"Chemtrail Deniers", please explain this one.

Note to self: Always carry a camera.

So please chemtrail debunkers, deniers, whatever you are, please explain this one to me: I was just out on an evening jog, and saw one plane cross the sky leaving a chemtrail. A few minutes later another plane crossed the sky at what appeared to be a little higher altitude. As usually seen by these planes, 4 streams of chem/contrails were coming out from behind this plane. And as usual the trail was billowing out, but as the plane continued on I noticed something odd that makes your "atmospheric conditions" argument hold zero water. Two of the streams left behind (of the four) were dissipating right next to it's other two companions that were billowing and staying. Then a few moments later, two of the streams turned off, and the regular dissipating contrails continued. After a short gap all four were back on spewing, with the same phenomenon of two staying and billowing and two dissipating.

????

Seriously, I'd love to think it's a totally natural phenomenon, but seriously? Even the explanation of a different kind of fuel leaving the trail still doesn't make sense to me in this circumstance.

Help me out here.

First off; Love your avatar.
Secondly; without pictures of vids, you're asking for a world of hurt by
the debunking crowd on this site, and this is coming from a fellow believer.

reply to post by kalamatas


There is nothing "natural" about exhaust spewing out of a jet engine. i'm still undecided on whether or not the jet's flying over our cities are being used to conduct geo-engineering (or worse) but i know for a fact that persistent contrails are just something that happens. how do you think regular clouds form?

on this subject, just yesterday I watched five quite large U.S. Navy jets taking off from G.R. Ford Int'l Airport here in Grand Rapids at five minute intervals. this is something i've never seen or heard of and i've lived here my whole life and been a casual airplane watcher since infancy. i'm no expert, but it's just something strange I noticed, and I wonder if it is just normal Navy practice to have fleets of jets taking off out of midwest airports.

Originally posted by RicoMarston
reply to post by kalamatas

 

There is nothing "natural" about exhaust spewing out of a jet engine. i'm still undecided on whether or not the jet's flying over our cities are being used to conduct geo-engineering (or worse) but i know for a fact that persistent contrails are just something that happens. how do you think regular clouds form?

I think what the OP is getting at is that how come out of the 4 contrails the plane left behind, 2 were switching off and on independent from the other 2, which were solid?

If its atmospheric conditions causing these trails (as with normal trails), then surely all 4 would change at the same time. The only consideration I could make is that if the plane was a 4 engine model, its possible the pilot adjusted the pair engines, modifying the trail behaviour. But I cant see a valid reason todo that midflight.

reply to post by Mactire


Gotcha, but since I saw it, I'd still like an explanation for it. I really don't need to prove to anyone what I saw, but rather solidify in my own mind the b.s. people spew is truly b.s. The arguments I read are wicked retarded. And if anyone's willing to humor me with an explanation for what I saw, I'd love to hear it.

And thanks for the compliment!

Here's a photo from the 1960s, four engines leaves two trails.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d26d5b749233.jpg[/atsimg]

But it's hard to say what you saw without pics. Possibly different power settings - but I'll defer to heavy pilots for that.

It could also be to do with the position of the engine in the wake turbulence. One set of exhaust plumes is going to be mixing with the air at a different rate to the the other two, and so will have less ice in it, so persist for less time - maybe not even make a trail if close to threshold conditions.

But you can also get two trails from four engines just from the trails combining and dissipating in a certain way - depending on air speed, temp and humidity. That's what you see in the pic above.

reply to post by proph3t777


Exactly. But my question is too, why would two of them never leave a solid trail and the other two would. The "atmospheric conditions" can differ that greatly between all four all the way across the sky? And then with a break in between? Something I haven't seen before!

I'm really not looking for any argument here, as my beliefs of something being terribly wrong in the sky were formed well before I even heard of the term chemtrail, or had internet for that matter. I just want to know if, after what I saw tonight, the opposing opinion can help solidify my beliefs even more so.

reply to post by kalamatas


Just to throw something out there, it could be that as the four contrails are split into two pairs seperated by the fuselage, the two on either side of the plane are merging with each other rather than one dissappearing.

I have trouble forming a picture of what you mean - even after Prophet's interp which yuo have endorsed.

I think you are saying that 2 trails were going all the time, and 2 others were switching on and off?

Off hand I can't explain that except perhaps you were seeing contrails merging and then not merging for some reason.

But when I cant' explain something I do not leap to teh conclusion that it is somethign evil being perpetrated on teh world. Instead I leap to the conclusins that I don't know what it is.

I'm curious & I'd be interested in a definitive explaination too. But in the mean time is stil not actually evidence of chemtrails, and if there is no definitive explaination forthcoming from anyone then for me it will remain unknown and nothing more.

Edit: Just did a google search for "4 contrails trails merging" and found this photo that has some characteristics that look like they might fit your description - only you can say yay or nay....there's clearly 4 engine trails, then they appear to becoem 2, but then further behind the plane they spread out a bit and could possibly be called 4 trails again -

www.photographersdirect.com...

Well, I'm not sure what you saw, but this picture shows 4 contrails merging into 2. Seems normal enough...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b70bc0a73052.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by kalamatas


I'll give it a shot. Two engine aircraft with sprayers. The contrails disappear, but the chem trails stay.

reply to post by kalamatas

I'm really not looking for any argument here, as my beliefs of something being terribly wrong in the sky were formed well before I even heard of the term chemtrail, or had internet for that matter.

Then why post about it at all?

You just totally admitted that you have complete Confirmation bias regarding your opinion of "chemtrails", therefore invalidating any responses you receive regarding "chemtrails".

Thank goodness for paint. LOL!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4e05fa753bed.png[/atsimg]

So four came out. Two merged and persisted, billowed and stayed, except for a temporary break, The other two didn't merge, continued the entire length without a break but dissipated/ disappeared. The two that disappeared did not necessarily come from one side of the plane. I just drew it that way so that the pictured wouldn't be a jumbled mess, but the trails afterward were how i saw it in the sky. The bottoms ones disappearing. Please excuse my paint job.

reply to post by ZombieJesus


I always keep an open mind. I have an opinion and belief based upon what I've experienced and learned. If someone were to actually give me some truly convincing factual information, I am always open to changing my stance. It seems that the whole "atmospheric condition" argument is standard, and I can see how people could believe in it. I consider what the other side presents, yet from what I know and what I've experienced, it doesn't make one lick of sense in my mind. And in light of what I saw, this makes that argument seem even less believable.

So as someone who is willing to question my own mind when something different is presented, this has nothing to do with bias. It has everything to do with having strong beliefs while still being able to put them out on the table to be tested. I'm not saying the opposing argument is wrong, I'm saying it's very hard to believe, hence gives off the scent of b.s.

For as long as I can remember, no matter where I have lived in the US, I have seen the occasional jets flying overhead leaving trails of what I always described as "clouds" or "smoke" (this was before I knew of the term contrails). It has never once crossed my mind they were anything but. Even after learning about this conspiracy theory of chemtrails, and here's why: When I was a kid, my family and I lived in military housing because my dad was in the navy. It was quite common to see military jets (the Blue Angels) zipping around. And not high in the sky either. No, they flew very low. I swear sometimes they would be so low you could see the pilot, even if just for a split second. Whenever these jets were flying in low altitude, not once do I remember seeing any contrails. The only time I have seen jets leaving a trail of "smoke" is when they are flying at extremly high altitudes. Could the difference of pressure and temp be the reason for this? I'm not expert, but it sounds logical to me.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by ZombieJesus


Sorry, after reading "confirmation bias", I see what you mean. What I was getting at, is that I don't want to provoke anyone into an argument of whose right or wrong. Nor do I state that what the opposition has to say is wrong, rather it's highly questionable in the face of "the sky in front of my eyes". I have my strong beliefs, and am extending outward the questioning of my own beliefs. What I meant by my statement was that I'm not looking for anyone else to challenge or question my beliefs but simply to present what they know about what I saw today. Does that make sense?

reply to post by kalamatas

It seems that the whole "atmospheric condition" argument is standard, and I can see how people could believe in it.

To be perfectly honest, contrail formation is 100% dependent on atmospheric conditions, so seeing that people believe in it does make sense. From your statement, I know that my above response will be seen by "chemtrail" believers as a cop out, but I must ask; what data are you basing your opinion on that the measurement and observation of atmospheric conditions, along with the flight data of given aircraft, with consideration of the type of engine equipped on the aircraft, bring you to the conclusion that this would be "less believable" or "give off the scent of b.s."?

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


My experience like many is having grown up as a person who DID look up at the sky frequently, enough to notice the beginning of when it didn't look right anymore. Having never seen a contrail persist, having never seen them criss cross billowing out to make a perfectly blue sky turn icky muck color making it disgusting humid and difficult to breath in the summer. I remember in about 1999-ish asking myself why the air was so nasty, when it was perfectly blue that morning. I remember thinking, what's going on, why are our summers not beautiful anymore, like the year before or the year before. Why are there rarely "nice days" anymore? And I remember seeing the contrails persist to make the sky a mess. I didn't even know what a chemtrail was or that others were noticing it too until at least 2 or 3 years later. All I know is I saw a change in the sky and saw a change in the planes prior. I don't know what the heck is coming out of them either, especially since you have testimony of any number of substances. But I do know, condensation from planes, if able to form clouds, shouldn't be off white. I also know that clouds don't drip and settle into a smog like haze. I've had a family member tell me that he spoke to a friend at the local air force base who told him that what is being spewed is a byproduct from some type of nasty fuel that needs to be used up. ??? Strontinum, Barium, Aluminum oxide, viruses, polymers, goo, funky jet fuel? I don't know. But I don know what I've experienced.

???

reply to post by kalamatas


My experience is that I grew up and saw persistent contrails in the late 60's & early 70's - then I became an aircraft mechanic working on those same aircraft (because here were only 10 or so in this country!!) and I know for an absolute fact that they had nothing untoward fitted, and the fuel was kerosene.

As for the comment about "atmospheric conditions is a standard answer" - that is because the science of atmospheric conditions does not change - atmospheric conditions combined with internal combustion made persistent contrails in the 1940's, and atmospheric conditions combined with jet turbine combustion makes persistent contrails in the 1990 and 2000' and 2010's (and before and beyond)

That's the thing about the real world - if the physics makes something happen, then the physics makes it happen and it doesn't care whether you think it is true or not.

Chemtrail believers complain about the "same old explanations" - but the explanations aren't changing because the observations of contrails aren't changing - and that's not going to change!

Originally posted by ZombieJesus
reply to post by kalamatas

 

It seems that the whole "atmospheric condition" argument is standard, and I can see how people could believe in it.

To be perfectly honest, contrail formation is 100% dependent on atmospheric conditions, so seeing that people believe in it does make sense. From your statement, I know that my above response will be seen by "chemtrail" believers as a cop out, but I must ask; what data are you basing your opinion on that the measurement and observation of atmospheric conditions, along with the flight data of given aircraft, with consideration of the type of engine equipped on the aircraft, bring you to the conclusion that this would be "less believable" or "give off the scent of b.s."?

Yes "contrail" formation is dependent on atmospheric conditions. Persisting billowing "cloud" formation depending on atmospheric conditions is in question. And the main reason it is in question IS NOT because a scientific explanation isn't good enough, it's that only in the last 10-15 years has this question even arose BECAUSE of the fact that this phenomena was not present before. I don't accept the argument that "no one ever noticed before". If anything truly reeks of b.s. it's that argument. As a person with eyes to see, a mind to think, a love for the beauty of nature, and a sense of awe of the world around them, including manmade contraptions such as planes, the only people that statement is able to convince is those who haven't been around long enough to notice or those who have their heads buried deep in all things meaningless.

What also gives off the scent of b.s. is that multiple explanations arise in conjunction with the "atmospheric condition" idea. One day it's "atmospheric conditions" another day it's a change in jet engines. What also stinks is when those trying to drive home their argument against those that believe something's not right belittle, condescend, and contradict more than they try to give definitive proof. I don't think the people who believe that something other than water vapor is coming out of the back of these planes want it to be real. If anything I think they would be seeking information to prove it wrong. I for one, would love to know that toxic crap is not raining down on my family, but unfortunately, my keen sense of surroundings, my awareness of the moment, my addiction to sunny days for tanning, my childhood spent outside playing, not plopped in front of t.v., the pictures in my albums, the pictures in my head, the pictures in others album, the pictures in others heads, the videos, the movies tell me what's being left in the sky (that tends to have an off white hue) has not always been there since the beginning of commercial aviation. And that if billowing trails were never there before 10-15 years ago, and this is something newer and not natural that has been admitted to by people who would be "the ones to know".....then I think the odor I smell just might be that of a little baloney sauce.

Where's the beef?