Gov't shutdown and Chemtrails link???

libertytoall

waynos
reply to post by libertytoall

 

And then those trails can move, expand, change altitudes, and hold together?? And then a aircraft can fly through an area where the contrail exists or existed and make no contrail?? It's such a sci fi phenomenon..

They can move in the winds, which can be very powerful at those heights, why wouldn't they?

If they are expanding in a region where the conditions support that then there is every chance they will expand into each other, again, why wouldn't they?

who says they change altitudes?

And no, if the conditions support persisting contrails, no plane will pass through them and NOT leave one, it must be higher or lower.

It's all sci, no fi required.

edit on 16-10-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)

You sound like Al Gore presenting an argument that makes no sense. The only way it makes sense is if contrail conditions form tube like invisible structures in the sky where planes just so happen to fly in the exact formation of relevant tubular atmospheric conditions. Sounds logical..

And then of course airplanes ALWAYS enter these conditions elongated allowing them to have a persistent trail from horizon to horizon. They NEVER hit these conditions from the side or at an angle that lets them travel through it and come out another place where the conditions are not right. Logic tells me this is a BS answer I'm being given.

edit on 16-10-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

So you've never heard about "spraying" being turned off and on and how contrails coudln't possibly do that?

libertytoall

You sound like Al Gore presenting an argument that makes no sense. The only way it makes sense is if contrail conditions form tube like invisible structures in the sky where planes just so happen to fly in the exact formation of relevant tubular atmospheric conditions. Sounds logical..

No, I am not saying anything like that, that interpretation is all your own. Have you ever seen clouds with defined edges in a blue sky? Do you imagine atmospheric conditions are constant and unchanging?

And then of course airplanes ALWAYS enter these conditions elongated allowing them to have a persistent trail from horizon to horizon. They NEVER hit these conditions from the side or at an angle that lets them travel through it and come out another place where the conditions are not right.

Who says so? They are liars, witness all the claims of "sprays being turned off and on" when exactly that happens.

Logic tells me this is a BS answer I'm being given.

Logically, why?

What about my other post that actually was to you about your own sightings, do you intend to discuss that?

mrthumpy

libertytoall

waynos
reply to post by libertytoall

 

And then those trails can move, expand, change altitudes, and hold together?? And then a aircraft can fly through an area where the contrail exists or existed and make no contrail?? It's such a sci fi phenomenon..

They can move in the winds, which can be very powerful at those heights, why wouldn't they?

If they are expanding in a region where the conditions support that then there is every chance they will expand into each other, again, why wouldn't they?

who says they change altitudes?

And no, if the conditions support persisting contrails, no plane will pass through them and NOT leave one, it must be higher or lower.

It's all sci, no fi required.

edit on 16-10-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)

You sound like Al Gore presenting an argument that makes no sense. The only way it makes sense is if contrail conditions form tube like invisible structures in the sky where planes just so happen to fly in the exact formation of relevant tubular atmospheric conditions. Sounds logical..

And then of course airplanes ALWAYS enter these conditions elongated allowing them to have a persistent trail from horizon to horizon. They NEVER hit these conditions from the side or at an angle that lets them travel through it and come out another place where the conditions are not right. Logic tells me this is a BS answer I'm being given.

edit on 16-10-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

So you've never heard about "spraying" being turned off and on and how contrails coudln't possibly do that?

Why wouldn't a contrail be able to do that?

waynos

libertytoall

You sound like Al Gore presenting an argument that makes no sense. The only way it makes sense is if contrail conditions form tube like invisible structures in the sky where planes just so happen to fly in the exact formation of relevant tubular atmospheric conditions. Sounds logical..

No, I am not saying anything like that, that interpretation is all your own. Have you ever seen clouds with defined edges in a blue sky? Do you imagine atmospheric conditions are constant and unchanging?

Are suggesting atmospheric conditions are like invisible clouds of different pressures, moisture, etc? Like a bunch of bubbles/pockets of varying conditions?

And then of course airplanes ALWAYS enter these conditions elongated allowing them to have a persistent trail from horizon to horizon. They NEVER hit these conditions from the side or at an angle that lets them travel through it and come out another place where the conditions are not right.

Who says so? They are liars, witness all the claims of "sprays being turned off and on" when exactly that happens.

I can't say I've seen "sprayers turned on or off" but I've seen contrails break and start again mid line as if they hit a pocket of different atmospheric conditions. At the same time I've also seen the contrail lines that truly look like grid patterns painted on purpose. that have a defining beginning and end rather than stretching horizons.

Logic tells me this is a BS answer I'm being given.

Logically, why?

What about my other post that actually was to you about your own sightings, do you intend to discuss that?

Let me go back and look I might have missed it. I'll update.

waynos
reply to post by libertytoall

 

So how do we explain a 95 degree sunny day, completely blue skies, and a plane at less than 12,000 feet making a sustained contrail?

Well, as far as that sentence goes, it cannot be a contrail. But there would be some other ideas/questions to be discussed.

Firstly how was 12,000ft determined? If you used a tracker did you also get the other info that they supply regarding model and operator?

Are you able to identify the tail logo?

How sustained was it? On another thread I posted a photo I took of a plane at an airshow creating a condensation cloud (not a trail) at only 500ft on a hot summer day. Aircraft can create these aerodynamic contrails at low level that can trail a little way behind the aircraft but they tend to disappear quite quickly. Was it this? If not how did the trail behave?

Regarding telling the model, it can be deceptive regarding height, for instance an ERJ170 follows the same layout at a Boeing 777 but seats only 70 passengers compared to the latter accommodating over 400 and being vastly larger. Perspective would make the look like two similar aircraft flying side by side if the 777 was a few thousand feet higher. That why it's best not yo rely on eyesight alone.

It was a complete guess for altitude. In order to get a better Idea I would have to stand at a distance from a similar Jet with a range finder until I got the perspectives matched up. How far can a person see the markings on the tail of a commercial aircraft?? 1000 feet? 10,000 feet? 20? I'm not talking reading letters but seeing colors at least.

As far as identifying the tail logo, if it happened this week no problem, unfortunately this was months ago and all I remember is seeing a half red tail.

The trail was persistent for the entire field of view. If I were to hold a ruler in my line of site of the plane it would have been 2 - 3 inches in size from my perspective. I know that doesn't tell you much but maybe a little.

libertytoall

mrthumpy

libertytoall

waynos
reply to post by libertytoall

 

And then those trails can move, expand, change altitudes, and hold together?? And then a aircraft can fly through an area where the contrail exists or existed and make no contrail?? It's such a sci fi phenomenon..

They can move in the winds, which can be very powerful at those heights, why wouldn't they?

If they are expanding in a region where the conditions support that then there is every chance they will expand into each other, again, why wouldn't they?

who says they change altitudes?

And no, if the conditions support persisting contrails, no plane will pass through them and NOT leave one, it must be higher or lower.

It's all sci, no fi required.

edit on 16-10-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)

You sound like Al Gore presenting an argument that makes no sense. The only way it makes sense is if contrail conditions form tube like invisible structures in the sky where planes just so happen to fly in the exact formation of relevant tubular atmospheric conditions. Sounds logical..

And then of course airplanes ALWAYS enter these conditions elongated allowing them to have a persistent trail from horizon to horizon. They NEVER hit these conditions from the side or at an angle that lets them travel through it and come out another place where the conditions are not right. Logic tells me this is a BS answer I'm being given.

edit on 16-10-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

So you've never heard about "spraying" being turned off and on and how contrails coudln't possibly do that?

Why wouldn't a contrail be able to do that?

They can but that is a claim often made by chemtrail believers convinced that it is evidence of spraying

reply to post by libertytoall


Conditions can be extremely variable, that's the thing, there are no trails I've seen that can't be explained by perfectly normal conditions, the breaks in contrails exactly as you described yourself are the ones where we see pictures posted saying its proof of chemtrails because they stopped and started again.

I myself have tracked and photographed flights making defined grid patterns as you described, I made a thread about one of them. But air traffic must leave grids when trails are persisting in that area because it's how the routes are laid out, it is not feasible for a plane flying from London to Glasgow (N-S) to try to avoid crossing the path of a flight from Paris to Washington (E-W) etc.

It only takes two flight along each of those routes and you have a tic tac toe grid, and there are many more routes and thousands of flights so grids are unavoidable. Does that seem logical to you?

mrthumpy

libertytoall

mrthumpy

libertytoall

waynos
reply to post by libertytoall

 

And then those trails can move, expand, change altitudes, and hold together?? And then a aircraft can fly through an area where the contrail exists or existed and make no contrail?? It's such a sci fi phenomenon..

They can move in the winds, which can be very powerful at those heights, why wouldn't they?

If they are expanding in a region where the conditions support that then there is every chance they will expand into each other, again, why wouldn't they?

who says they change altitudes?

And no, if the conditions support persisting contrails, no plane will pass through them and NOT leave one, it must be higher or lower.

It's all sci, no fi required.

edit on 16-10-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)

You sound like Al Gore presenting an argument that makes no sense. The only way it makes sense is if contrail conditions form tube like invisible structures in the sky where planes just so happen to fly in the exact formation of relevant tubular atmospheric conditions. Sounds logical..

And then of course airplanes ALWAYS enter these conditions elongated allowing them to have a persistent trail from horizon to horizon. They NEVER hit these conditions from the side or at an angle that lets them travel through it and come out another place where the conditions are not right. Logic tells me this is a BS answer I'm being given.

edit on 16-10-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

So you've never heard about "spraying" being turned off and on and how contrails coudln't possibly do that?

Why wouldn't a contrail be able to do that?

They can but that is a claim often made by chemtrail believers convinced that it is evidence of spraying

That wouldn't be enough for me to believe in chemtrails.

Here is a good example of what I was saying about perspective.

If it did not show the plane itself passing underneath it would be easy to assume the thicker trail is much lower than the one from the visible plane.

In reality the larger trail has been there about 40 minutes and has spread out.



The plane is an Airbus A330, one of the larger types in service which is called a widebody because the cabin has more than one aisle between the seat rows. It's about 140ft long but the trail can be seen to have spread to far more than that.

For some reason Chemtrailers believe that a trail that vast and hundreds of miles long could come from inside such a plane.

When explanations concerning atmospheric conditions and water content are offered it is dismissed as nonsense, because the former is so much more believable.

waynos
reply to post by libertytoall

 

Conditions can be extremely variable, that's the thing, there are no trails I've seen that can't be explained by perfectly normal conditions, the breaks in contrails exactly as you described yourself are the ones where we see pictures posted saying its proof of chemtrails because they stopped and started again.

I myself have tracked and photographed flights making defined grid patterns as you described, I made a thread about one of them. But air traffic must leave grids when trails are persisting in that area because it's how the routes are laid out, it is not feasible for a plane flying from London to Glasgow (N-S) to try to avoid crossing the path of a flight from Paris to Washington (E-W) etc.

It only takes two flight along each of those routes and you have a tic tac toe grid, and there are many more routes and thousands of flights so grids are unavoidable. Does that seem logical to you?

It does seem logical and those tic tac toe grids hold even less conspiracy to me than the obscure 1 plane out of 10 that all of a sudden streaks one from horizon to horizon.

reply to post by libertytoall


Yes, and that one is what I was hoping we'd be talking about when I posted my first reply

reply to post by libertytoall


Thanks for the edit.

I'm afraid I can't really comment on your description as it doesn't really give enough to go on. However is it something you saw once, or fairly regularly? It's not possible to say, from a guess, what you saw as a mistake in judging height, even if I suspect that may be so, but it would be of great interest to discuss if the sighting should be repeated.

If you have an android/apple phone you can download an app from Flightradar 24 that will tell you exactly what you are looking at and how high it is. If this is repeated you may be able to clear it up or verify it with that and bring some more to that discussion.

Here is a link that may be helpful in future, In this thread I start with a grid, but the second part shows aircraft around 17,000ft too.

I've recognised aircraft colours at over 30,000ft before confirming them with my zoom camera, but if there's any sort of haze it would prevent this, it's worth bearing in mind that it can be hazy while still looking like a blue sky too, see the first post, so there's no definitive answer to that question.

www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread945944/pg1

reply to post by waynos


Sorry but knowing the height is only part of it, the app doesn't tell you the temperature or the humidity which you would also need!

Zaphod58
reply to post by Mikeultra

 

It's a patent. Doesn't prove anything, unless you're going to say that all the other patents out there prove they exist, including all the insane ones.

If a patent proves that it exists, then explain where these 25 devices are.

Oh and did the US Government file those patents??

Korg.

wmd_2008
reply to post by waynos

 

Sorry but knowing the height is only part of it, the app doesn't tell you the temperature or the humidity which you would also need!

Correct. But given that contrails should be impossible lower down, unless its the arctic or similar, finding one and proving it was under 12,000ft would be a good start. So far we haven't had that.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


A patent is still a patent, whoever filed it.

If the Govt owned the devices that are needed for a highly secret, must not ever be revealed to anybody chemtrail spraying operation, why would they publicize it with a patent that anyone can find and read?

waynos
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

A patent is still a patent, whoever filed it.

If the Govt owned the devices that are needed for a highly secret, must not ever be revealed to anybody chemtrail spraying operation, why would they publicize it with a patent that anyone can find and read?

Not true at all.

If the US government files a patent it is for a specific reason.

The Government doesn't do anything that costs money unless it is necessary.

Korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


So, if it's for a specific reason, what patents specify chemtrails that look like contrails and again, why would it even be in a patent?

Ps, why would they use visible trails when it would be easier to make them invisible anyway?

waynos
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

So, if it's for a specific reason, what patents specify chemtrails that look like contrails and again, why would it even be in a patent?

Ps, why would they use visible trails when it would be easier to make them invisible anyway?

edit on 16-10-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)

I never said that the patents were a proof of government involvement in chem-trails.

I simply said the Government doesn't do something without a reason.

The question remains though... why would the government patent such technology?

I might also like to add that often things are best hidden in plain sight!

I think the reason for the viability is that the purpose is geo-engineering a cooling effect on the planet, and the way to do that would be to create high albedo cloud cover, that is to say clouds that act like a mirror to reflect solar radiation back out into space.

Peace,

Korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


And my reason for arguing the non validity of chemtrails (in this form) is simply that nothing has ever been observed or recorded that is not explained by weather and/or what we already know about aircraft contrails.

Every single report I have read has displayed a lack of understanding in some area of contrail behaviour which has led to the sighting being labelled as a chemtrail.

Persistence, gaps, grids and spreading all being prime examples. As is the failure to take account of growing air traffic volumes and the complete revolution in engine technology since the 1980's.

waynos
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

And my reason for arguing the non validity of chemtrails (in this form) is simply that nothing has ever been observed or recorded that is not explained by weather and/or what we already know about aircraft contrails.

Every single report I have read has displayed a lack of understanding in some area of contrail behaviour which has led to the sighting being labelled as a chemtrail.

Persistence, gaps, grids and spreading all being prime examples.

edit on 16-10-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)

There is evidence of global dimming... a cooling of the planet, even in light of increased co2.



Korg.