Geoengineering - caught in the act?

Originally posted by pianopraze
reply to post by Phage

 

4 to 5 hours? you got to be kidding me. you would never stand for such an argument if points were reversed. you would demand exact times. so i will also.

the whole USA has more moisture than was over the area i was shooting. the Heaver bands of moisture come in after i was done. again you show times later than i was spring in that loop. i ended at 0 1 0 0 your loop goers later.

the area of contrail formation on the dark maps is obvious on that satellite map. and it is not over the area i was shooting.

You are in Eastern Kentucky aren't you - from your initial map? And the Satellite map clearly shows moisture over that area the whole time of the animation, which goes from before your 0100 hrs to after it - thus covering your entire time span.

your own meteorlogical data provided initially was hours out so where do you get off claiming you require perfectly accurate times??

geo engineering and chem trails really are two different subjects - it's possible that the .gov is either cloud seeding or attempting to or laying down a layer for insulation.

The US needs alot more rainfall to refill aquifers that have been drained through farming or it may cause reduced traffic which reduces oil consumption or a million other things.

Chemtrails on the other hand implies something nefarious.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

You left out the fact that both contrails and cirrus clouds are precursors of weather systems because of the cold moist air which precedes them at high altitudes.

edit on 3/14/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Where in the world would I have to go to see this? Jet trails and their fake clouds have never preceded a weather system where I've been. I'm willing to travel though to see this marvel.

reply to post by circuitsports


You apparently misunderstand the phrase "cloud seeding".

Contrails that form cirrus clouds is not a definition of "seeding" anything. These are simply normal contrails, and normal cirrus that form due to existing conditions of temperature and humidity saturation levels.


"Cloud seeding" as a method to either encourage, or mitigate, precipitation is a specific activity involving types of clouds that are NOT cirrus (since you just won't get results wanted, from cirrus).

Cumulus-type clouds are candidates for seeding. And, the actual seeding process, when it is underway, looks nothing at all like contrails, nor cirrus clouds. It doesn't make "trails", and in fact, is virtually invisible. The silver iodide, when that is used, is just not cohesive and organized-looking as contrails are.

Period. There are plenty of images to research online, to verify these facts.

reply to post by luxordelphi


He's talking about something like this:



You can see the cirrus above and in front of the approaching front.

Or like this in Portugal:

reply to post by luxordelphi


Not ALL approaching frontal systems result in rain or other precipitation each and every time.



Anyone who took the effort to study meteorology would know this already.

reply to post by pianopraze

This is getting rather tedious. You clearly have your mind made up on what you saw and it's clouding your judgement on what you call proof and evidence. This post I'm replying to is one of the worst posts I've seen on ATS, as I am about to show.

Originally posted by pianopraze
I have proven they are not on the radar

You have failed to consider the time it takes for airliners to pass by your area compared to the scale of the flight aware image you posted, even after this has been pointed out multiple times. You have in no way proved that none of the planes making persistent contrails were on the radar. To use your terminology, total proof fail.

Originally posted by pianopraze
The conditions were not present for contrails. Simple logic from the evidence shows the truth.

Time and time again, you cling to the hope that a model is a perfect representation of the conditions when the makers of the model state that it is not. You even used the model inappropriately in your OP. The actual meteorological evidence shows a front moving into your area. It is not necessary for the bulk of the front to be over you to see contrail or cirrus formation, as it would be raining and obscuring your view. Cirrus and contrail formation precede the main frontal system, as you would know if you bothered to research meteorological phenomena. Total logic and evidence fail

Originally posted by pianopraze
I even photographed the plane making short contrails AFTER i photographed the planes make the long contrails. You can see both the long and short contrails in the same photo at 9:08.

Airliners flying along the same flight corridor at such close distances will highly likely be flying at different altitudes. This means they will be flying in different atmospheric conditions, and assuming they will be the same is foolish and ignorant. Total logic fail.

Originally posted by pianopraze
Here is phage's data, notice the times... his first one an hour after I took my last photo. His second one is 4 hours later!

You were in the region of Wayland, Kentucky right?

Daylight savings started on March 11, after your photos from March 7. Therefore, your local time was UTC - 5 hours. This makes 9pm march 7th 0200 UTC on March 8th. The second image is 3 hours later. Total time reading fail.

Originally posted by pianopraze
Phage even manipulated the data to different hight than NOAA said to use very clearly on that page (quote in op), and used later time periods in his loops.

This is just ridiculous. Your quote from NOAA says "Select a pressure value between 200 and 250 mb for the best estimate". You used 200 mb and Phage used 250 mb. You both used the data values the website suggested. Phage's start time was 9:00pm local time, the time of your pics. You used 2300 UTC which was 6pm local time. Your's was 3 hours earlier than your pics! Total criticism fail! Total app using fail!

Since you have failed to use the NOAA app appropriately, let's start again and go half way between the suggested pressure and set it at 225mb. That way we should get the best representation as recommended by NOAA. We'll start at 9pm (0200 UTC).


Well would you look at that. The model you used to adamantly claim contrails could not form, predicts contrail formation almost exactly at the time you photographed them, when using the best pressure settings as advised by NOAA. That's quite impressive for a model that only takes measurements every 12 hours. This matches the actual observed meteorogical data fairly closely. This proves that contrail formation was highly likely at the time of your pics.

To summarise all of the points you raised, and the appropriate rebuttal.

EPIC EVIDENCE FAIL!

reply to post by pianopraze


They have not proved how man made clouds benefit us yet.
They describe it as, the lesser of 2 evils,
Fly high less toxic pollution, harmless eye pollution they would claim,
Fly lower more pollution, more fuel used, higher price
But what if you where trying to do commerce?
Make money with pictures that have no contrails in them.
Imagine trying to get a picture of, just a blue sky.
How far would you have to go, then where to go, just to get a picture of the sky with no man made artifacts.
This thread started with a picture but I feel no one has got the big picture.

reply to post by luxordelphi

Originally posted by luxordelphi

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

You left out the fact that both contrails and cirrus clouds are precursors of weather systems because of the cold moist air which precedes them at high altitudes.

edit on 3/14/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Where in the world would I have to go to see this? Jet trails and their fake clouds have never preceded a weather system where I've been. I'm willing to travel though to see this marvel.

Your profile says, you're in the Pacific Southwest. Are you a fellow kiwi? If you are in Auckland, NZ (where I currently reside), you will very rarely see contrails. The reason is that the vast majority of air traffic in the area is either coming or going from Auckland International Airport, and they are at altitudes too low to produce contrails, even when their is cirrus formation (which I can assure you, it often occurs before an approaching front, usually from the West).

However, if you wish to see contrails, then somewhere around the Nelson or Golden Bay area is an ideal location. This is due to it being underneath the usual flight corridors between Auckland and Christchurch, at a point where they are at a fairly high altitude. I have seen a few when I was in Takaka, Golden Bay. In saying that, aircraft usually start descending into Christchurch fairly close to Nelson so you might see them stop once they lose some altitude. Also, NZ has far less air traffic from high-bypass turbofan aircraft (the ones most likely to produce contrials) than other places in the world, so it's not the ideal location for contrail formation but it does happen. Hope that helps

I have been an aircraft enthusiast since as long as I can remember, and even at a very young age I knew what a contrail was when I saw one, although they were far less common back then. My ideal day involved going to Rotorua airport and seeing one of these (below) come in. I loved the roar of the turbojet engines, but they were far less conducive to contrail formaiton than turbo fan engines. These 737-200 were brought into service in 1978 but phased out by the more efficient (and contrail conducive) 737-300 and A320-200.

reply to post by Gmoneycricket

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
reply to post by pianopraze

 

They have not proved how man made clouds benefit us yet.

I am in no way saying that contrails or associated clouds benefit us. There are many studies trying to figure out the climate forcing of contrails, as with increasing air travel and new aircraft comes increasing contrails and increased climate forcings. Not to mention that they can obscure your sun. But as you said, the negative effects of high altitude flight have to be weighed up against inefficient and more polluting low level flight. I can't say if they've got the right trade off or not.

But if you want to see clear skies, come to New Zealand There is not a huge amount of air traffic and the mornings often start out beautifully clear, although if you're in Auckland it will probably start raining by lunch time It's currently raining in Hamilton which has delayed my cricket watching plans (NZ vs SA), but today has been lovely in Auckland, and I will soon be going down to the beach for a swim.

reply to post by Curious and Concerned


Your putting words in my mouth. I have never stated that contrails cannot persist! Most contrails will not persist, and I understand the altitude and humidity issues. I was on this earth long before you ever arrived on the scene, you will never, ever, denigrate me or my posts. I bet you also believe that WTC 7 just fell down on it's own??? Hahahahahaha....................

reply to post by Curious and Concerned


Even at 0200 the pictures shows black in the area I was shooting no mater which way you manipulate the data.

Also there is a plane in my last photo, that was on the radar, makeing short contrails, showing the conditions WERE NOT RIGHT for contrails.

No conditions for contrails. No mater how much you try to force it to be.

What if I had contracted him to make me his art,
of a windmill with that planetary alignment, on a clear night.
I would be out of my art, he would receive no pay,
neither of us were able to honor contract.
Can't blame him, he researched weather, it was suppose to be a clear night.


This is just one example, how many people on the planet have had commerce
affected every day
just from contrails alone?

Originally posted by Captain Beyond
reply to post by Curious and Concerned

 

Your putting words in my mouth. I have never stated that contrails cannot persist! Most contrails will not persist, and I understand the altitude and humidity issues. I was on this earth long before you ever arrived on the scene, you will never, ever, denigrate me or my posts. I bet you also believe that WTC 7 just fell down on it's own???

Yet again you make false assumptions about me, and you would have lost your money. You have denigrated me far more than I have denigrated you, but I guess your allowed to because you're older than me, is that right? No, I don't believe WTC 7 simply fell down, and you might find I agree with you on many topics regarding 9/11 as I don't subscribe to the official story, but that is not the topic of this thread.

The links you provided stated that if a contrail persists more than a couple minutes it is a chemtrail, which as I have shown was a lie. You claimed the links had "factual information" and I simply showed that it claimed false information which according to you, makes me a disinfo agent. I should be angry or annoyed at your false claims against me, but quite frankly, it's just sad. I honestly wish you all the best in the search for truth, and you might be right about some things, I'm not denying that.

Originally posted by pianopraze
reply to post by Curious and Concerned

 

Also there is a plane in my last photo, that was on the radar, makeing short contrails, showing the conditions WERE NOT RIGHT for contrails.

Well that's an oxymoron if I ever saw one. As pointed out many, many times, the model is not an exact representation even though it is almost spot on as per your photos and the correct times. And since we don't know exactly what altitude and pressure the plane you saw was flying, there is no way to accurately compare it to the model.

Originally posted by pianopraze
No conditions for contrails. No mater how much you try to force it to be.

Given all the evidence pointed out to you in this thread, this is the single most ignorant statement I have ever seen on ATS.

I'm not sure if you are being deliberately disingenuous and obtuse, or if you genuinely believe the statements you make. But all the evidence presented shows that what the photos show is not just possible, but likely given the conditions. You have failed to provide evidence proving geo-engineering was taking place, which was the premise of this thread. This is clear to anyone with an open mind who's actually looking at and understanding the evidence, instead of relying on prior beliefs in chemtrail/geo-engineering to deny everything they don't agree with. I do believe that some forms of geo-engineering takes place, but there is no evidence in this thread which proves it occurred in Kentucky on March 7th, 2012.

Originally posted by pianopraze
reply to post by Curious and Concerned

 

Also there is a plane in my last photo, that was on the radar, makeing short contrails, showing the conditions WERE NOT RIGHT for contrails.

So you saw contrails forming, and you take that as evidence that conditions were not right for forming contrails??

Wow......just.....wow!!

No conditions for contrails. No mater how much you try to force it to be.

Short contrails are still contrails...so clearly conditions WERE right for making contrails!!

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned

I used to work on that aircraft!

Edit - Actually... I probably didn't!!

Looking back the ZK-NAA I worked on was a Fokker F-27 Friendship!!

www.airliners.net...&sid=11d2bf84923279d5be68756e3d24f628

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Explain "work". TIA

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Explain "work". TIA

Which part of "work" are you having trouble with??

I was an apprentice then tradesman aircraft mechanic for NAC and then Air NZ in Christchurch from 1976-1982.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Work could mean anything from being a pilot or co-pilot, to a maintenance engineer, to a refueller, a baggage handler, a steward/stewardess or a cleaner. None of which will qualify you as an expert on contrails, chemtrails or anything else of that nature. Clear enough?