Geoengineering - caught in the act?

reply to post by Phage

since they form at altitudes far higher

Yes, but they don't remain at the higher altitudes.
The trails in the Op obviously started to feather out as they dropped. This causes a blanketing effect and they are able to cover a greater area and capture more pollution particles.

I would agree with you if the trails always remained skinny lines and never dissipated, but they don't.

reply to post by Afterthought

The contrails didn't drop.
They may have expanded a bit which might make some people think they dropped. You know...a perspective thing. Optical illusion.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Afterthought

It's just that during the night they trap a bit more heat than they inhibit during the da

So, you don't completely disagree that this is what we're seeing here in his photos.

It would work better if they didn't occur during the daytime too.

It would work if the proper materials were used. The daytime trails could carry reflective materials to counter the sun's rays helping the day hours remain cooler, then they move in at night laying trails containing different particles to keep the heat in. This way, there isn't too much of a temperature variation going on that would reak havoc on the weather and vegetation. Just ever so gradually taking control of the temperature and humidity. I wonder if they are able to create an air pocket big enough that it could it push an approaching hurricane back out to sea?

Originally posted by tommyjo

Of course it holds water. You are trying to make your theory fit, but you have clearly read the data incorrectly. Nothing to fall for apart from your desperate need to make the data fit your 'chemtrail/spraying' theory. How often do we see this type of thread where individuals fail to interpret the data at hand and then throw the toy out of the cot when they are challenged? It might give you a warm fuzzy feeling that you have presented 'evidence' of caught in the act 'geo-engineering', but it is based on flawed logic and misinterpretation of data.

No, I gave you my data.

I never said anything about chemtrails, I said these persistent contrails spread out from a large number of aircraft over the course of 20 minutes to cover the sky, the aircraft which were not on the flight aware radar so they were probably military or something else. You are attempting to put words in my mouth.

Read my OP, don't overwrite it with what you have in your head.

Phage plays dirty and I've outlined those techniques over many, many threads. I'm sick of it and don't intend to play his game. He's like a mob lawyer, his intent is only to provide reasonable doubt and pull people off track with rabbit trails. Follow our long history and you will see I have outlined all his techniques thoroughly. Anyone who's been here for any length of time and has their eyes open sees what he does. Your stepping into a situation you know little about.

I engage freely with those who are really here to explore. Even those that disagree with me.

reply to post by Afterthought

This way, there isn't too much of a temperature variation going on that would reak havoc on the weather and vegetation.

Why not just do a little less at night?
Why is it that the you have to come up with a more and more complex scheme to deny that contrails are anything other than contrails?

What are you calling an "air pocket" and how could contrails produce it?

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by tomdham

 

That was an inside joke abut a thread yesterday made by a person that thinks that sound literally travels thorough the vacuum of space at 300,000kM/sec!! Not talking about radio wave propagation.

Yes that was a very interesting thread.

Now to those that think an x in the sky is chemtrails being spread then how do you explain this...

and then this one at night...

Please note the first pic the sky stayed blue all afternoon, so how does the x pattern confirm chemtrails?

This is far from what I filmed with my OP.

Those contrails and quite normal.

This was a blanketing by a large number of aircraft over 20 minutes which completely covered the sky from horizon to horizon. I am actually filming the bottom edge of it because that is all that I had good light to photograph... I think they used a range of mountains to my south that if you look on a topical map are quite distinct as the cut off line/terrain guidance.

reply to post by pianopraze

I never said anything about chemtrails, I said these persistent contrails spread out from a large number of aircraft over the course of 20 minutes to cover the sky

But you said that conditions would not allow persistent contrails to form. Wouldn't that make them "chemtrails?"

Conditions were not right for contrail formation.

But of course, since I pointed out that you used the wrong data, you've now changed your story.

He's like a mob lawyer, his intent is only to provide reasonable doubt and pull people off track with rabbit trails.

My intent is to show data which demonstrates that the formation of contrails and increasing cloud cover was to be expected under the conditions that night.

reply to post by Phage


Pleae reread my posts.
I never stated that these weren't normal contrails. I just stated that they certainly could be spiked with something. How would anyone know any differently, right? Just look at how you're obviously convinced that they are always normal. What would a normal contrail look like compared to one that's been spiked?
We'd have to test it.

Just like a spiked vodka and cranberry looks, smells, and tastes just like a safe vodka and cranberry, you'd have to test them to tell the difference.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by pianopraze

 

That they were at high altitude is not in doubt. That is the only way to make the contrails.

But, you aren't being clear on the number. You say "many many"....how many? Specifically.

Recall that I counted at least 8 or 9 possibly candidates, just in that one Flight Aware screen grab. We really needed a video, of both the Flight Aware info, and also the sky. But, 8 or 9 in a few minutes' time is not unusual.

edit on Sat 10 March 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)

I did not count them, and they were not all in a formation, they came over the course of 10-20 minutes. The last 10 being the most intense. I would hazard there were 4-6 planes I could see that match the radar and well over 10 that did not.

Look at the contrail patterns and you can see there are no planes that match those flight paths on the radar.

There were many others persistent spreading contrails in every other direction. Like I said, it went from totally clear in all directions to lines of persistent spreading contrails blanketing horizon to horizon in the course of 20 minutes.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by pianopraze

 

I never said anything about chemtrails, I said these persistent contrails spread out from a large number of aircraft over the course of 20 minutes to cover the sky

But you said that conditions would not allow persistent contrails to form. Wouldn't that make them "chemtrails?"

Conditions were not right for contrail formation.

But of course, since I pointed out that you used the wrong data, you've now changed your story.

He's like a mob lawyer, his intent is only to provide reasonable doubt and pull people off track with rabbit trails.

My intent is to show data which demonstrates that the formation of contrails and increasing cloud cover was to be expected under the conditions that night.

I have not changed my story no matter how many words you want to try to put in my mouth. Your Alice in wonderland logic works on many... I fail to see why. I would assume the average ATS more intelligent than most.

Your deny everything and obfuscate. You have not rebutted my OP.

Until you can explain the large number of planes flying overhead that were not on the flight aware radar and why ONLY those planes were leaving these persistent spreading contrails we have nothing to discuss.

I know your games, I refuse to play. Sucker those who you will. People see you for who you are.

Those wonderful photographs help make the case in the simplest way. Something many know anyway. This was obviously done deliberately, with intent, in a very organized manner. Proof!

reply to post by pianopraze

Those contrails and quite normal.

So were yours, so what is the difference?

Just because you had some clouds move in doesn't make them chemtrails,it makes that weather changing which is normal..

reply to post by pianopraze

Until you can explain the large number of planes flying overhead that were not on the flight aware radar and why ONLY those planes were leaving these persistent spreading contrails we have nothing to discuss.

I wouldn't discount military planes. They have a higher flight ceiling than commercial aircraft and are more likely to produce contrails due to the higher altitudes flown. Military planes can also turn their civilian transponders off and on at will.

As to the persistent nature of the contrails that were observed in the OP. Contrails can seed clouds if the conditions are right - this important fact seems to get overlooked by many proponents of chemtrails.

reply to post by pianopraze

There were many others persistent spreading contrails in every other direction. Like I said, it went from totally clear in all directions to lines of persistent spreading contrails blanketing horizon to horizon in the course of 20 minutes.

You call them persistent contrails, so how can you call them chemtrails if they are contrails by your own admission?

So what are they chemtrails or contrails, and how is it you can tell they are so called chemtrails?

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by pianopraze

 

There were many others persistent spreading contrails in every other direction. Like I said, it went from totally clear in all directions to lines of persistent spreading contrails blanketing horizon to horizon in the course of 20 minutes.

You call them persistent contrails, so how can you call them chemtrails if they are contrails by your own admission?

So what are they chemtrails or contrails, and how is it you can tell they are so called chemtrails?

Everyone seems to want to put words in my mouth.

Give one quote where i called them chemtrails.

I accurately described the situation and backed it up with pics and data.


I have answered your other post repeatedly responding to others, i'm getting tired of repeating myself. All the info is in the OP. This is completely different, it happened in 10-20 minutes, spread out across the whole sky and there was two sets of planes. Some showed on the radar some did not. Conditions were not right for contrail formation.

Originally posted by OccamAssassin
reply to post by pianopraze

 

Until you can explain the large number of planes flying overhead that were not on the flight aware radar and why ONLY those planes were leaving these persistent spreading contrails we have nothing to discuss.

I wouldn't discount military planes. They have a higher flight ceiling than commercial aircraft and are more likely to produce contrails due to the higher altitudes flown. Military planes can also turn their civilian transponders off and on at will.

As to the persistent nature of the contrails that were observed in the OP. Contrails can seed clouds if the conditions are right - this important fact seems to get overlooked by many proponents of chemtrails.

It is quite possibly military or DOD contractor.

I do not deny persisten contrails, but yet again, the conditions were not there for them, the other set did not make them. If you want to argue military have different fuels I might be inclined to agree. But that would be pure speculation.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by burntheships

 

I would wager a bet if those contrails could be tested, we would find some type of
particulate matter....

And you would lose that bet.

Guaranteed.

Guaranteed, is that right? I'd like to get in this action as well.

I guarantee that we would find some particulate matter if we tested - Contrail, Chemtrail or otherwise.

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


He can call them whatever he wishes. Since we aren't able to test them, they may have been persistent contrails or they may have been chemtrails, we just don't know yet. Maybe we're seeing a nice mixture of chemtrails and contrails being laid at the same time, but who am I to say?

Many times than not, the terms are becoming more interchangeable. As they decide what to call the different types of geo-engineering, we'll discover more and more and know how to call each one. I'm still waiting to hear if they've decided whether or not to put cloud seeding under the geo-engineering umbrella. I believe they are at odds about this because if they did consider it geoengineering, they would be bound by certain treaties and wouldn't be able to use cloud seeding as a type of weather warfare. See how complicated things are becoming?

reply to post by Afterthought


What the OP has is photos of things that look and behave exactly like contrails are known to look and behave like, in a sky for which he has provided misleading atmospheric information, and drawn obviously incorrect conclusions from the flight radar plot.

So give that the observed phenomena match something that is known, and his attempts to show they can't possibly be that are incorrect, the answer to the thread title question is obvious:

Nope.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Why, hello, Annoying Us All. I was wondering where you were hiding.

I don't agree with your statements because I have made an argument for chemtrails as well as persisting contrails. You can obviously see that they spread out and obscure the moon's light. What do you think they do to the sun's light? Also, how do you feel about the scientific evidence regarding contrails' ability to trap in heat? Are you dispelling all of these possibilities in one fell swoop?