|
|
Wolf_Larson
Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 442
Location: The Sea |
The mystery of Chemtrails and the Scientific method
 Mon Jan 19, 2004 5:42 am
|
 |
|
I see that Mech or someone has moved this into the "restricted" forum. Too bad, I will reply to it here anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by Show-Me Truth:
Hi all,
I thought I might start a new thread regarding the "mystery" of chemtrails in this forum so as anyone could post, with the hope that maybe it will achieve enough of a "scientific " basis to eventually be moved to either the science forum or the chemtrail forum. My intent here is to see if by using the "scientific method" we cannot all enhance our understanding of "chemtrails". I'll try to keep it short.
Some words borrowed from a college science student handbook set the stage nicely:
"A scientific experiment is not performed in a vacuum, however. First the scientist must learn enough about a subject to identify a problem and find out what others have done to solve the problem".
This is what I was saying, lexta, in regards to not "working backwards". One must not skip steps one and two in the method, if they wish to use "logic" as their main source of "knowing".
So to brush up on our memory of the scientifc method let's again review from the student handbook: (and I will atempt to plug in a set of variables, feel free to add or rationally modify)
Step 1-Identify or state the problem:
A-Loss of sunlight
OK, If that is what you think chemtrails are for. I’ll go along with that.
quote:
Step 2-Analyze the problem (some of this intertwines with step 5) gather information, find out what is known about the problem:
A-Personal observations indicate exhaust from planes create haze blocking sun, while at the same time,
Actually there have been some studies indicating specific climat effects from global aviation exhaust (contrails) from the global, commercial air carrier traffic
quote:
B-Personal observations indicate erratic abnormal flight patterns during times planes create haze blocking sun, while at the same time,
Just how are you defining "erratic" and "abnormal?"
quote:
C-Personal observations indicate planes leaving quickly disapating trails occuring in all different quadrants of the sky, while other planes leave billowing smokey brilliant white trails while at the same time,
OK. In your old science text books do they ever talk about data validation or quality control? Since you have not data on the altitude of those various planes nor of the temperatures and relative humidity at those altitudes, the observation of the various planes and types of trails has little value.
BTW, have you ever read Thermit’s report In it he uses Flight Explorer to identify the planes and altituded of those aircraft.
quote:
D-Colored sundogs and partial rainbows appear in the sky and rings appear around the sun, while at the same time..
These have been documented for centuries. Do you have any hard evidence that the frequency at which they appear has changed?
quote:
E- A "solvent" or "burnt fuel" smell appears in the air, while at the same time...
The mechanics behind the dispersion of aerosols, fumes and gasses in the atmosphere is well understood. It is possible to calculate the rate at which an aerosol of a given size and density will settle from 40,000 feet to ground level. Furthermore, the average human nose can usually detect solvents down to about 5 ppm (as a fume).
You need to back up this observation with some calculations that show it is possible for a plume of solvent relaesed at 40,000 feet will be detectable to people on the ground.
quote:
F- Many companies are offering weather modification that involves dispersion of chemicals into the sky, while at the same time...
Correction, aside from cloud seeding with silver iodide, only the dynagel corp has made any such claims that I know of. Even there their claims appear to be 95% hype.
quote:
G- Military is attempting to "Own the weather by 2025",while at the same time...
H-Corporate backed scientists are advocating geoengineering schemes such as adding reflective metals to the atmosphere, while at the same time...etc....etc....etc...
Step 3- Form a hypothesis:make an "educated guess" as to what the answer may be. This can be based on a hunch or past experience:
A- Planes spraying chemicals according to geoengineering protocols are releasing aerosols into the atmosphere causing a reduction in sunlight reaching earth.
Blah, Blah, Blah
If you want to use scientific methods to prove the existance of chemtrails, then you will have to do better than that. The scientific method is based on hard data. Your data (visual observations) is totally inadequate and incomplete.
|
| |
|
|
letxa2000
Joined: 30 Apr 2002
Posts: 588
Location: U.S. citizen in Mexico |
|
Tue Jan 20, 2004 12:35 am
|
|
|
Hopefully Mech will stop closing these threads so that us lowly people who have yet to call ourselves "CT Activists" can exchange ideas.
If chemtrails topics are not accepted in this forum and people that are not yet convinced about Chemtrails aren't allowed in the Chemtrails forum, then there really ought to be another forum in which an open exchange of ideas can occur on the topic. As it stands now, this smacks of "censoring" the debate... and completely shutting those out that have honest questions about the claims of chemtrails.
Such questions should be welcomed as an opportunity to educate the uninformed, not a threat to your belief system which warrants shutting down threads.
quote:
Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
Excellent scientific study link on chemtrails: http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/report.shtml
I've already commented on this as it was one of the first documents I read on the topic of chemtrails.
One thing the above report did not appear to mention is how many unidentified (from Flight Explorer) aircraft did not leave any contrails. This would be a very important number or percentage to know and would put the rest of the numbers in better perspective.
Further, the fact that aircraft that do not appear in Flight Explorer seem to have longer-lasting contrails would suggest to me that they are simply flying through different masses of air at different times and different altitudes.
Even if we assume that most of the non-FE identified craft are military, you are simply documenting the fact that military aircraft tend to fly through the atmosphere higher or lower or in different locations than commercial aircraft. This is not surprising and isn't proof that these planes are dropping chemicals... simply that they are flying through different airspace. |
| |
|
|
Boomer Chick
Joined: 01 Sep 2003
Posts: 407
Location: Colorado |
|
Tue Jan 20, 2004 1:05 am
|
|
|
Letxa, the only thread forum that is closed to you is the chemtrail reporting forum. The chemtrail science one is this one and it is open to all. There's a gallery of pics available to all as well, and our discussion on the science aspects and of chemtrails themselves was not closed due to any kind of rejection, it was locked because the discussion was in the wrong area -- that's all!
And have you visited Will Thomas's site?
Have you visited http://radarmatrix.com ?
I can't argue anything about that Flight Explorer because it was so technical, but I thought a pilot might be able to see the information offered.
Wolf, what do you think of that site? The link I gave above?
bc |
| |
|
|
Boomer Chick
Joined: 01 Sep 2003
Posts: 407
Location: Colorado |
|
Tue Jan 20, 2004 1:18 am
|
|
|
OK, here's another link that JBE offered before and I just perused. Every article on the list deserves a look! Most of them are quite short and others are PDF and take a bit longer to read. Cloverleaf is especially interesting along with a pilot's anonymous observation and testimony.
http://www.lightwatcher.com/chemtrails/ |
| |
|
|
letxa2000
Joined: 30 Apr 2002
Posts: 588
Location: U.S. citizen in Mexico |
|
Tue Jan 20, 2004 5:55 am
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
Letxa, the only thread forum that is closed to you is the chemtrail reporting forum. The chemtrail science one is this one and it is open to all. There's a gallery of pics available to all as well, and our discussion on the science aspects and of chemtrails themselves was not closed due to any kind of rejection, it was locked because the discussion was in the wrong area -- that's all!
My mistake in posting originally to the wrong forum... Mech's mistake for moving it another wrong forum. 
quote:
And have you visited Will Thomas's site?
I'll get to it. It actually looks more like 9/11 conspiracy stuff which is what I was originally interested in debating when I came here, but now I'm looking into chemtrails. But I do see there are some chemtrail references at Thomas' website so I'll get to them.
quote:
Have you visited http://radarmatrix.com ?
I hadn't, but I have now. I don't understand what the site is getting at... It says "A gold star for anyone who can explain why this radar is the most active in the US As of late it has been doing this several times a day.
It is Billings Montana It sits at the top base of the Rocky Mountains And tends to spark down the mountains."
It's been doing what serveral times a day? And what does he mean "tends to spark down the mountains?" And what is it about the repeating radar image that is supposed to be of interest?
My brother used to live in Bozeman, not too far from Billings, and visited it often. I'd be happy to ask him whatever it is I'm supposed to email people in Billings about. But having looked at the site I'm not even sure what it is I'm supposed to ask.
quote:
I can't argue anything about that Flight Explorer because it was so technical, but I thought a pilot might be able to see the information offered.
From the Chemtrails report page? The one that uses FE to do statistical analysis on contrails?
It's all fine and good, and the report itself doesn't seem logically flawed (except for the fact that it doesn't mention how many non-FE aircraft don't leave contrails which is also important). I just disagree with people that conclude that the report proves that long duration contrails are anything other than long duration contrails. |
| |
|
|
letxa2000
Joined: 30 Apr 2002
Posts: 588
Location: U.S. citizen in Mexico |
|
Tue Jan 20, 2004 6:13 am
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
OK, here's another link that JBE offered before and I just perused. Every article on the list deserves a look! Most of them are quite short and others are PDF and take a bit longer to read. Cloverleaf is especially interesting along with a pilot's anonymous observation and testimony.
http://www.lightwatcher.com/chemtrails/
Both the cloverleaf document and the pilot's "anonymous observation" is, to me, not very useful because neither is verifiable nor is anyone's name even attached to them.
It's one thing to ask me to believe witnesses... but anonymous, unverifiable, nameless witnesses? That's stretching the benefit of the doubt a bit, isn't it? I mean, maybe both are on the "up and up." But perhaps they're just jokers like the supposed pilot that called into Art Bell as he was supposedly violating Area 51 airspace and got shot down.
Without names or any way to verify the information, how can we know? |
| |
|
|
Boomer Chick
Joined: 01 Sep 2003
Posts: 407
Location: Colorado |
|
Tue Jan 20, 2004 6:19 am
|
|
|
Here's an old post I found at
http://www.greatdreams.com/chems.htm
which is a kind of grab-bag of chemtrail information and testimonies including photos. Remember, if you were an employed pilot, would you put your job at risk to report something you noticed?
CHEMTRAILS: FINALLY, SOME ANSWERS
Canadian investigative reporter William Thomas has uncovered, through tenacious and prodigious research, some answers to the mysterious chemtrail issue. "Chemtrails" are chemical laden vapor trails dispersed at high altitudes by US military tanker aircraft and by some private aircraft under top-secret contracts with the US government. A draft version of Thomas report can be read online at http://www.nexusmagazine.com/chemtrails.html. I dont agree with everything Thomas writes or speculates about, but I will summarize his conclusions and share my analysis of what I think is well founded.
The chemtrail phenomenon has been observed for many years in different parts of the US as well as in other allied nations. These chemtrails are primarily characterized by thick trails of white vapor, which persist for long periods of time, gradually dispersing to cover wide areas of the sky. Lets review some of the major differences between these chemical vapor trails and the normal, harmless condensation trails ("contrails") often emitted by aircraft. There are several critical distinguishing characteristics between these two types of emissions:
1) Chemtrails occur at altitudes and in environmental conditions where normal contrails cannot and do not occur. According to NOAA meteorologist Thomas Schlatter, quoted in the article, "for even short-lived condensation trails to form, we're talking temperatures lower than about minus 76 degrees Fahrenheit, and humidity at jet altitudes of 70 per cent or more." (Hes correct about the temperature, but humidity at altitude is rarely that high. In any case, humidity is only relevant to how long a contrail persists--not to its initial formation. The initial contrail is formed by the jet exhaust of the aircraft which provides the source of moisture--a byproduct of fuel combustion. It is this water vapor that freezes and turns into contrails.) Chemtrails usually occur at altitudes between 25,000 and 30,000 feet, which is usually too low and warm to support contrails.
2) Chemtrails persist for many hours and spread out continuously until wide areas of the sky are covered. Contrails spread out only slightly and evaporate within 10 seconds to an hour, depending on the upper air humidity and temperature.
3) Contrails are always pure white and never exhibit any halo effect. Chemtrails have an oily glint to them, with rainbow-like color effects (reddish or pinkish tint) as the sun shines through. Some of the best photographic evidence of chemtrails is found at http://www.carnicom.com/contrails.htm.
4) Contrails are composed of water vapor combined with a small amount of residue from burned jet fuel. Analysis of chemtrails, in contrast, has uncovered a variety of chemicals and other substances, including barium, aluminum oxide, microscopic fibers and oil-based products, none of which are intrinsic to normal jet fuel.
5) Contrails exit directly behind the engines of the aircraft, which produce the moisture. Thus, aircraft will exhibit only 1, 2, 3, or 4 distinct condensation trails, each trailing an engine. Chemtrails, in contrast, are expelled from multiple ports along the entire wing surface, not directly in line with the engines. Once again, see the pictures on www.carnicom.com.
6) Contrails cannot be shut on and off at will, nor abruptly, as witnesses have seen in numerous sightings of chemical spraying by aircraft. I personally have seen this type of on/off spraying in Utah by two military tankers flying in loose formation. When numerous witnesses called KSL--TV in Salt Lake City to investigate, KSL dutifully parroted the governments official response: that the aircraft was a government contractor flying a Lear jet and doing experiments on ice crystal formation. Baloney! As one of those witnesses, and an experienced pilot, I can tell you those two huge military tanker aircraft were not tiny Lear jets. The government is lying--but at least, in this case, they didnt try to outright deny what hundreds of people were watching, as they usually do. They simply tried to take advantage of public ignorance of aircraft recognition, feeding them a phony but marginally plausible excuse.
7) Aircraft dispersing chemtrails always fly back and forth over a set area, creating circular or zig-zag patterns of vapor in the sky. Often many chemtrail aircraft can be seen in one area, flying in crisscross patterns laying down vapor trails before flying off over the horizon. Large airliners operating under Air Traffic Control fly on set airways and do not make such patterns in the sky. Government representatives have tried to pass off reports of crisscross chemtrail patterns as merely the convergence of airliner contrails at normal air traffic intersections, but this is false. For one thing, almost all airways in the US run in straight lines, east to west. Neither do airliners fly in close formation with other aircraft. In addition, chemtrail sightings almost never come close to normal airway intersections.
8) All legitimate aircraft at high altitudes emitting contrails will be acknowledged by the FAA. Conversely, the existence of aircraft spraying chemicals is always denied by the FAA, under orders from the government. You can be on a cell phone, in real time, reporting the presence of an aircraft overhead to the FAA and they will tell you that no such aircraft exists on their radar screens. They are flat-out lying. Its amazing to me how many military pilots and government ATC controllers can so easily justify these lies. Surely some are aware of the damaging health effects reported on the internet. Occasionally, an honest controller will admit there is a "military exercise" blocked out for that area.
Many have long suspected that the government has been using these airborne chemical sprayings to test dispersal methods for mild forms of biological or chemical warfare. Indeed, chemtrail sightings have long been associated with community-wide illnesses reported in the areas of the sprayings. Thomas himself was involved in a case in Espanola, Ontario, in the spring of 1998. Residents there had been complaining of "severe headaches, chronic joint pain, dizziness, sudden extreme fatigue, acute asthma attacks and feverless flu-like symptoms over a 50 - square - mile area [which] coincided with what they termed months of spraying by photo-identified US Air Force tanker planes." An expert witness in the case, former Ontarion Provincial Police Officer Ted Simola, described the "lingering Xs and numerous white trails, some of which just ended as if they had been shut off but remained in the sky," observations consistent with other chemtrail sightings.
On November 18, 1998, the people of Espanola petitioned Parliament, suspecting possible government involvement in these airborne chemical emissions. They called upon Parliament to "repeal any law that would permit the dispersal of military chaff or of any cloud-seeding substance whatsoever by domestic or foreign military aircraft without the informed consent of the citizens of Canada thus affected." In response to their petition, the Ministry of Defense eventually replied: "Its not us." The government assertion was mostly true: it was not Canadian aircraft, but US Air Force tankers which were conducting the sprayings. Yet the Canadian government was complicit in allowing the US to experiment over Canada.
Thomas did finally get an American ATC controller to talk to him, under conditions of anonymity. The controller works on the US eastern seaboard. Thomas called his contact "Deep Sky." Deep Sky confirmed that the chemicals being spread in the exercises were acting as electrolytes, enhancing conductivity of radar and radio waves. Additionally, the spread of the material was actually degrading, not enhancing, ATC radars " so there had to be some other purpose behind the sprayings. It is significant that many of the exercises were conducted out of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, in Ohio, which, according to Thomas,
"has long been deeply engaged in HAARPs electromagnetic warfare program." HAARP is a US government radio wave project in Alaska which could be related to weather modification. HAARPs huge powerful transmitters and arrays of antennas are, according to the official website, designed to heat up the atmosphere above it. Phasing the antennas can skew the heating effect directionally, and may even interact with reflective layers of metal particles in Chemtrails. What is interesting is that HAARPs location is at the 65th parallel, just south of the arctic circle. This position corresponds to the atmospheric boundary where relatively moist southern air moving northward collides with cold arctic air coming south. When these dissimilar air mass meet they rise and form new storm systems. Heating the atmosphere directly under this boundary layer would tend to accelerate storm development. Finally, through a series of questions, Deep Sky confirmed that the US tankers were indeed involved in climate modification experiments.
At this point in the article, Thomas launches into a theory that the reflective clouds are being used to reduce the effects of global warming. He discusses the Welsback patent, issued in 1994 to Hughes Aircraft, [long involved in government black operations] which involves the use of a reflective blanket of aluminum-laced cloud cover to cool the earth. However, I think Thomas was fed disinformation here. The government often uses phony patents to lead investigators down the wrong trail -- especially when dealing with HAARP. Global warming is a fraud. There is no way the US government would engage in this massive a cover-up and risk illness to the US population over a theory with little basis in fact and even less evidence of actual damage. Besides, government sponsored aerosol spraying has been going on before global warming became an issue.
However, the weather modification process is, in my opinion, the best explanation so far as to the widespread use of spraying. The reflective aluminum particles or fibers in the created cloud barriers cause cool spots over normally warm areas, which influence the rise or fall of air masses. These reflective layers may also react with HAARP transmissions in some way. Radio transmissions need reflective layers to channel the energy in specific directions. The creation of sun or radiation shielding may explain why spraying occurs at high altitude, during the daytime, and in cloudless areas--where the reflective shield would be visible and effective for a long time.
None of these characteristics fit a biological or chemical warfare test scenario. If the government was testing delivery methods of biological or chemical agents, it would be more likely to mix the chemicals in clouds at much lower altitudes where it would more easily precipitate downward on the population. The chemtrail sprayings always take place at high altitudes where the materials can linger or drift long distances: hardly an accurate delivery method. The sprayings are also done only in clear areas of the sky--which, again, points to weather modification.
What Im convinced of now, is that the widespread flu-like and Alzheimers symptoms have been mere side effects of the sprayed chemicals, and not the direct purpose of the sprayings. The extensive use of aluminum oxide, found as the primary component of these reflective clouds, does have serious medical side effects and may well explain the upsurge in Alzheimers disease in the US--which is reaching epidemic proportions. I think it is also clear that the government has been experimenting with different types and mixes of chemicals, which explains why the observations and effects differ over time. Several years ago, there were many sightings of sticky droplets falling from the sky, trailing spider-web-like strands behind. Upon contact they made people very ill. Later chemical analysis has shown a lot of aluminum oxide and micro fibers, also composed of barium and aluminum. People living under these spray patterns have developed Alzheimers-like symptoms.
As expected, the US continues to deny any spraying as well as any experimentation in weather modification. The media is totally complicit in this cover-up as well. The allegations have been widespread over the internet for years. Thousands of inquiries have gone out to the media over the years and not once has the major media ever done a story on this issue. The health consequences are huge. Even the politically correct environmental movement has had no luck in pressing the media for coverage. There is no way to explain the medias refusal to investigate or give coverage to this story except that they are fully aware of it and are under bogus "national security" orders to spike the story.
A US Air Force Colonel, according to Thomas, told a senator: "The Air Force is not conducting any weather modification and has no plans to do so in the future." But as Thomas retorts, "In fact, attempts to steer hurricanes by spraying heat-robbing chemicals in their paths began in the 1950s. The recipe for creating cirrus shields was outlined in an unusually arrogant US Air Force study. Subtitled, 'Owning the Weather by 2025, the 1996 report explained how weather force specialists were dispersing chemicals behind high-flying tanker aircraft in a process the air force calls aerial obscuration." Sounds just like what people are describing as chemtrails. Because of the variety of different chemicals used in Chemtrails over the past 10 years and the changing patterns of spraying, Im convinced the government is still experimenting and hasn't actually found a predictable way yet to harness the weather. Sadly, this only means the secret experiments will continue and people will suffer.
Copyright 2002 by Joel Skousen
_____________________
bc
|
| |
|
|
HatchetML
Joined: 14 Apr 2003
Posts: 174
Location: NW Florida |
|
Tue Jan 20, 2004 5:46 pm
|
|
|
Lexta, your wasting your time asking these ppl to prove something to you. It doesnt take very long to figure out the motives of individuals in this place, this forum breeds arguments and misinformation, notice you had 3 ppl try to push onto you their beliefs of whats going on. When you didnt bite that upset them and they resort to cut-paste arguments as if that would quench your thrist for answers, again you can spend the next 3 years following this forum and i can tell you with 100% accuracy, 3 years from now its still gonna be the cut-paste waste of time as it has been the previous 3 years.
Its laughable, that is the bottom line.IF that doesnt work they will resort to trying to run you outa this forum, much like they do to anyone that questions their version of reality. You would think they would be more concerned with aspartame,our soldiers,our economy, voting machines, Nafta, etc etc etc....oh i know lets cry wolf about the sky...its falling its falling...whahahaha
LOSERS lose everytime right? |
| |
|
|
letxa2000
Joined: 30 Apr 2002
Posts: 588
Location: U.S. citizen in Mexico |
|
Tue Jan 20, 2004 6:14 pm
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
1) Chemtrails occur at altitudes and in environmental conditions where normal contrails cannot and do not occur. According to NOAA meteorologist Thomas Schlatter, quoted in the article, "for even short-lived condensation trails to form, we're talking temperatures lower than about minus 76 degrees Fahrenheit, and humidity at jet altitudes of 70 per cent or more." (Hes correct about the temperature, but humidity at altitude is rarely that high. In any case, humidity is only relevant to how long a contrail persists--not to its initial formation. The initial contrail is formed by the jet exhaust of the aircraft which provides the source of moisture--a byproduct of fuel combustion. It is this water vapor that freezes and turns into contrails.) Chemtrails usually occur at altitudes between 25,000 and 30,000 feet, which is usually too low and warm to support contrails.
My question would be how people know that these "chemtrails" are between 25,000 and 30,000 feet? If they're not acknowledged by the FAA and don't appear on FlightExplorer, how do people know the altitude at which they occur?
It's also more than just a question of temperature, as explained here. Temperature is a factor of course, but so is relative humidity, etc.
According to this site, "Contrails are human-induced clouds that only form at very high altitudes (usually above 8 km) where the air is extremely cold (less than -40°C)." -40C=-40F, so the -76F is out of line... and the "usually above 8km" is equal to "usually above 26,400ft" which fits nicely into the "25,000 to 30,000ft" range provided as the common location of chemtrails... while never discounting the possibility that they can form below that altitude.
In fact, I've seen contrails on planes on approaches for landing. Granted, they don't last long at all, but I've seen them at nearly ground level so their existince at any higher altitude can't be rejected as impossible.
quote:
2) Chemtrails persist for many hours and spread out continuously until wide areas of the sky are covered. Contrails spread out only slightly and evaporate within 10 seconds to an hour, depending on the upper air humidity and temperature.
The water vapor in contrails is no different than the water vapor that forms clouds. Just as clouds can become wispy and disappear in seconds or minutes, so can they last for hours or even grow in size. An atmosphere that supports a highly persistent contrail is the same atmosphere that was probably going to form clouds anyway, so it is not surprising that the contrail transforms into a cloud, becomes a cloud, or is the catalyst that initiates cloud formation.
In this study in spring 1996 by NASA (before the allegded start of chemtrail activity) shows that contrails "lasted between 7 and 17 hours and expanded to enormous sizes by catalyzing the growth of a larger cloud with more ice."
quote:
3) Contrails are always pure white and never exhibit any halo effect. Chemtrails have an oily glint to them, with rainbow-like color effects (reddish or pinkish tint) as the sun shines through. Some of the best photographic evidence of chemtrails is found at http://www.carnicom.com/contrails.htm.
While I have no link at this time that suggests otherwise, common sense says otherwise. I've seen water vapor that was red, blue, green, purple... in the form of a rainbow. I don't see any reason why a contrail reflecting sunlight and subsequently traveling through miles of atmosphere at differing temperatures and at different angles before it reaches my eyes can't take on any of the colors of the rainbow.
quote:
4) Contrails are composed of water vapor combined with a small amount of residue from burned jet fuel. Analysis of chemtrails, in contrast, has uncovered a variety of chemicals and other substances, including barium, aluminum oxide, microscopic fibers and oil-based products, none of which are intrinsic to normal jet fuel.
How did they do a chemical analysis on these chemtrails? Did they go up to 30,000 feet and capture some of the atmosphere? Or did they just wait until they "thought" the material that was in the contrail settled to the ground? And if so, how do they know what settled to the ground was from the contrail and not blown to them from something upwind?
quote:
5) Contrails exit directly behind the engines of the aircraft, which produce the moisture. Thus, aircraft will exhibit only 1, 2, 3, or 4 distinct condensation trails, each trailing an engine. Chemtrails, in contrast, are expelled from multiple ports along the entire wing surface, not directly in line with the engines. Once again, see the pictures on www.carnicom.com.
According to this link, "Contrails form when hot humid air from jet exhaust mixes with environmental air of low vapor pressure and low temperature... The mixing occurs directly behind the plane due to the turbulence generated by the engine."
The appearance of the contrails coming from directly behind the engines or along the whole wing will depend on the airflow over the wing which, in turn, depends on the aircraft itself as well as the surrounding atmosphere.
quote:
6) Contrails cannot be shut on and off at will, nor abruptly, as witnesses have seen in numerous sightings of chemical spraying by aircraft.
Contrails will appear to "turn on" and "off" as an airplane flies through areas of atmosphere of varying temperature or humidity. They are right that contrails cannot be shut on and off at will, but the conclusion that anyone is doing so at will seems to be unfounded.
quote:
I personally have seen this type of on/off spraying in Utah by two military tankers flying in loose formation. When numerous witnesses called KSL--TV in Salt Lake City to investigate, KSL dutifully parroted the governments official response: that the aircraft was a government contractor flying a Lear jet and doing experiments on ice crystal formation. Baloney! As one of those witnesses, and an experienced pilot, I can tell you those two huge military tanker aircraft were not tiny Lear jets. The government is lying--but at least, in this case, they didnt try to outright deny what hundreds of people were watching, as they usually do. They simply tried to take advantage of public ignorance of aircraft recognition, feeding them a phony but marginally plausible excuse.
Well, I wasn't there and I don't see this backed up by any supporting links. But even if the government said what they said, why doubt it? Even if they were tankers rather than Learjets, is there any reason why we have to believe that they weren't conducting some such test? It seems the author just accuses the government of lying without giving me any reason to believe his claims over that of the government.
quote:
7) Aircraft dispersing chemtrails always fly back and forth over a set area, creating circular or zig-zag patterns of vapor in the sky. Often many chemtrail aircraft can be seen in one area, flying in crisscross patterns laying down vapor trails before flying off over the horizon. Large airliners operating under Air Traffic Control fly on set airways and do not make such patterns in the sky. Government representatives have tried to pass off reports of crisscross chemtrail patterns as merely the convergence of airliner contrails at normal air traffic intersections, but this is false. For one thing, almost all airways in the US run in straight lines, east to west. Neither do airliners fly in close formation with other aircraft. In addition, chemtrail sightings almost never come close to normal airway intersections.
If many chemtrail sightings occur over large cities then many chemtrail sightings do occur close to normal airway intersections. And while most airways do go east/west (since our country is wider than it is tall), there are plenty of airways that intersect them in a generally north/south direction.
Aircraft flying in formation at altitudes high enough to create highly persistent contrails are probably military. It is not surprising that such planes perform flights that concentrate around a given area.
Something that would be interesting would be to review FAA NOTAMs (Notice to Airmen) which are published daily and report, among other things, where and when the military will be conducting exercises so commercial and private pilots can avoid bumping into them. Has anyone checked if any long duration contrails coincides with information contained in NOTAMs? How much highly persistent contrail activity occurs within restricted airspace as opposed to generally open airspace?
quote:
 All legitimate aircraft at high altitudes emitting contrails will be acknowledged by the FAA. Conversely, the existence of aircraft spraying chemicals is always denied by the FAA, under orders from the government. You can be on a cell phone, in real time, reporting the presence of an aircraft overhead to the FAA and they will tell you that no such aircraft exists on their radar screens. They are flat-out lying. Its amazing to me how many military pilots and government ATC controllers can so easily justify these lies.
More surprising is that such a large conspiracy involving tens of thousands of people could be successfully kept from the press or the public. It is hard enough to make a conspiracy work with a few people in it... but tens of thousands of people in on it? That's truly next to impossible.
quote:
Occasionally, an honest controller will admit there is a "military exercise" blocked out for that area.
Probably that happens when there is a NOTAM indicating military excercises for that area. Further, is the FAA under any obligation to receive cell calls from any old civilian asking about a plane overhead? I'd never heard of them offering that service.
quote:
Many have long suspected that the government has been using these airborne chemical sprayings to test dispersal methods for mild forms of biological or chemical warfare. Indeed, chemtrail sightings have long been associated with community-wide illnesses reported in the areas of the sprayings. Thomas himself was involved in a case in Espanola, Ontario, in the spring of 1998. Residents there had been complaining of "severe headaches, chronic joint pain, dizziness, sudden extreme fatigue, acute asthma attacks and feverless flu-like symptoms over a 50 - square - mile area [which] coincided with what they termed months of spraying by photo-identified US Air Force tanker planes." An expert witness in the case, former Ontarion Provincial Police Officer Ted Simola, described the "lingering Xs and numerous white trails, some of which just ended as if they had been shut off but remained in the sky," observations consistent with other chemtrail sightings.
On November 18, 1998, the people of Espanola petitioned Parliament, suspecting possible government involvement in these airborne chemical emissions. They called upon Parliament to "repeal any law that would permit the dispersal of military chaff or of any cloud-seeding substance whatsoever by domestic or foreign military aircraft without the informed consent of the citizens of Canada thus affected." In response to their petition, the Ministry of Defense eventually replied: "Its not us." The government assertion was mostly true: it was not Canadian aircraft, but US Air Force tankers which were conducting the sprayings. Yet the Canadian government was complicit in allowing the US to experiment over Canada.
Did the Canadian government simply say "It's not us" or did they say, "It's the Americans?" It seems to me the Canadian government simply stated there was nothing they were doing to cause it and the authors concluded it was the Americans. But is that just suspicion or what evidence do they have to support that?
quote:
Thomas did finally get an American ATC controller to talk to him, under conditions of anonymity. The controller works on the US eastern seaboard. Thomas called his contact "Deep Sky." Deep Sky confirmed that the chemicals being spread in the exercises were acting as electrolytes, enhancing conductivity of radar and radio waves. Additionally, the spread of the material was actually degrading, not enhancing, ATC radars " so there had to be some other purpose behind the sprayings. It is significant that many of the exercises were conducted out of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, in Ohio, which, according to Thomas, "has long been deeply engaged in HAARPs electromagnetic warfare program." HAARP is a US government radio wave project in Alaska which could be related to weather modification. HAARPs huge powerful transmitters and arrays of antennas are, according to the official website, designed to heat up the atmosphere above it. Phasing the antennas can skew the heating effect directionally, and may even interact with reflective layers of metal particles in Chemtrails. What is interesting is that HAARPs location is at the 65th parallel, just south of the arctic circle. This position corresponds to the atmospheric boundary where relatively moist southern air moving northward collides with cold arctic air coming south. When these dissimilar air mass meet they rise and form new storm systems. Heating the atmosphere directly under this boundary layer would tend to accelerate storm development. Finally, through a series of questions, Deep Sky confirmed that the US tankers were indeed involved in climate modification experiments.
Interesting that an ATC would by privy to this kind of secret information. Deep Sky? Nice way to make it sound serious like Deep Throat. It's also not surprising (or convincing) when the person chooses to remain anonymous and his comments cannot be verified.
Anyway, a lot of speculation and accusations in the above paragraphs, but not much I can verify from secondary sources which is something I insist that I be able to do when considering such an overwhelming conspiracy.
quote:
At this point in the article, Thomas launches into a theory that the reflective clouds are being used to reduce the effects of global warming. He discusses the Welsback patent, issued in 1994 to Hughes Aircraft, [long involved in government black operations] which involves the use of a reflective blanket of aluminum-laced cloud cover to cool the earth. However, I think Thomas was fed disinformation here. The government often uses phony patents to lead investigators down the wrong trail -- especially when dealing with HAARP. Global warming is a fraud. There is no way the US government would engage in this massive a cover-up and risk illness to the US population over a theory with little basis in fact and even less evidence of actual damage. Besides, government sponsored aerosol spraying has been going on before global warming became an issue.
I thought chemtrails supposedly started around 1997 or 1998? Now spraying operations have been going on "before global warming became an issue???"
quote:
However, the weather modification process is, in my opinion, the best explanation so far as to the widespread use of spraying. The reflective aluminum particles or fibers in the created cloud barriers cause cool spots over normally warm areas, which influence the rise or fall of air masses.
Isn't this the same thing that the author said further above that he thinks "Thomas was fed disinformation here." And now it is the best explanation?
quote:
These reflective layers may also react with HAARP transmissions in some way. Radio transmissions need reflective layers to channel the energy in specific directions.
Depends on the radio transmission. And scattering anything in the atmosphere in the hopes of making a certain radio transmission bounce to a certain place simply is not going to work as atmospheric conditions will "mix it up" and move it as fast as you can lay it. And anything in the atmosphere (such as the ionosphere) will cause radio signals to bounce, reflect, and scatter in unpredictable ways, kind of like a prism (but, again, far less predictable). This is hardly useful to "channel the energy in specific directions."
quote:
The creation of sun or radiation shielding may explain why spraying occurs at high altitude, during the daytime, and in cloudless areas--where the reflective shield would be visible and effective for a long time.
How do people know there is no "spraying" in cloudy areas? If it's cloudy perhaps/probably the highly persistent contrails are just above the clouds? The assumption that these things only occur in cloudless areas seems to be a simplistic conclusion--kind of like the baby that thinks the ball is gone just because he can't see it.
quote:
None of these characteristics fit a biological or chemical warfare test scenario. If the government was testing delivery methods of biological or chemical agents, it would be more likely to mix the chemicals in clouds at much lower altitudes where it would more easily precipitate downward on the population.
This does make sense, and is consistent with what I've read on some sites that don't support the existince of chemtrails. They've said that even if planes were spraying, doing so at the supposed altitude that they are operating would have no effect on any population below it due to the chemicals being so severely diluted by the time they reached ground (which would occur far downwind).
quote:
The chemtrail sprayings always take place at high altitudes where the materials can linger or drift long distances: hardly an accurate delivery method.
Makes me wonder how that other guy in the "Other Trails" forum was able to see the color of the pilot's hair as it flew by.
quote:
The sprayings are also done only in clear areas of the sky--which, again, points to weather modification.
It points to that, or points to the fact that maybe the contrails can't be seen when it is cloudy.
quote:
What Im convinced of now, is that the widespread flu-like and Alzheimers symptoms have been mere side effects of the sprayed chemicals, and not the direct purpose of the sprayings. The extensive use of aluminum oxide, found as the primary component of these reflective clouds, does have serious medical side effects and may well explain the upsurge in Alzheimers disease in the US--which is reaching epidemic proportions.
Or it could be that the aging American population simply has more propensity for a disease that seems to set in at old age. When Americans had a shorter life expectancy the disease was much less frequent since few people reached an age where Alzheimers usually sets in.
quote:
I think it is also clear that the government has been experimenting with different types and mixes of chemicals, which explains why the observations and effects differ over time.
Or it could be that the observations of contrails differ over time because there is no consistency in them, and effects differ over time because the "effects" are not caused by contrails at all, but something else in each unique environment.
quote:
Several years ago, there were many sightings of sticky droplets falling from the sky, trailing spider-web-like strands behind. Upon contact they made people very ill. Later chemical analysis has shown a lot of aluminum oxide and micro fibers, also composed of barium and aluminum. People living under these spray patterns have developed Alzheimers-like symptoms.
I'll have to investigate that further. I've certainly never seen sticky droplets falling from the sky... though if I had, how could I be sure it's not just something along the lines of acid rain or caused by something else in the environment?
In all of this, again and again, it simply seems that contrails are being singled out as the cause when there are a multitude of possible causes in the environment.
quote:
As expected, the US continues to deny any spraying as well as any experimentation in weather modification.
The possibility that they are telling the truth shouldn't be automatically excluded. It's ok to mistrust the government--even healthy--but that doesn't mean that everything they say is necessarily a lie.
quote:
The media is totally complicit in this cover-up as well. The allegations have been widespread over the internet for years.
Luckily, the media requires some level of confirmation--not just widespread allegations on the Internet. The media is supposed to report reality, not simple allegations made by generally anonymous people.
quote:
Thousands of inquiries have gone out to the media over the years and not once has the major media ever done a story on this issue.
I believe I have seen them covered on FoxNews (can't find the link now, but at one time I was taken to it by either a pro- or con- chemtrail site), but the coverage certainly didn't support the allegations of those that believe in chemtrails. This doesn't necessarily mean that FoxNews is covering for the government... it could just mean that those that believe in chemtrails are wrong.
quote:
The health consequences are huge. Even the politically correct environmental movement has had no luck in pressing the media for coverage. There is no way to explain the medias refusal to investigate or give coverage to this story except that they are fully aware of it and are under bogus "national security" orders to spike the story.
So now we have a conspiracy that consists of not only tens of thousands of pilots and air traffic controllers, but countless thousands more people in the media? This has got to be the biggest and most unlikely conspiracy ever and, again, a conspiracy with just a few people often doesn't work out... with tens of thousands, including people in the press? This is really pushing the limits of believability.
Now... I'm still reading material on chemtrails, so I'm still doing my homework. But when something like the above is posted I am certainly inclined to respond to it when I can. And I'm not saying that all my alternative explanations are necessarily right, but I am offering alternatives that are certainly as possible as the chemtrail speculation and which should certainly be considered.
Basically, there is a lot going on in this world and we certainly need to consider the possibility that chemtrails are not the only answer. So far I've seen chemtrails implicated in flu-like symptoms, global warming, alzheimers, hazy days, and the speed of rotation of the earth slowing down. I'm skeptical any spraying is really the cause of all of that... |
| |
|
|
Boomer Chick
Joined: 01 Sep 2003
Posts: 407
Location: Colorado |
|
Tue Jan 20, 2004 6:46 pm
|
|
|
Good exercise in thought, Letxa!
Well at least I posted for you an explanation of contrails verses chemtrails, however old it is.
Will Thomas is an investigative reporter and photographer, both of reputational note.
http://www.willthomas.net
You might want to read that grab bag site, too, as it contains many testimonies and observations from normal American citizens. There might be some foreign testimonies as well. This is an older site, also!
Great job at skeptical thought! At last you're reading and thinking!
All of your questions can be answered through your reading.
Carnicom is still a great site to peruse as well.
I'll try to find more meaty scientifically based links. Radarmatrix has gone beyond into reading various maps on the spraying and unless you are onboard the existence of the spraying, it's above your head. But the links on that site are good and up to date!
Carry on!
bc  |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Tue Jan 20, 2004 6:53 pm
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by HatchetML:
Its laughable, that is the bottom line.IF that doesnt work they will resort to trying to run you outa this forum, much like they do to anyone that questions their version of reality. You would think they would be more concerned with aspartame,our soldiers,our economy, voting machines, Nafta, etc etc etc....oh i know lets cry wolf about the sky...its falling its falling...whahahaha
LOSERS lose everytime right?
The FDA says aspartame is safe
According to Fox News, the soldiers are happy
Bush says the economy is sound and growing
Diebold and The Republicans say their voting machines are tamper proof
NAFTA is praised bi-partisan on how it is helping poor countries
The government and military say aerosol spraying doesn't exist.
Coincidence Theories, Conspiracy Theories, and Lies? Which is which?
Take your pick.
[Edited 3 times, lastly by swamp gas on 01-20-2004] |
| |
|
|
letxa2000
Joined: 30 Apr 2002
Posts: 588
Location: U.S. citizen in Mexico |
|
Tue Jan 20, 2004 9:10 pm
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
Well at least I posted for you an explanation of contrails verses chemtrails, however old it is.[/quoted]
Yes, thank you. That's exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for.
[quote]Will Thomas is an investigative reporter and photographer, both of reputational note.
http://www.willthomas.net
I'll look at him a bit more. Like I said, I'm not rejecting him. It just looked like most of what he's currently focusing on is 9/11. But I'll glean what I can from his site regarding chemtrails.
quote:
You might want to read that grab bag site, too, as it contains many testimonies and observations from normal American citizens. There might be some foreign testimonies as well. This is an older site, also!
Do you mean the site that is a collection of files in a file directory rather than a "pretty website?" Or which "grab bag" site are you talking about?
quote:
Great job at skeptical thought! At last you're reading and thinking! All of your questions can be answered through your reading.
I'm still reading and hopefully my questions will be answered at some point. I'm still optimistic.
quote:
Radarmatrix has gone beyond into reading various maps on the spraying and unless you are onboard the existence of the spraying, it's above your head. But the links on that site are good and up to date!
I think my browser is not displaying that site correctly since all I saw was a single page with a few sentences and the radar image. I didn't see any links. Let me try loading up Internet Explorer and maybe I'll see more information on that site. |
| |
|
|
letxa2000
Joined: 30 Apr 2002
Posts: 588
Location: U.S. citizen in Mexico |
|
Tue Jan 20, 2004 9:24 pm
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
Radarmatrix has gone beyond into reading various maps on the spraying and unless you are onboard the existence of the spraying, it's above your head. But the links on that site are good and up to date!
Ok, I loaded Internet Explorer (I usually use Opera browser) and the site now has links. But it loads really slow and opens pop-ups under IE and so far I haven't been able to find what is supposedly interesting about the radar in Billings MT...? Can you give me a clue on that or point me to the right part of the site? Carnicom at least loads quickly, but radarmatrix is downright painful to try to navigate through. |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page
1, 2 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 9:20 am
|
|
|
|
|
Login
