Why do they block the sun?

reply to post by samlf3rd


Is this the one you are looking for - Regional Variations in U.S. Diurnal Temperature Range for the 11–14 September 2001Aircraft Groundings: Evidence of Jet Contrail Influence on Climate

If so then the diurnal temperature range is the difference between the highest daytime temperature and the lowest night time temperature - this study showed an increase in that difference of about 1 deg C.

It is NOT an increase in temperature.

And even then whether contrails were the cause is still being argued as apparently it was a particularly cloudless time in September that year!

reply to post by thalogic308


The title of "your" video is obviously incorrect. In just the first 20 seconds, it's obviously incorrect.

It claims "Proof!!" About "blocking the Sun". Those are normal contrails, and in addition there are a good many normal cirrus clouds. They are in the sky. The Sun is fairly low on the horizon, from the point-of-view of your camera.

So what??

Do you, when thinking logically and rationally, believe that EVERYONE on Earth has the exact same view as you do, of the sky and the Sun, at the same time everywhere?

And, not just everyone on Earth....but everyone in just your city, spread however wide the city is laid out.

I'm sorry, but if the logic of the above is not obvious or somehow escapes anyone, then I can think of no more clearer way to explain it.

reply to post by Anim8tr
Those are not chemtrails, just busy flight path, chemtrails are normally see as grids not straight lines, nothing to worry about although it's annoying that it does block out the sunshine.

Originally posted by Anim8tr

My suggestion to all of them is to form a group, fund a test flight, and prove or disprove once and for all.

I may try to provoke a response but a group hug isn't cutting it

I'll chip in a dollar or two. Imagine if just half a million people would do that, we would be up there taking samples in no time (and ending the endless chemtrail -real or hoax?- discussion). Because then we would have physical proof in our hands....if "they" let us is the big question.

Exactly. If the chemtrail movement would get organized, they could fund this research and put an end to the pointless back and forth bickering. They would either be real, or not. As long as the tests were done scientifically and with an accredited lab, both sides would have to agree on the outcome. There must be more than 15 or 20 chemtrail believers. Find a leader, and make it happen.

Hey i know this debate has been goin for a while, it does my head in so many ideas none of which im sure im are believeable enough... (blocking sun wtf?) but anyway there is an advert here in aus for virgin airlines... The end 5 to 10 seconds is a plane flying 'leaking' red and blue (virgins main colors?) its a 'normal' looking plane 747?? but everytime i saw the ad it trips me out. i cant upload vids on my phone maybe someone else could, i beleive its worth checking out.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by JarredAus
but anyway there is an advert here in aus for virgin airlines... The end 5 to 10 seconds is a plane flying 'leaking' red and blue (virgins main colors?) its a 'normal' looking plane 747?? but everytime i saw the ad it trips me out.

Seriously?



It has already been hijacked by the chemtrailers.

chemtruth.ning.com...

Save us from the madness!

reply to post by network dude


I have $100 for the first person to step up and organize. DB

reply to post by network dude


Same can be said for your side. It would only take a half million or so of you folks to create the same situation. Funny how when you are being outspoken you tend to forget that someone might just say 'Put YOUR money where your mouth is.' I have to believe that you folks would love to have the same scientific evidence fall to your favor so you can espouse the truth.

reply to post by EarthChilde


Scientist have been doing that for decades.

Why ask a lab to do something they have already done/studied?

Here in the UK we have this guy, Patrick Lynch. I've seen him at an airshow that I attended last year. He was passing out 'Chemtrail' flyers. The usual images that the chemtrailers rip off from the web. Absolutely no reasoning with him whatsoever.

The usual baloney of 'contrails only last half a minute'! Here he is informing people that the aircraft that he is filming are military. The usual 'KC-135'KC-10' gibberish







www.youtube.com...

reply to post by EarthChilde


I already am convinced that what everyone is seeing is contrails. Science and experience has proven that to me time and again. But apparently some folks need more. That is why I think they (they being the chemtrail believers) should organize an effort to either prove or disprove this theory once and for all. It's my belief that if a large enough group saw unbiased results proving that there is nothing to fear, perhaps they could put their efforts into something a bit more worthwhile.

reply to post by JarredAus

The end 5 to 10 seconds is a plane flying 'leaking' red and blue (virgins main colors?) its a 'normal' looking plane 747??

NO, none of them are 747s. (A 747 has FOUR engines).

The final shot shows an Airbus A-330 (a wide-body twin-jet) on point, and about smaller twin-jets behind, which are Boeing 737s.

The coloured streamers at the end are CGI (Computer Graphics) added in during post-production. And I dare say, the "video" of all the jets fly in in formation is also a digital creation, a composite.

None of those jets can emit a streamer of anything, as depicted at the points shown in the video, excepting possibly the A-330, since those locations are approximately where the fuel jettison nozzles would be located.....but that would be far too costly (dumping fuel unnecessarily) than just adding the effect in digitally.


That commercial, BTW, is simply a marketing effort for the re-branding of the same airline, now with a different name. It was "Virgin Blue" before.

Originally posted by Imagewerx
I don't know if this will make any difference or will actually be taken any notice of by the chemtrail believers,but here goes anyway.

When I was an aircraft spotting young teenager back in the early to mid 1970s,I used to spend all my summer holidays watching the nice clear blue skies over southern England (and we had PROPER summers even in the UK back in those days) with my binoculars and manual tuning Sharp AM airband receiver,so I had a pretty good idea what every contrail I saw was.I lived right underneath UR37 (Upper Red 37) as it was called then which was quite a busy airway,so I got used to seeing how contrails reacted over time.I soon got to learn from nothing more than using my own eyes that as the trails started to linger for longer and longer and became more persistent,the weather was about to change for the worse.Every time the day started and there were already lingering trails there when I woke up I knew there was a weather front approaching,and by the end of that day the sky would have gone from deep blue to manky grey and it'd be raining by the next day.

If a 13 year old schoolboy of average intelligence could work out just by using his eyes and a bit of common sense back in the pre-internet era that the approaching weather front caused the trails to be a LOT more persistent,and not the other way round where the trails caused the weather to change,then why can't grown up and more mature/intelligent adults also believe in such a simple concept? At that age I had an open mind (I still do actually) and didn't have my judgement of what was happening around me clouded (pardon the pun) by what I read on the internet,which from my own observations I'd have to guess at about 75% bull# or science fiction and the rest is science fact.

My dad who served as a fitter armourer in our FAA (Fleet Air Arm) in the second world war told me on many many occasions about the same thing over south east England as the Battle of Britain took place over head with Spitfires,Hurricanes,Messerschmits etc etc and the whole sky would be blotted out with countless hundreds of contrails going in every possible direction.

So I have empirical evidence that what are now believed by some people to be chemtrails that started in the 1990s were there some 20 years or more before this,and I even have the eyewitness account of someone with no reason to lie to me (he was a librarian and not a CIA shill) that they showed the exact same characteristics as today but a whole 70 years ago.That's a hell of discrepancy isn't it when according to the chemtrail believers,they only started "spraying" about 20 years ago.How do they explain in that case if back then they were just water vapour,how did they linger all day long without the chemicals we have to mix with them nowadays?

Chris.

Self quoting like this is not something I'd normally do,but I'm doing it in an attempt to get an answer from the OP,or at the very least to hear his opinion on what I've said and if he has an alternative explanation for what I've described?

So how about it Anim8tr,can you debunk my crazy story?

Originally posted by EarthChilde
reply to post by network dude

 

Same can be said for your side. It would only take a half million or so of you folks to create the same situation. Funny how when you are being outspoken you tend to forget that someone might just say 'Put YOUR money where your mouth is.' I have to believe that you folks would love to have the same scientific evidence fall to your favor so you can espouse the truth.

Dude.. all of the scientifically repeatable research backs up contrails being the source of the visible trail of vapor.

-ZERO- scientifically repeatable research backs up chemtrails.

Your move.

Originally posted by EarthChilde
reply to post by network dude

 

I have $100 for the first person to step up and organize. DB

Send it to this guy - wellaware1.com...

reply to post by Imagewerx


Hi Chris,

Your post is excellent. Unfortunately the 'Chemtrail' believers have an answer for everything. They have it all sewn up! WW2 footage showing persistent contrails is all faked. It has been brainwashed into them that persistent contrails only occurred from the 1990s onwards. Seriously!



This Chemtrailer can't buy into the concept of persistent contrails in 1944 and 1945. Listen to his ignorance of aviation! The other myth that they buy into is that prop driven aircraft can't produce contrails. This is the reality that you are dealing with when trying to debate with them.

reply to post by tommyjo

Thank you tommyjo.Do they genetically modify people like tankerenemy to be biblically stupid? He clearly knows less about aviation than my goldfish does.

just because someone on an internet forum somewhere says that airplane exhaust is a "roll cloud" doesn't make it so.

there is clearly an airplane in that picture...that is clearly the airplane's exhaust.

I used your link to wiki to demonstrate that roll clouds and the more general arcus clouds are only made by nature, in natural processes.

an airplane's exhaust is not a process of nature and does no way create the same eolian processes which nature uses to produce arcus clouds.

this is why your picture is not of arcus/roll clouds. it is of airplane exhaust.

i hope all you trolls' teeth fall out.

reply to post by Imagewerx


Tankerenemy.com is a blog based business.

And YT is probably the best avenue he has for advertising it.

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
just because someone on an internet forum somewhere says that airplane exhaust is a "roll cloud" doesn't make it so.

there is clearly an airplane in that picture...that is clearly the airplane's exhaust.

What photo are you talking about - this one??


If so, are you suggesting that the light aircraft the picture is being taken from has caused that cloud from its exhaust, and that this is obvious from the picture?

Could you elaborate if that is your position please?? I see no connection between the cloud and the aircraft other than the photographer is using the a/c to get a good shot of the cloud.

That particular cloud is in the Morning Glory cloud from northern Australia. It is known to the local Aboriginal inhabitants, and existed long before Europeans noticed it in the 1940's

I used your link to wiki to demonstrate that roll clouds and the more general arcus clouds are only made by nature, in natural processes.

I don't think anyone has actually said otherwise......

an airplane's exhaust is not a process of nature and does no way create the same eolian processes which nature uses to produce arcus clouds.

an aircraft exhaust contains a lot of moisture - the generation of that moisture is certainly artificial, but what happens to it once it is in the atmosphere is entirely dependent on the conditions in the atmosphere, and therefore can reasonably be said to be a result of both artificial and natural processes.

this is why your picture is not of arcus/roll clouds. it is of airplane exhaust.

This is nonsensical if it refers to the picture above....