow?? It is sunlight refracted through water droplets or ice crystals!! (of course - you probably knew that but just hadn't applied that knowledge to what you see)

you've probably seen enough rainbows yourself through water droplets, but they are rarer through ice crystals - there are plenty of photos of them through cirrus cloud tho - eg rainbow clouds -

reply to post by crompton


"rainbow colored"? (Or, 'coloured').....

Honestly? Look......not saying that this is you, per se..... but just watch and listen to this woman, and what she is saying. Do you think she is correct, in this video? (About "metals in the water supply"?)

OR.......is she just ignorant of light refraction in water droplets in her lawn sprinkler???:



DO you wish to re-consider now, in light of this, what you are seeing in the occasional photo of an airplane contrail that happens to catch the light in just a way.....and show a rainbow effect??