Contrail photos through history
I’ve collected together a few photos of persistent spreading contrails from the past from 1991 back to 1940, just to show that this is nothing new, and that skies exactly like those shown on the “chemtrails” conspiracy web sites have been happening for the past 60 years. Mostly these are just photos I found on the internet, but several, like the first four, are scanned from books, so can be physically verified.
1991, From the book Peterson First guide to Clouds and Weather
Here are four photos of contrails, scanned from the book. You can see these photos on the Amazon page linked above. Click on the photos for larger versions. I suspect the actual date of these photos is pre-1991, but that’s certainly the latest possible date.
1984, Rustler Peak, Oregon
Old and new spreading contrails. Then, as now, Oregon has a lot of North/South flyover traffic going between California and Portland/Seattle/Vancouver.
The above photo is from a collection of photos of forest lookouts in Oregon. Most of which were taken in the last few years, but a few like the above, back to 1984. It’s interesting to see just how few of them contain contrails, and just how many contain clear blue skies, regardless of which year they were taken in.
pre-1981 – Plates 173 and 174 from “A Field guide to the Atmosphere“, by Schaefer and Day
1977 Michigan – a single persistent contrail cuts the sky, through some rippled clouds. Found on a chemtrail forum.
1972, From the book Clouds of the World, by Richard Scorer
1970 – Photo of a stop sign with a persistent and spreading contrail. I found this photo on a forum somewhere. I’m not sure of the source or accuracy of the date.
1967 – Plate 113 from A Colour Guide to Clouds, Richard Scorer and Harry Wexler. Shows over 30 contrails, some criss-crossing:
1963 – Photo by Bob Shomler
1958, San Fancisco airport: Two persistent contrails cross in the sky.
1954, A photo by Ansel Adams entitled “Rails and Jet Trails”
1945, Europe: Contrails from fighter escorts (P-51s). Both old and new. You see lots of these types of photos when people try to debunk chemtrails, the believers say that engines back then were less efficient, so produced more trails. Ironically, the more efficient an engine is, the more of the fuel is combusted, so more water is produced. So the more modern an engine is, the more likely it is to produce a persistent contrail.
1944, Contrails formed over Germany by the 91st Bomb Group on a mission to Zeitz, Germany on 30 November 1944
1940, Europe, Bomber with fighter escorts
1940s, From the 1950 book Air Force: A Pictorial History
For more WWII contrails, see here:
 |
| WWII Contrails |
293 comments Saturday 26 May 2007 | Uncinus | Uncategorized
293 Responses to “Contrail photos through history”
Leave a Reply
To quote someone, please use <blockquote> and </blockquote> tags, for example:
<blockquote>But surely the contrails would evaporate?
How do you explain that, given those facts?</blockquote>
A most excellent web site you have here – kudos for the sharp graphics and clear explanations.
I found you via YouTube comments on the wacky LA TV “investigation” of “barium from chemtrails”,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okB-489l6MI .
Over at our NM’s web site, we’ve a chemtrail/contrail page here:
http://www.nmsr.org/chemtrls.htm
One of the resources we’ve long linked to is a thorough compilation of notes on contrails, including many photo’s of contrails from the Spanish Civil war, WWII, etc. etc. etc.
See
http://www.astro.ku.dk/~holger/IDA/notes.html
Kudos from NM, where Carnicom refused an invitation to speak to NMSR about the supposed “chemtrails” (because anyone who even questions a conspiracy IS PART OF the conspiracy, in his eyes).
Dave T.
Thanks Dave. I’m glad you like the site. More to come – though maybe not until the new year.
I don’t link to astro.ku.dk as half the links on that page seem to be broken. It’s still a good source, just a little fractured.
There are several problems with your statement that what we are seeing today are just “persistent” contrails and nothing more.
“Persistent” contrails require very specific upper atmospheric conditions. Today, anyone can photograph and then compare aircraft contrail formation with “Upper Air Sounding” (weather balloon) data from such sites as the University of Wyoming…
http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html
We are seeing GIANT contrails that go for hundreds of kilometers and cover the sky in an opaque white mass with as few as 20-30 aircraft passes. This is occurring at historically LOW Relative Humidity levels in the upper atmosphere. Also, many of these contrails are showing up on radar as being HIGHLY reflective and clearly based on some sort of ‘metallic’ substance.
Here, a German news production reports on the German Military stating they are doing radar experiments covering vast swathes of Germany with huge “contrails” made up of ???? German weather scientists state that the military is altering the weather…
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=MVc9GX5K_As
Here is a video I have done regarding a massive bird die off and amazing “Super Storm” that hit my town at the same time…
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=uBq97gYB7xo
Here is a mainstream news report from my country where the government admits it has given money to experiment with “Ionizing” the atmosphere to produce rain…
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Duxr53aFCog
If people take the time to understand the science and the main points of this subject they will see that there is more to this than meets the eye.
“They” have been “experimenting” on us for years which has been exposed and admitted too many times. Whats the big deal? Why are people finding this so hard to understand?
Also, those military photo’s you posted.
These are very deceiving as the photographs are taken alongside the aircraft at high altitude. If you were looking at these from ground level the trails would be very short just like you expect a “normal” contrail to be.
Also, imagine Germany in the summer of 1943 when the Allied bombing campaign first got going. You saw HUNDREDS (up to 300-800) American B-17’s ALL in a long line, perhaps 100-200 miles long slowly trundling over Europe and Germany to deliver their deadly cargo. This took place in daylight and you would expect that at some time we would have had the PERFECT upper atmospheric conditions (around 18000ft-20,000ft) for some TRULY spectacular “persistent” aircraft contrails. How many pictures are there of this phenomenon that should of occurred at least once and been photographed? Answer…ZERO. ALL those aircraft. ALL those missions and we do not have ONE decent photo of what the mainstream considers a perfectly “normal” event?
Over Esperance and all over the world ENTIRE SKY’s are being FILLED till they are an opaque white that lasts ALL DAY. This is done with as FEW as 20-30 aircraft passes over head. Why was this not seen in WW2 if it is such a “normal” event?
In the photo of horizontal contrails above is clearly of contrails that are at least 15 minutes old – that’s how long it takes for the pendules to form.
Surely if these bombers were not leaving persisting contrails then you would be able to find a photo (from the ground) of them leaving short contrails? No? If you can’t find one of them leaving short contrails, then why should I be able to find a photo of them leaving long contrails (besides the ones above).
In reality, B-17s would always attempt to fly at an altitude where contrails would not form. Contrails were very dangerous, as they would give away their position, and could be used as cover for attacking fighters. It was not always possible to avoid this, which is why you occasionally get photos.
See the book “Air Force, a Pictorial History”, 1957, Page 100, for a photo of contrails of hundreds of bombers that formed a near solid sheet of clouds. I’ll add it to the end of the article above.
And on your other points:
The bird deaths in Esperance were suspected to be from lead, from the nearby lead mine, which was improperly transporting lead in a loose dusty form. Birds are very vulnerable to lead poisoning.
Humidity at altitude is very difficult to measure unless you are actually there. The atmospheric soundings are taken at 12 hour intervals, at stations that are hundreds of miles apart, and the balloon can be blown a hundred miles off course during its ascent. Humidity varies a lot over time and distance. So you only have a very vague idea of what the humidity was at a particular point and a particular time.
The German news report is about a single military operation which seems to be using radar chaff. Connecting this to the thousands of persistent contrails that occur every day is rather tenuous. Why don’t THEY show up on radar. Obviously this is something very different.
People have been doing experiments with seeding clouds for decades, and they are still doing it. There’s nothing secret about it. But persistent contrails have also been around for decades, and there’s nothing secret about them either.
QuoTodt, I see from your article on indymedia that you promote the idea of “normal” contrails that do not spread out. But in your post above you seem to admit that persistent contrails can form under specific weather conditions. If you believe that some contrails can persist and spread out, then why would this not happen in WWII? And why post photos of “normal” contrails, when you know that contrails can persist for varying amounts of time, depending on the weather conditions in the volume of air where the contrail forms?
I’m still on the fence with this. I suspect there IS more going on than meets the eye. Especially since trails I’ve seen and photographed are not very high up on warm days. Not likely to be icicles that formed.
Also the fact that HAARP DOES exist and the patent for it DOES state injecting barium clouds as part of the project.
I’m glad to have found this site though, because I’ve been afraid I’m making too much out of some normal activity as well. I think I’m seeing both….chemical trails AND regular contrails.
This is GREAT discussion. We need to get to the bottom of this.
Also….a question, if anyone comes here to answer any more…looks a bit abandoned at the moment…
Why would there be contrails that disappear quickly as well as contrails that stay and widen…in the same sky??? Planes looking to be at the same altitude.
What about the goofy microscopic “critters” that are being found in rain water after alleged chemtrails that resemble the Morgellons critters being found in people’s skin. PLEASE don’t tell me Morgellons is all in the people’s heads. CBS did a great article on this not too long ago and the website Morgellons.org has photos as well.
I’m really trying not to believe that this is all a big conspiracy. I’m open. Someone please convince me so I can sleep at night!
The contrail layer can be as little as a thousand feet thick, so even a difference in a few hundred feet can make the difference between persisting and non-persisting contrails.
Hundreds of things have been alleged to have been found in rain water. However, those tests are highly suspect. Show me the actual lab report, and then I’ll address it.
Well, I don’t personally have access to the lab reports. I was just stating what I saw regarding microscopic pictures.
I also misspoke on a different thread. It was ABC news that did an article on Morgellons. http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/comments?type=story&id=2283503
There seems to be very limited research right now. Really wish there were more.
I was trying to find what Carnicom’s credentials are as well. Do you know? Is he an actual scientist or is he a novice doing this. What are YOUR credentials, too, if I might ask.
Is there a way to submit photos to you?
I’d love for someone to take an objective look.
Thanks for responding. I’m new to this site.
I’m a private pilot. I fly (small) planes, and as part of the training we study the weather. We also observe the sky a lot while flying.
But I’m not that hung up on credentials. I’ve given lots of evidence, in the form of old photos, scientific papers, newspaper clipping and weather books, that shows that it’s normal for contrails to persists and spread. If Carnicom has good evidence that they don’t, then let’s see it.
You can email me photos (uncinus@gmail.com), or just upload them somewhere, and post a link here.
Yes you have given lots of evidence. This is EXACTLY the kind of stuff I’ve been looking for. I’m glad to have found this place. I even did a search for “ask a pilot” and that may be how I ended up here….most were links to a book. Sometimes I’m not sure how I end up places….but am glad I get where I need to be, eventually.
You’ll be hearing more from me. Thanks!
I DO hope you’ve looked into some of the HAARP info, though and Morgellons. Not sure if there is a connection, but it’s disturbing stuff.
Regarding HAARP and Barium, check this out:
http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=15144
The altitude of Barium release suggested in the patent is actually in orbit – so unless it’s the Space Shuttle, that’s no reason for Barium in contrails.
I’ve read a bit about Morgellons. I’ve not found anything that suggests a link. This sounds reasonable though:
http://morgellonswatch.com/2007/05/26/morgellons-and-chemtrails/
I love your website!! These photos are fantastic. I have several old photos of my family’s that show contrails similar to these (and those that people claim are ‘chemtrails’) as do most people, I presume. It’s all a matter of paying attention. There are most certainly government – sponsored pernicious activities affecting us daily, but I don’t think innocent lil contrails qualify
I wish the people consistently claiming that ‘chemtrails’ are weakening their immune systems would look at what they shovel in their mouths every day instead of wasting their time with their heads in the clouds.
Good job. Interesting. But inconclusive, I’m afraid.
In describing these photos you mention “persistent” contrails. But in fact, the one factor missing from photographic evidence is time.
These are frozen moments, with absolutely no indication of when, or how long. As such, they do not refute the claims that so called “chemtrails” are persistent.
All this evidence shows is that at some point in time, a normal contrail looks exactly like what people are calling chemtrails.
Note that I am not taking a position on whether there is a phenomenon of chemtrails. I can’t rule it out. Can’t rule it in.
But without time-lapsed photos, or film, I’m afraid your evidence is inherently inconclusive.
Another note on the space shuttle comment. The original patent is irrelevant. Whether it’s being done or not, that patent modified to use commercial aircraft is entirely plausible and would most certainly be effective at creating a Welsbach effect. It is also the only practical method available at sufficient dispersal of material.
But what about eye-witness accounts of persistent and spreading contrails?
http://contrailscience.com/persisting-and-spreading-contrails/
That seems fairly conclusive.
I’m afraid that I don’t believe the persistant contrail explanation as opposed to chemtrail, which I understand to be aluminium oxide. From what I have been able to find out it is being used to counter ‘global warming’. If that is the case, I suspect it will work quite well. It will prevent measurable sun radiation from hitting the earth during the day and will speed loss of heat from the earth at night. All resulting in a cooler earth. The only problem is that it is aluminium, a very bad heavy metal for life. We live on a planet which has gravity. Something dumped at 30,000 ft will eventually make its way down to us. So the question is: Is the government responsible for aluminium being dumped into our atmosphere in an attempt to stop global warming? The answer in a question is: Do you put anything, even something as stupid as dumping aluminium oxide into our air, past our government? You can find the heaviest concentration of idiots on the face of the earth right there in Washington D.C.
There are an infinite number of things that you could “not put past the government to do”, so why pick this one in particular?
To at least suspect something, you need some evidence that it is happening.
There is no such evidence.
The science books say that contrails persist and spread, and the photos of “chemtrails” look just like photos of contrails from 40-50 years ago.
The question really is: on what evidence do you believe that chemtrails are anything other than contrails?
It seems strange that the people of the world have just noticed contrails if they realy had been there all the time. I have spent my life flying model aircraft, I now do some paragliding and have become very familiar with the sky and can promise I never saw these untill recently. The few and only trails I saw were contrails, never did we have any lasting trails in the sky like it is now. This is a new phenomenom and people have noticed, they want to know whats going on. To the best of my knowledge they are chem spraying ahead of weather fronts to stop rain. I can almost predict when we will see some trails by looking at the weather forecast. These trails dissolve cumulus cloud therefore controlling rain fall. Ultimately we need to get a sample of air from a fresh trail to answer our questions fully.
By “until recently”, what do you mean?
The key is that you did not notice them. Were you living in the same place? What time periods are we talking about?
Did you notice them before you started paragliding?
Now, if persistent contrail formation depends on the presence of moisture in the air, then is it surprising that you would see more of them ahead of a weather front bringing rain? Think about it: when does the sky have the most moisture in it? It’s when it’s overcast with clouds – so you can’t see the contrails. So when does the sky have most moisture in it, and you can also see the sky – well, that’s just before a weather front brings rain.
Uncinus, I have been paragliding for 11 years, flying models and being generaly interested in all aircraft since I was a lad. I am now 45 years young so I could be said to be a good witness to the changes. I have spent hundreds of days camping and looking at sunsets, thunder storms and the sky in general. With regard to the weather front bringing rain I agree and so do the Met office but only yesterday and the day before we had forecast rain and a complication of fronts. I watched the jets target the cumulus to the west and no rain fell despite being forecast. The cumulus quickly died to form horrid brown squashed cloud things and they drifted out to sea. I took pics of the activity and counted 16 aircraft in 1hr 20 mins. A count including depleated trails lead to a total of about 26. This is a lot of flights over my small patch where before it was rare to hear or see anything other than military jets from a near by airbase. On days when no fronts are due very few jets ever pass, which is what I would expect since there is no air corridor over the area. The air corridor is some 30 miles west of my home but a few large aircraft do pass over, however the number increases dramaticaly when the rain is due. I have not moved to another part of the country, I see these from work where I have worked since 1978 and can assure you that this is a real phenomenon. Try looking in old pictures and see if you can spot any trails. I cant find any before about 2004. We were filming lots of paragliding right through the years and almost all the recent ones show chemtrail skies. Try looking on the met satelite images where, if you know where to look, they can be seen to be layed down over the cloud. This is most often seen when one cloud bank runs into another, they spray right in the gap for some reason. Just cant wear the “increase in air travel theory” otherwise we would all be just seeing a few more over time. No, these bloody things were never there before. I honestly wish the chemtrail thing was just conspiracy nonsense but it is clearly not. I have 2 young sons and I am angered that they rarely enjoy a natural sky or the fresh air which they have a right to.
Bruce, I don’t doubt your observations – just your interpretation of them. For one thing, it seems contrary to accepted science to suggest that there have never been lots of persistent spreading contrails. See, for example, this science paper from 1970:
You seem very quick to discard alternate explanations for your observations. So no rain fell after it was forecast – is this actually unusual? If there’s an 80% chance of rain for five days, then on one of those five days it will not rain.
You say you only see lots of jets when the weather is a certain way. Is it not possible that you just don’t see the jets when the humidity aloft is low, because they are not leaving trails – a plane at 30,000 feet, especially a corporate jet, is nearly invisible unless it leaves a trail.
You say “Try looking in old pictures and see if you can spot any trails. I cant find any before about 2004. ” – I’ve done this, and it’s true, you can’t see many contrails in old photos. However, you can’t see many contrails in new photos either! I wrote a post about this:
http://contrailscience.com/where-are-all-the-chemtrail-photos/
You have to be scientific about these things. Take say, 100 photos prior to 2004, and 100 photos after 2004. These photos should have the same kinds of locations and types of exposure, and times of year. Are there actually more contrails PER PHOTO in the newer photos? Is it SIGNIFICANTLY more?
Somethings that might lead to the assumption of more contrails is that we take significantly more photos nowadays, and being digital they are easier to see contrails in, as they are viewed on a large monitor. The exposure and resolution is a also a lot better than your old family snapshots. Your paragliding videos for example, what equipment was using each year, and what did the sky look like on it? How many videos did you make per year? How many videos, exactly, show what the 1970 article calls “a familiar sight” and you call “chemtrail skies”?
Hi Uncinus, glad you are in on the subject and nice to blog with you.
Firstly I would like to make it clear that I observed first the presence and later the effects of contrails (chemtrails) before looking at any youtube/google stuff. When I did look on the net I was bowled over by the amount of people who were also wondering, not just from UK/US but all over the world. Try using foreign languages in your search and see what I mean. People who live in the middle of nowhere are now being invaded by contrail activity. This alone should raise the question-why? They cant all be nuts.
I fully understand the theory behind contrail formation, indeed I have observed them all my life. I read the science paper from 1970 and believe all it says, however contrails do not produce an aerosol bank at low level.
This horrid brown hazy aerosol which regularly cuts visibility is also a new phenomenon. I live in Scotland where the air was fresh and the sky was never filled with contrails or visibility reduced by anything other than cloud/rain.
This morning I woke to find the sky full of building cumulus but the air was thick with a pollutant which caused the blue part of sky to be nasty grey/blue. I knew that contrails were formed over a cloud mass way down off the south west coast of England the evening before from looking at the weather sat images and I followed the path of that patch as it drifted right over us this morning. Now I cant say for sure but having observed sick skies seemingly caused by similar activity before, I was not overly surprised to find it had an effect on the sky today.
Despite the pollution I watched as cumulus started to really take off until at 2pm I heard a jet rumble over head. It left a lasting trail right overhead which spread ( if at 30-40 thousand feet ) to become what must have been miles wide in two mins. I took some pictures of it and continued to observe and photograph it and the cloud under it. As I did so another jet rumbled over, then another until there were contrails every where. I could also see them flying way in the distance (west) over the top of the other clouds. (Yes I had been watching closely for any traffic since early on and with hardly any wind it was possible to hear them but I saw none.)
Now in this part of Scotland until recently we rarely ever saw a large jet fly over, now suddenly the sky is filled with them all within a few minutes. The cloud should have continued to build but within 12 mins it was gone. The over developing cloud in the west which was sure to bring rain also diminished within a short time leaving the sky a mass of trails. Where did the cloud go? There was no way all that cloud can disappear in such a short time. Strangely the aircraft activity stopped as abruptly as it started again.
I have also witnessed and photographed aircraft which fly in circles on these days, they fly anticlock with a lap of 20mins or so.
I have owned a beat up cloud spotter book for years and only recently have I seen clouds considered to be rare in my own sky. This, of course is great, but the worry being that they are now a fairly regular occurrence and there are a few clouds which are not in the book. I really hope this is something I mis-interpreted. I do regularly try to debunk myself but my observations just seem to keep propelling the mystery.
Example, I went outside just now 3am, it’s dark and the air is warm and very still. In a bright light I can see millions of little fibres in the air. This is undoubtedly what causes the haze at ground level for sure but what is it and where does it come from? I have no clue but its appearance also coincides with contrail formation.
We had a short period of no contrails and realy clean air for about 19 days recently (no fluff) but contrails have been regular again since 13th April and the fluff is back and I can hardly see clearly any further than about four miles. I dont want to believe any stuff about fibres in chemtrails but unfortunately I seem to be faced with some worrying observed facts. I realy would rather believe all was normal but it is not.
All good science must use data, observation and common sense to reach an honest conclusion, well I am almost lost when it comes to atmospheric soundings but I can give you dates of recent contrail activity and you are welcome to help me out with trying to understand how these trails and clouds lived and died using stored data.
With regard to observation and common sense, the alarm bells ring loudly warning me all is not as it should be or used to be.
Bruce, you sound like a very observant person. I can’t really explain everything you are seeing, as I’d have to see it for myself. I live in Los Angeles, and here it’s generally sunny, with blue skies. Very different weather to Scotland.
But I’ve got a few points. Firstly, there are a lot of flights over Scotland. Specifically flights to the US, like from London and the Continent to New York. Most famously over Lockerbie.
Then you talk about trails at 30-40 thousand feet (which is where most contrails form), and then the dissipation of cumulus clouds within 12 minutes of these trails forming. You’ve seen contrails, and they barely shift over 12 minutes – so how could they affect clouds thousands of feet below them?
You seem to be saying that the contrails are preventing rain. Has there been an unusual drop in rainfall in the past few years? No – they are actually above average over the last four years. See the Seasonal/annual summaries here:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/
You say:
Again, I’m not there, so I can’t tell. But why not some kind of pollen, or some kind of seed type thing, probably from trees?
Perhaps you could post some photos, so we could have a better point of reference for discussion.
I’ve found it very helpful to look at satellite photos, as they show where the moisture is in the air, and where the contrails are likely to form. Like these:
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?Europe_2_01/2008108/Europe_2_01.2008108.terra.1km.jpg
(Looking at those reminds me just how cloudy the UK is).
And you did not really address my point about the old photos. If there really were more trails now, then you should be able to see more trails in new photos than in old photos. This does not seem to be the case, judging by the normal holiday photos that people post online. Do you agree?
Example recent Scotland photos:
http://flickr.com/search/?s=rec&q=scotland+mountain
http://flickr.com/search/?q=scotland+paragliding
Find the contrail, and the four mile visibility.
Hi Uncinus, I looked at the pics of Scotland and none of them show anything strange about the sky. I do not expect you to be able to explain the condition of the sky here but I see you are fairly sure there is probably nothing going on. I have tried science but it does not match observation realy.
However, lets just pretend there was a weather mod. opp. going on and we were told about it but given no details of how it was achieved, the only to understand how it was achieved would be to observe. So weather mod may be very advanced or very primative but essentialy the mixing of air would have to be controlled. As you will know a cloud carries energy so if you wanted to mess with the energy you would target the cloud. This seems to be what I see but I still hope I am wrong.
With regards to the contrail, I it may be possible that it is not the lasting visible part of the trail which is active. Indeed it is very possible for a heavier substance to fall through the lower density air and enter the cloud top within minutes. The white mark in the sky is possibly only a marker, the active part is invisible but gathers as a fine suspended dust at lower altitude due to the increasing air density. The ability exists to make fibres which by being hydroscopic may achieve this, a weather mod company called Dyno-Mat allegedly do something like this.
The old photos would convince me if someone could show me plenty pics of contrails, wierd clouds, brown haze and vibrated cloud from years ago. Remember that air travel is not new, the cold war filled the sky above my home years ago with all sorts of high and low altitude jets and they only ever had a dissipating trail if any. The air corridor has never been busy and it never is unless it is lasting trail time.
With regard to the rainfall, despite what the weather man says, yes ther is less. I realy know this as I ride a motorcycle and can assure you I need my waterproofs less. Also the stream behind my house has reduced in size, almost dry in the winter just past.
Perhaps your just lucky that your part of the world is not polluted with these trails.
Hi Bruce
You are right to worry over your children.
Hi Bruce
I am a 48 year old housewife from Surrey. I am in the fortunate position that I do not have to work and spend most of my time tending my rather large garden
In the early part of 2007 I noticed a drastic change in the skies above my village, numerous jets were leaving massive trails behind them which seemed to join up and form artificial clouds.
Days that started of with clear blue skies would before midday turn white with these jet fumes.
As I do not live under a fight path the appearance of these many planes aroused my interest and I searched the internet for an explanation.
I very quickly discovered the many chemtrail sites from all over the world.
I was at first sceptical but as the year wore on became less so. In August following many days of excessive contrail/chemtrails activity, two previously healthy evergreen trees suddenly started turning brown, within a week both were dead.
Many of my neighbour’s large evergreen hedges also suffered the safe fate. In all my gardening years I have never seen such a fast die off of healthy foliage.
The way these trees suddenly died greatly concerned me and I decided to have a urine test for heavy metals, I also insisted on my son and daughter who live with me having a test.
The results of these tests horrified me and confirmed my fears regarding the jet trails.
My urine and my daughter’s urine were found to contain more than five times the amount of barium than is considered acceptable by EU regulators as well as elevated amounts of aluminium, my sons urine test however proved quite normal.
My son suffers terribly from hay fever and never joins us in the garden, he is also rather lazy and drives absolutely everywhere even to the corner shop which is less than five minutes walk away. My daughter is like me and spends as much time as possible out of doors, mainly in our garden.
None of us smoke and we eat much the same food. The only difference in our lifestyles is in the amount of time we spend outdoors breathing (fresh) air.
No one including doctors can explain where this massive amount of barium could have come from. I live in a typical Surrey leafy suburban village miles and miles away from any factories or industrial sites.
Due to the dangers of this barium contamination I took my daughter to India where we spent three months undergoing Chelation therapy. I returned last week my daughter returns next week. When my daughter returns we will take another heavy metal test. I hope and pray that the chelation has worked.
If as it sounds you are in an area being sprayed then I beg of you to get yourself and your children tested.
There are many independent laboratories that will do a urine test, however my doctor whom gave us the chelation therapy said that hair follicle analysis gives a more accurate diagnosis of metal poisoning.
People need to be warned about our breathable air and take tests before it is too late. I do not believe that we are purposely being poisoned but does it really matter.
We are told cancer will soon affect one in three people; maybe these chemtrails/contrails are the reason why.
Good Luck Friend.
Bruce, you said:
Then either science is wrong, or your interpretation of your observations are wrong. It’s you vs. science.
I tell you that the Met Office has reported increased rainfall in Scotland for three out of the last four year, and you tell me that you feel less wet while driving your motorbike, and the stream behind your house seems lower.
So what’s going on here? What’s more likely, the Met Office is lying, or you are mistaken?
There are THOUSANDS of amateur meteorologist, who measure rainfall. Don’t you think some of them would say something if the Met Office’s figures were off?
I show you that old photos and new photos contain the same amount of contrails. You say you’d be convinced “if someone could show me plenty pics of contrails, weird clouds, brown haze and vibrated cloud from years ago“. Well, what about the photos in this post? What about the photos in your old cloudspotting book? I see brown haze very frequently here in LA, especially inland, but I don’t know what your brown haze looks like, perhaps YOU could post a photo. And what are “vibrated clouds”, anything like a “mackerel sky”?
http://images.google.com/images?q=mackerel%20sky
Here’s an old book, over a hundred years old, with photos of clouds, including mackerel skies:
http://contrailscience.com/files/Cloud_Studies.pdf
The chemtrail theory started around 1999 in a loose internet community of people who had paranoid fears, both about the government, and about their health – people like Caroline, above. The new fear of chemtrails was promoted by quacks who sell fake remedies such as herbal chelation, rife machines, orgone, and worse. Like this:
http://www.gwwholesale.com/chemtrail-medicine2.htm
If science is not matching your observations, please don’t just throw out science. Make sure your observations are actually scientific. Ask a scientist. You might have convinced yourself – but if you can’t convince a scientist, then does that really mean the scientist is wrong? What if it were ten scientist, or a million? Perhaps you need to re-examine things from first principles.
Hi Uncinus
I can assure you that I did not come across chemtrails/contrails on the internet then start looking up and imagining differences in the sky.
I noticed a big change in our skies first which prompted me to search the internet for an explanation.
As for falling pray to quacks promoting herbal chelation I did no such thing. The chelation therapy I underwent was amino acid administered intravenously, a process which altogether took three months to complete.
There have always been unscrupulous people ready to trade on peoples fears, real or otherwise, thankfully due to the internet you can if you take the time usually weed out the charlatans from the genuine people available.
The excessive aluminium and barium levels in both mine and my daughters systems was analysed by Trace Labs not a quack. I am unable to find any other explanation for these metals being in our system despite spending many hours researching.
Whether these trails are Contrails or Chemtrails I care not, they are very noticeably reducing our sunlight as well as leaving barium and aluminium deposits in our breathable air.
Caroline, have you considered that your elevated barium levels might have come from somewhere else? It seems rather odd that it’s just you and your daughter – there should be millions of people who have this problem if it were really related to contrails. Also million of evergreen trees should be dieing, not just the ones in your garden.
It seems rather tenuous to link your ill health and some dead trees to a week of heavy contrails. Especially when it affects some people but not others. It seems your son, who does not have elevated Barium, is in far worse health than you.
Out of interest, what were your barium levels, and what is the EU safe level? And why did you have to go to India for this therapy?
Uncinus, you failed to show an open mind there at the start of your last statement.
You say either science is wrong or my interpretation is wrong but you never once show an open mind by even considering I may be right with my weather mod theory. Weather mod is a science and well worth a look.
The US gov have openly anounced plans of “owning the weather” and have in the past researched weather mod for warfare and other uses. I would expect they are continuing with their experiments with the intention of using such technology at some time.
It is not me versus science, since there is no science known to me which accurately fits my observations yet. As I said before I have no bias toward or against any theory, but I have observed big changes and keen to find out the reason.
Remember that the contrails came to me, I did not suddenly decide to make an issue of it after forty something years of failing to notice them.
With regard to the met office rainfall reports and the concept of lies being told. Again observation, not expectation has proven how our own police force and government have mislead us over issues in the past. This being the case then so can their military run met office lie as ordered.
I am not saying it is the case but it is possible for them to lie if they realy needed to keep a cap on something.
I am disappointed that you dismissed Caroline Carter as being paranoid, good science has a balanced view on all possibilities untill proven wrong.
Living where you do I would expect you are used to seeing vehicle and industrial pollution, perhaps your sky has always been horrid so you dont see the change. Perhaps hardly any planes fly over your patch anyway or you never looked up till recently and think it is all normal.
Rainfall is random and it is impossible to draw any firm conclusion from sampling amounts taken at widely spaced locations. It could rain more in one part of the west and far less in the east or randomly rain more or less where the measures are taken. If I lived far from a met rain gauge and did my own measurements of rain and found I had recorded twice the rainfall than they had in a year, I would correctly assume that locality was responsible for the difference. All the rain would have to be measured and we know that is not done so it remains only an estimate.
My local military base does an hourly observation of rain, visibility etc. Despite being a trusted source only 2 miles away they often report wrongly, especialy visibility estimates.
The skies depicted in the books are probably not from photos taken in scotland.
The sheer amount of air traffic seems to far exceed the assumption that the net cause is an ever growing popularity of commercial flying, but only on certain days.
Jets would be an almost usless stealth weapon if they all left a huge white trail behind them, no need for heat seeking nonsense, just follow the big white line.
I find it strange how we have had water meters fitted recently when we live in a country which usualy gets more water than we need. Perhaps the contrails are used to wick water away from certain areas.
Perhaps our government are warning us of rising sea levels because the ice at the poles is melting or being melted or being starved of snowfall by weather mod for the purpose of mineral extraction.
Perhaps we just have strange weather nowadays and lots of people are suddenly flying off on holiday right over my house.
Perhaps my eyes are on their way out and/or I am mentaly unstable.
Perhaps I had never realy been observant of the sky and have just not noticed before.
Perhaps the new european air traffic control just by chance tell the pilots to fly over at such height as to accidently cause a lasting trail.
Perhaps the jet fuel has changed, perhaps the large induction engines produce a lasting trail.
Perhaps paint is being blown off the fuselage and making a cloud.
Perhaps cleaning of car exhaust gases by catalyser has caused more pollution, not less.
Perhaps the military are using some special fuel and are flying extensively over my patch.
Perhaps my neighbour is secretly beating the dust from a carpet at night.
Perhaps I now see airliners fly in circles where no holding stack exists because the pilot is lost.
Perhaps I am wrong that the sky used to be so dark blue some days that it was almost possible to kind of see the darkness of space.
Why cant I see the milkyway in the sky on a clear night anymore?
Why does the bright star low on the horizon change colour more noticibly than before?
Why do these planes suddenly appear all at once?
Why did I not see this before?
What are these funny clouds about?
Why do the planes often have L/H engine trail different from the R/H engine trail?
Why do the trails look and behave so remarkably different.
Why does the trail suddenly start stop and fail to fade out at the ends even after hours of air mixing time?
Try searching KC135 on Google images or any high altitude flying pics and see how many contrails there are.
Please dont think I reject science, I never do that. However science and common sense need to fit the observations. Observation is the only hard science which exists on this subject. Any scientist who worked on theory alone would soon stumble if he drew his conclusion from expectation not observation. You expect I see contrails, maybe I do see contrails and nothing more but I keep an open mind.
I would appreciate input on the subject from all who think freely, including Caroline Carter.
Regards – Bruce.
Indeed, observation is the basis of science. Most scientific theories begin with an observation that needs explanation.
I really can’t address all your observations, as I’m not there, and you don’t post photos. I don’t know what “these funny clouds” are, because I can’t see them.
Let’s take one thing though. You claim that rainfall has decreased (since 2004?), and that the Met office and your local air base are reporting inaccurate figures. This should be easy to verify, as rainfall is nice simple numbers, with accepted methods of collection.
Right now, your case seems to be a rather tenuous bunch of observations, and some wild inferences as to the causes of those observations: It seems to you that there is less rain. It seems to you that there are more contrails overhead. It seems to you that the air is more hazy.
These are all subjective observations. In order to be taken seriously, it’s important to be objective. That means you need actual figures. Actual measurements and statistics.
Take the rainfall. Your stream is running low, and you wear your raincoat less often. These are not good measurements. A good measurement would be setting up a rain gauge, and measuring the rainfall daily for a couple of years. Now you don’t actually have to do this, you can just find someone else who has, and take their figures. There are many on the web.
Now take these rainfall figures, say from the last four years, and put them on a graph of the rainfall figures for the past 50 years. Is there a statistically meaningful variation? I think you will find it varies quite a lot from year to year.
And on some of your other points. Globally, the air IS getting more hazy, mostly due to industrial pollutants. This reduces the amount of sunlight, and reduces visibility:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulates
Bottom line: you say the weather is being changed, so you need some hard data that the weather HAS changed.
Hard data is exactly what I need , may be hard to get as just like I said in my first post, we need to sample the trail from one of the offending aircraft. This would be easier than buggering around with lots of data collected over several years. If only I could find enough people willing to share the cost of doing just that.
Any takers out there?
Obviously there would be no takers, because you are unable to make the case for doing it without hard evidence.
And, no, this is not catch-22. It’s taking things one step at a time – first you demonstrate that something is happening to the weather (which you could do VERY easily with rainfall figures, if your theory is correct), and then you try to find the cause. So the next step would be to actually establish a correlation between contrail activity and changes in the weather. Then you’ve got to show that it’s not the changes in the weather that cause the contrails. Then you can present your finding, and there will be no shortage of people willing to investigate.
But no – we have: “the weather seems odd to me, the air is often hazy, and I see more contrails, so contrails might be the cause, so we should spend £20,000 on inconclusive sampling of trails at 30,000 feet.”
You are seeing conditions you don’t understand. The “chemtrail” theory seems to you to explain these conditions. But it might be much more complicate than that. What you are seeing might have mutliple causes, including the variable weather, but also including your own observer bias and your apophenia.
Bruce,
Perhaps you might like to do some “Contrail Diagnosis” in your area.
To understand why contrails stay in the sky for a long time, and why there are breaks in some, a fundamental concept is supersaturation with respect to ice. Contrails are ice clouds, cirrus. The “chemtrail” explanation is an exquisite hoax.
There are “takers” out here who have done most of the work for you… They would then be “givers”, Yes?
Cheers, Uncinus, you’re doing a great job here.
If I may refer to contrails as aircraft emmissions which dissipate reasonably quickly and chemtrails which do not and take on a cirrus appearance, regardless as to the suggested “scientific” reason for either:
For Ross to claim the chemtrail explination is an exquisite hoax does not fit the available data much of this seemingly an arguement about when apparent evidence of chemtrails were first recorded. The problem with Ross’ arguement, in my opinion, is that evidence indicates children are being taught in school “A is for apple B is for boy and C is for chemtrail” (put that in your search engine) this being to help “global warming” so the government seemingly admits here and elsewhere that what we are witnessing is chemical modification of the atmosphere.
I live on the east of Scotland and although having vivid memories of childhood seeing contrails which could be long, I have no memory of what I am seeing now which is contrails which are thick and take on a cirrus appearance, as per the type referred online as chemtrails and I am now seeing them almost daily.
I first became aware of the chemtrail issue after a series of circular chemtrails, involving RAF Kinloss, appeared over my home last November. Shortly after I fell foul of a very dibilitating flu which left me with no energy to go to work (self employed) which lasted for months. In fact almost five months on I am still coughing. I have never experienced anything like it and know of others who were very ill and apparantly there were many. To get more information I have approached my health centre for their opinion. My concern is that the government freely admits to spraying biological warfare weapons on the general public in its research (see article below). I sent photographs of these chemtrails to carnicom.com and apparently they have never seen such a pattern, indicating deliberate targeting in so much as it wasn’t simply passing aircraft.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4398507,00.html
I live under the P600 airway and observe large jet aircraft passing overhead crossing the airway in the direction of RAF Kinloss. In doing so they leave short contrails. A few hours later similar aircraft which are, given the infrequent nature of such a type of traffic, almost certainly the same aircraft, return in the opposite direction only this time they leave stop start chemtrails which suggest to me they are being loaded up at Kinloss. I have observed a pattern of weather behaviour when this apparent spraying occurrs.
Like Caroline I have a garden to attend to. On the last occasion I was gardening I looked up saw three chemtrails and thought “Great, the sky is about to go!” Very shortly afterword the blue vanished and it became totally overcast the appearance such that we were going to get rain but didn’t and this overcast sky lasted for days. It is becoming the norm. When it rains now, we often get very little as was the case today. Sometimes there is heavy rain but heavy rain was the norm here.
As for the figures we had a lot of rain last year, as I recall, but I suspect we are now having less and this may be a trend, so in my opinion, the data on rainfall for Scotland or at least this area which is largely agricultural, starts here unless that is the data being referred to is for the whole country most of which is mountainous and not agricultural in that rainfall is being reduced over both agrcultural land and urban connurbations. In fact on the 13th April 2008 I observed one contrail starting and stopping directly over the city of Perth this being a relativly clear sky on that occasion, the existance of clouds making no material difference. (What effect it had I cannot say as I was traveling across the country at the time.
The sky however is not the same here as it used to be and given strict EU legislation I would expect pollution in general has reduced in this area with the exception perhaps of the aerosol issue.
Roger, are you Bruce?
That’s rather a huge leap of reasoning. Since the govenerment actually denies any such thing at the highest level, then some speculative (yet essentially correct) predictive science in one particular school text book can hardly be deemed an “admission”.
I don’t either. But I don’t really remember much about the sky from when I was young. I trust the photos that show these types of contrails going back to the 40s. Do you trust your childhood memort over the science books and newspapers?
You saw some jets practicing high altitude holding during flu season.
30 years ago they sprayed harmless tracer agents from a low altitude to see how far they would drift inland. Most recently (1975)they used a particular strain of serratia marcescens, of which there are several billion within three feet of you right now. These were low altitude tests that look nothing like contrails.
Show me the photos.
A few hours later the weather condition will have changed, which could lead to the “start-stop” contrails. The planes going in the other direction would also have to be at least 1000 feet above or below the first planes, which could account for the difference.
So, even though the scientist say there is more rainfall, you think there is less? Anything to back this up? Any figures?
I’m not sure what you point is there.
If the sky were not the same, then you would easily see it in people’s photographs. Show me some photographs from here that demonstrate this, and show me some old photos that show the “old” sky:
http://flickr.com/search/?q=scotland+mountain&m=text
Uncinus,
I am not Bruce. Are you an agent of your government?
I hope I have merely demonstrated incoinsistancy in one particular arguement: There are other sources which the blog has raised apart from this textbook. It is not so much “reasoning” but observation which I find gives grounds to question one particular side of the arguement.
How do you know it is “speculative”? Were you involved in the production of this textbook? If the public sector is indoctrinating schoolchildren to believe chemtrails are to address global warming then I consider the word admission reasonable, the information simply coming from a different source within the public sphere but clearly for a different reason.
What is it you suggest is essentially correct? The fact the government is releasing material in the atmosphere to address global warming?
I used to have a brilliant memory.
This afternoon I had three different “contrails” above me:
1. Two from fighter jets. 2. What appeared to be a civilian airliner. 3. Two stop start chemtrails. The chemtrails were very distinctive and I am satisfied I would remember such a contrail type from childhood if they were normal.
At least we are agreed that we have no recollection of chemtrails from childhood but I have vivid recolection of normal contrails. Both our positions on this gives support to the chemtrail argument.
Do I trust my childhood memory over science books and newspapers?
Do you trust newspapers?
The one thing I don’t trust is the mainstream media and as for science books I trust some and distrust others. I trust what I know to be right not what I think to be right. In short yes I do give priority to trust what I remember over what I am told by third parties.
Contrary to your words, I saw both high altitude and low altitude military activity at that exact same time giving me reasonable grounds to believe there may be a link.
Put it this way, if there was a bank robbery in a certain location and at that time a white van was seen driving at speed in the locality the police would want to investegate any possible link.
If you were chief of police and dismissed such observations as “a huge leap of reasoning” and not worthy of consideration I would want you replaced.
You have dismissed a potentially very interesting flu experience as though such were normal when I pointed out it was unprecedented in my experience.
For you to hold your position on “germ warm tests” in the UK you would have to have held a very senior position within the MOD for you to know there were only the two tests you refer to carried out in this 30 year period. Yea right! Anyway that was then; this is now.
I have only just joined this discussion and your statement “send me the photographs” I find both demanding and rude. I found carnicom.com both curteous and considerate my having forwarded such for an opinion. On that basis I am happy for them to have sole right over them so I suggest you ask them for copy.
I accept your explanation is indeed worth consideration regarding start stop contrails however all three types above observed today displayed a possible start stop phenomena but only the two chemtrails behaved anything like chemtrails.
I trust that observation is helpful as I can see your arguement that normal contrails can display similar properties to chemtrails but in my observations only very slightly.
I am not interested in providing rainfall figures I just know contrary to what has been said that we had unbelievable rainfall last year where I live, it being the bane of my life, one reason I get fed up with this climate.
As for the reference to Perth, I simply observed a single standard chemtrail directly over a city. Is it possible future evidence might suggest the possibility of experimentation to target an urban connurbation by our MOD in weapons testing?
What do you want? For me to provide you with old photographs without chemtrails on?
Again I have no interest in providing you with photographs suffice to say I am seeing arial activity which I have no recollection of seeing before. How difficult is that to comprehend?
I don’t in anyway mean to be rude but I joined this blog today to share observations with a view to both contribute and be helpful. Your whole attitude I find abrasive and intransigent.
It just seemed a bit of coincidence, I don’t get many commenters – then two from Scotland using the same ISP in two days.
What is correct is that particles in the air block sunlight, and that people have suggested it as a solution to global warming. That’s all the book is about. It gives a list of various things that have been proposed to combat global warming, including dumping iron in the sea. It’s one out-of-print science book. It’s meaningless.
When you were a child you were concerned with other things, like playing games. Now you are grown up you are highly concerned about contrails, so you look at them more closely, and notice things you would not have noticed when you were a child.
Does it never strike you as odd that the people who have not heard of chemtrails do not notice anything odd about contrails? If they do not notice it, then why would you notice it as a child. This seems to suggest contrails have always been like this (although there are more now, as there is more air traffic).
There’s a problem – for if you only trust what you can see, then you will never get to the true facts of things. Do you believe the sun goes around the earth, or that the earth is flat, or that the stars are fixed in a firmament? Because that’s what they look like. Science tells us otherwise, and it gives us the means to verify its claims.
Except in this case, there has not been a bank robbery, and there has just been normal traffic.
Flue seasons are pretty random. There are good ones and bad ones. I’m not dismissing it, I’m just saying there’s no discernible correlation.
I was going by the article you posted a link to, which detailed all the tests that had been carried out. There were many more than two, but I just mentioned the last one to explain the nature of the tests.
I’m not trying to be polite. I’m trying to be scientific. If you’d sent the photos to Carnicom, then I’d assumed there would be a link to them. If you don’t want to post your photos, then it can hardly be helping your case.
Different jets and/or different altitudes produce different types of contrail.
Can you explain then what the difference is? Because all the photos I’ve seen look like photos of contrails.
Bruce, also in Scotland, seems to think that rainfall has decreased. You see how two people observing the same thing can come to different conclusions.
No, I want you to provide NEW photos that have “chemtrails” in them. Specifically photos that are of something else in Scotland, that just happen to have chemtrails in the background. If they are as common as you say, then there should be lots of them.
It’s perfectly comprehensible. However we differ on what it means. I think you just don’t remember because there was no reason for you to remember – exactly the same as 99.99% of people today, they don’t notice, and if you ask them again in 10 years, they won’t remember.
Memory is fallible. Photos are less fallible.
Uncinus
You are perfectly correct that there must be millions of people with elevated aluminium and barium levels if these substances are in our breathable air, however people will not be aware of these elevated levels unless they are tested. It is for this reason that I have decided to advice my colleagues and friends of my apprehension and recommend they too take tests.
My gardener has readily agreed to take a test and will this weekend ask his grown children to involve themselves.
Yes I did look for other explanations but as the levels of barium levels in my system were similar to that of an an unmasked welder there were few places to look. As for my sons health I do not consider laziness an illness and hay fever is a very common if aggravating condition nowadays.
You are also correct about the evergreens, maybe I did not explain myself very well, my neighbours evergreens also suddenly died as did many in the village. All these evergreens were of the same type and healthy.
Normal ranges for Urine Barium are 33ug/g.
BRUCE
I am interested in your idea of collecting a sample of these aircraft emissions as I think this would be the quickest way of deciding once and for all as to the content of these aircraft trails.
I am a retired Financial Consultant with funds that I am willing to utilise in this manner, hopefully to prove my concerns wrong.
I also chair several committees whose members I intend talking to this weekend about my unease, despite the peculiarity of my discussion I am well known and expect to be taken seriously.
You I and many others are realising something out of the ordinary is occurring in our skies, we also realise that if it was for our benefit it would be highly publicised and without doubt taxed. Please email me to discuss your ideas.
c.carter@europe.com
Caroline,
So what exactly was your barium level?
And why did you have to go to India for the therapy?
And you contend that millions of people are also sicked with barium poisoning, but don’t know it?
Uncinus,
You fail to answer most of my points. I look forward to you posting the full content of the textbook if you can be relied upon for such unless you simply bluff.
You have no knowledge of my childhood so gtf.
The majority of individuals know little about nothing.
I don’t have the science book, and I don’t think you have either, so we can’t accurately critique it. But I suspect it resembles the last paragraph here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/climate/2001-07-16-combat-warming.htm
Note that this entire section is sixth out of a list of much more reasonable classes of ideas, and the “extra-dirty jets” that are also mentioned in the science book are listed here last, under “ideas that stretch the imagination”.
No, I’ve not read the book. But part of science eduction is to stimulate the scientific imagination of young minds: “what if….?” type questions. This would be a good topic for discussion, especially as it’s a bad idea. Why should it be off-limits?
Hello Caroline,
You have lifted my heart.
There seems to be light at the end of the tunnel after all, I think heaven just sent us an angel and her name is Caroline.
(Sorry Uncinus, again I have no hard data to prove Caroline is an angel, it was just a wee touch of “apophenia” which was chemtrailing my view.)
Caroline, I will contact you in due course, I look forward to discussion with you regarding this matter.
With my sincere regards – Bruce
I seem to have made an error in my last post. Both mine and my daughters Barium levels were >33ug/g, normal levels are <10ug/g.
My son who seldom goes outside had a level of <5ug/g. If the Barium in my body comes from our breathable air then I do contend that there will be many others with similar levels.
It was not just a week of heavy chemtrailing and a few dead trees that concerned me, it was/is the recent big increase in people I know personally getting sick and dying. Two young healthy men in my immediate circle have suddenly died of brain haemorrhage, my 19 year old nephew was last year diagnosed as having a brain tumour, thankfully he received treatment in time to save his life. We are told to expect a massive rise in deaths due to Cancer but not given a reason. These and many other reasons are causing me and others grave concern, it is time to act instead of sitting at home speculating. Do you know Uncinus we are told here in the UK that your chances of dying prematurely increase ten fold if you work outdoors, we are not given a reason why, we are treated like children and given facts without explanations, this is not good enough. Maybe these strange trails which linger above our homes in strange formations for hours and hours are not to blame but maybe, just maybe they are.
I had my treatment in India for several reasons.
1. I have a house on the beach which I visit every year anyway.
2. The cost of treatment in the UK would have far surpassed the airfare and treatment.
3. Doctors in India are familiar with heavy metal poisoning and treat many Europeans each season.
4. I had the year before decided to study microbiology and found it financially viable to do my studies in India.
By the way, during 2004 many people and cattle were drowned in Northern India due to chemtrails and weather manipulation, this is not conjuncture but a known and accepted fact, it seems it is only the so called west that hides it’s misdemeanour’s from those affected.
I’m not denying your high barium levels – I’ve no way of knowing if that’s accurate or not. Assuming it is (and 33 is a VERY high level, average is normally around 1.5), you know that barium is naturally excreted by the body, so if there were no new barium coming in, then your barium levels would naturally go down to normal levels. So given that – if it actually came from chemtrails, then will it not just go back up again, and will the people who did not get chelation all start dieing?
And how do you even know it is from chemtrails? Surely there would be lots more reports of elevated barium levels. Why is it just you and your daughter? And why does the air indoors have less barium in that the air outdoors? Do you filter the air before it enters the house? It’s the same air.
They do give you the reasons – but there are several reasons, and they are complex. In part it’s because people are living longer, and so they are more likely to die of cancer (as treatment for other conditions improves, men who would have died of heart failure are now dieing later of prostate cancer). In part it’s because of better detection. In part it’s because of changes in lifestyle, with more people overweight, more sun exposure, more binge drinking.
The reasons are actually obvious:
Increased sun exposure leads to a 400% higher risk of skin cancer.
Outdoor jobs are generally lower paid jobs, and poor people have shorter lives than richer people.
Outdoor jobs are more dangerous, and you have a greater chance of accidental death or life-shortening injury on the job.
If it is a known and accepted fact, then why is there no reference to it on the internet?
You seem to have very unusual ideas about health Caroline, and you are living in fear because of them. I urge you to consider who or what your sources of information are, and in you might be better served by adding some more reliable sources.
In my opinion, whether these trails contain additional substances or not, we still have a huge problem with the general vandalisim of the sky. This damage alone is worthy of full investigation and changes must be made in air law (CAA) and military practice to end what is essentialy a statutory nuisance.
Caroline, I hope you and your daughters recover fully. I was aware of the barium findings in humans in USA and I am shocked to learn your family have ingested the same substance.
I think I will subject my family and self for testing as you advise, we are very much outdoor people too.
Testing for barium in cattle may be something which has been done here in UK, perhaps we may find an interesting correlation, they breath the same air as us.
In my part of UK I can clearly observe an abundance of tiny fibres in the air which gives me concern for the health of our lungs, airways and eyes. My local council have very recently tried to sample these fibres with a grease plate and I am currently waiting for the result.
Again, I hope I am wrong with all of this for the good of us all. Perhaps Uncinus is right, but unfortunately he has no hard data to answer any other event other than the appearance of a contrail.
I hoped I would find an answer to most of my observations by means other than physical sampling, unfortunately I have failed.
Uncinus, please remember that the weather is still a bit of a mystery even to those who study it. If it were fully understood forecasting would be simple and accurate.
I know you like things nice and scientific, orderly and in obeyance with accepted theory, so do we, but we have learned that life is not always like that.
So please dont struggle so hard against the ever rising tide of sceptics, we are not paranoid, just observant and concerned.
Please take what you read from Caroline, myself and others and accept it as data, yes it may seem meaningless because no one has made sense of it all yet, but you have to accept that all the chemtrail stuff on the net and indeed the very existence of your web site leaves little doubt that a real event is taking place.
I have tired on this subject and now we need closure. I am more than willing to actively seek resolve and I thoroughly look forward to further discussion with Caroline by e-mail.
Regards – Bruce
So the popularity of a subject on the internet is somehow proof that the subject is scientifically valid? Would you then think that otherkin, UFOs, ghosts, angels, gang stalking, and levitation are all scientifically valid?
Data would be some actual numbers. Photos, videos, measurements, observations over time. The chemtrail theory has none of this – just anecdotes. Much like the stories about the otherkin – a subject which enjoys nearly as much popularity as chemtrails.
Uncinus, just as I expected, you can only handle numbers and hard fact. You have a thoroughly closed mind and seem short of consideration when you reply. Lots of people have experienced things which have no scientific explaination, this does not mean the event is false or they are mad.
You may actualy see a ghost, angel or chemtrail one day whilst eating a barium meal but you will fail to recognise it because there will be no hard data and it does not fit your expectations.
I would like to remind you that the US and UK military invaded a whole country based on false premise, and they are still there despite the lack of data. I trust you have told them that they are suffering from apophenia.
I would certainly like numbers and hard facts. Eventually those are what tell the tale. Like with the US in Iraq, and the WMDs – eventually the evidence showed that they were not there.
People experience odd things, and they seek explanations for them. On this site I’ve given explanations for the persisting spreading contrails, yet some people still insist they are something unusual – despite all the evidence.
The problem with you dismissing “hard evidence” is that is the WAS actually something going on with the weather, then hard evidence would be VERY EASY to find. You’d just need to show that the weather had changed via some measurements over time – measurements that ALREADY EXIST. You don’t even need to do the measuring.
You could also provide some evidence of “strange clouds”, simply by photographing them. If you do this often enough, and document when and where you took the photos, then that is “hard evidence”.
Instead, we have anecdotes. Why would you use anecdotes when hard evidence should be available to you?
Uncinus, there is a satelite image from UK met office (poor quality) which I was curious about. Sorry I cant send you a link or the file but I am sure you can find a much clearer image. The date is 26 April 2008 0600 utc. It was a visual image, not IR of the UK. Could you please have a look for me and tell me what you think? Also please post a link for the image so I can look at a clearer version. I am open to your expert opinion as I feel I may have found some contrails to the west of the country.
Regards – Bruce
This?
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?Europe_2_01/2008119/Europe_2_01.2008119.terra.250m.jpg
Well I’m not sure, the res is so large it does not fit the page. Perhaps the image does not cover the west. The image I have shows Ireland with a thick band of cloud passing close to the west coast and moving north which seems to have contrails crossing it. Please try again, thanks.
You can scroll it you know.
Also, at the top click on 1km or 2km for lower res versions:
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?Europe_2_01/2008119/Europe_2_01.2008119.terra.2km.jpg
click on prev and next for alternate dates, and click on “View Aqua Image” for another satellite view taken at a different time.
The full worldwide set is here:
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/
No, I cant understand why the image is so diffirent. Are you sure of the date and time? The image I have is correctly dated and timed and came directly from the UK met site on the 26th April at 0600 utc. I can tell at a glance that this is not it. There is a heavy cloud street heading up the west side of Ireland in the image in question. Please have another go.
Thanks
Clouds vary a lot through the day. Note the Aqua and Terra images are different (and both images are made from two other images stitched together, probably half an hour or more apart).
I’m not sure what you are even asking here. Why don’t you just show me your satellite photo?
Oh, actually, I see the date was wrong. Here’s the 4/26 photo:
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?Europe_2_01/2008117/Europe_2_01.2008117.aqua.2km.jpg
Yes, that’s a lot of contrails. Click on the 1km and 250km photos for close up. The terra photos also show contrails.
Found the correct date number, it is 2008-117 which is 26/4/2008. We need the images from 5am in one hour segments to about 11am but I cant find them.
These photos are not from geostationary satellites. Terra and Aqua are Sun-synchronous orbit satellites which actually circle the entire globe at a low altitude (500 miles up or so), meaning they only see a bit of each at a particular time during the day (the same time). The advantage is obviously that they cover then entire world – the problem is you can’t get a shot from any other time.
geostationary satellites are always above the same spot, but have to be 22,000 miles away, and above the equator, so you can’t get very high resolution photos from them. You can take photos at any time, but they are not very good, about this good:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/satpics/latest_uk_vis.html
Not really high resolution enough to see contrails.
Perhaps though, if you can explain what you think you see, we can discuss that?
I cant simply post or mail you these images because the pc I am using from home runs no mail otherwise I would let you and others see some of the more interesting contrail/cloud pics I have collected over time.
I will try and burn some pics onto a disc and mail them to you from my work pc unless before then you can find the satelite sequence yourself.
However you have the correct source, very low res as you can see. The image from the 26th shows lots of contrails where you have already noticed (south of England) but the contrails which cross the cloud running up past Ireland look like cross stitching.
I can count about 22 but think there may be many more which start and stop just above the cloud bank. Almost all the trails form a point with its neighbour giving a cross stitch effect. These trails must have been created within a short time of one another and fade together as the cloud moves north. There are also lots of trails (given the time of day) over Spain and France although I had not particularly questioned their existance.
This is at 6am and the trails seem clearly patterned as if targeting the cloud. This air mass drifted over Scotland later in the morning and we suffered the most bizarre polluted sky I have ever witnessed.
There were cumulus giving about 50% cover on a light westerly with no high level cloud but the blue sky was a filthy grey blue and the sun struggled to shine through between the cloud. There seemed to be some substance which tinted the air and visibility was very poor at ground level. This gave a very odd effect, I took some pics but they completely fail to show the condition of the air. I have seen plenty water vapour in our air, living on the east coast gives us plenty mist so I know how it looks and feels but this was very different. I usualy see wet air as a white haze when the sun shines on it, there is usually dew but not that morning.
I then went to the met site and found the satelite images which prove many aircraft flew through that air before it arrived over Scotland. Now I realy dont know how many planes make their way over that area at 6am but counting the trails seems to suggest an unreasonable amount of activity.
Later that day at 2pm exactly, an aircraft leaving a lasting and quickly spreading trail flew over, then within moments another, then another and so on, all leaving lasting trails.
Sixteen aircraft movements were counted in the small patch of sky within 1hr 20mins, (that is one every five minutes) all leaving a lasting trail.
All the building cumulus died within no time and the sky filled with depleated trails blowing in on the wind. The weather front could be clearly seen as it moved over us bringing 100% texturless grey cloud cover and the aircraft activity stopped as abruptly as it started.
At 5pm a gentle low level east wind picked up under the front bringing moist air in from the sea, there was no rain although the conditions had looked right early on for overdevelopment and rain and the forecasters agreed.
See what you think if you get the right images.
Regards – Bruce
Bruce, you could try opening a GMail account, it’s free and easy to use for uploading photos.
Having not seen your photos, I’ll go by the Aqua and Terra images: both of which show a lot of contrails.
You suggest this is “an unreasonable amount of activity”, especially by . However, there are LOT of flight between the US and Europe, most of which go over this area. A quick search on Expedia reveals seven flights from Los Angeles to London, Six flight from Los Angeles to Paris, – the total number of flights must be in the hundreds, so it does not seem surprising to me that there are times where there are a lot of contrails. All it takes is for the region where contrails form to be large enough, and for the conditions to be right for contrails to persist.
And Contrails DO create cloud cover. They sometimes spread out to form a layer of cirrus clouds. All science agrees on this. The cloud layer south of Cornwall in the Aqua photo is probably intensified by the contrails. But if you look at the larger picture, it seems to be part of a broad sweep of cloud across the British Isles.
Cumulus clouds do not always develop into rain clouds.
I doubt if you are seeing the correct image. The image you link looks like 8am which does not show the trails, it is the 6am image which shows clearly the cross stitch effect.
I do not think the contrails created cirrus here and I understand that cumulus does not always give rise to rain.
Indeed as I run the sequence the cloud becomes hazy and fades in the areas where the trails are seen as it moves north. Despite the sun coming up it fades whilst the cloud which had no contrails over it seems to remain bubbly. The images I have are clearly edited, a fuzzy patch suddenly seems to cover certain interesting areas.
I have always meant to find out what the lifting index was for that air mass but have not researched that yet.
Yes I must sort out my pc to post from home.
New world record for contrail duration 11 hrs. South west of Ireland at 3pm on 4th May contrails are created.
The satelite images clearly show the contrails sustaining for a full 11 hrs and the air has now drifted over my home and once again the sky is horrid grey colour.
The jets are here in force right now, loads of trails everywehere and it is only10.30am.
Bruce – contrails are clouds. How long do clouds last?
I looked at the sequence of satellite photos for that time frame. You see a contrail form at 1400 UTC, SW of Ireland. By 1900 UTC, it has been distorted and broken up – essentially just becoming part of the cloud system that is moving in.
So where to you get 11 hours from?
Don’t shoot the messenger, I just say what I see.
The satelite image available to the UK public clearly shows the contrails (not clouds) sustaining discernable shape for a full 11 hour duration.
Why do you insist these are clouds Uncinus?
The fact that they were catalysed by aircraft activity and did not originaly manifest themselves by natural cloud mechanics obviously makes them contrails.
So I have shown clearly by independent means that contrails did last for 11hrs or more.
Are these the longest lasting contrails ever?
Here are the satellite images for that day:
http://contrailscience.com/images/UK/
The first contrails are visible at 1400, and by 1900 those contrails are indistinguishable from the nearby clouds (although some new contrails have come along).
So what images are you looking at?
Ahh, you have the visual, try the IR.
I counted incorrectly, I must conceed, they persist for nine hours of duration not eleven.
Still, this is a long time for a contrail don’t you agree?
I’ve added the IR images:
http://contrailscience.com/images/UK/
No, I don’t think it’s a long time at all. The contrails persist just as long as the surrounding clouds, just as would be expected. Contrails are a type of cloud.
I am struggling to comprehend your reply here, if 9 hrs is not long duration then what is???
Can’t find anything about contrails lasting this long anywhere.
Again I must stress – contrails are not clouds – they are contrails.
They at very least contain water and pollutants which have been placed in the air by un-natural means.
If there was no difference then we would not have “contrail science” we would have “cloud science”.
You of all people should know the difference surely.
You would never look up at a sky domminated by contrails (some of which being 9hrs old or more) and say-
“Gosh, what a cloudy day”
Would you?
Contrails are not natural clouds. However, meteorologists and scientist consider them to be a type of cloud. Have a look in any books on clouds, and there is usually a section on contrails.
For example, from The Book of Clouds by John A. Day, in the section Unusual clouds
So, they are artificial clouds. Hence they last as long as clouds do. Actually they often last longer, as the particle density is generally higher than in natural clouds.
We have “contrail science” because contrails are a very specific type of cloud.
How long do you think a cloud visible to satellite should last? Again, the contrail in your images lasts no longer than the surrounding clouds.
If there was no cirrus cloud in the sky would this mean the air mass at that height was at a lower humidity than required to form natural cloud?
No. Air can be supersaturated with respect to ice without condensation occurring. Ice nucleation (the starting of an ice crystal to form) can occur both with or without ice nuclei, depending on the temperature, humidity and pressure.
If there is high humidity and low temperatures, and no clouds, then the clouds are not forming either because it is not cold enough, or because there are not enough nuclei.
Contrail clouds can form in clear air both because they increase the humidity, and because they introduce nuclei, mostly in the form of soot. If the air is supersaturated with respect to ice, then this new cloud may persist and spread.
Thanks for your thoughtfull answer. Another couple if I may!
Can persisting contrails form in the lower regions where no ice exists?
Roughly guessing, what would be the minimum height to expect a trail to form if conditions were favourable?
If the trail requires cold air does this mean the trail will always be ice?
Can contrails look different because one may be ice when another may be cloud?
Excellent questions.
That depend on what you mean by “no ice exists”. Persisting contrails need humid air, and low temperatures. So they can form at any altitude where those conditions exist. Even at ground level – at -40 degrees cars and even animals can produce a kind of contrail. Look up “ice fog” – it looks like normal fog (which is composed of tiny drops of water mist), but it’s made of ice crystals – like contrails.
http://www.geocities.com/abaccola/winter.html
See above, any altitude – but generally the cold temperatures required are found at above 26,000 feet.
For must practical purposes, yes. Water CAN exist in a supercooled liquid state, but only between 0C (32F) and -20C (-4F). But persistent contrails are generally formed at -40C (-40F) or colder, and water is always ice or vapor at that temperature.
I think you mean “one may be an ice cloud when another may be a liquid mist cloud?”. Technically yes – you can get water contrails at a low level by flying through very humid air. You see these when landing in bad weather sometimes. Often these contrails are vortex contrails and not engine contrails. However, I think most of the contrails you are seeing are ice contrails, and the differences are due to different weather conditions, and different types of plane flying at different altitudes.
Based on your questions I think it’s important to stress again that clouds can be made of either liquid water, or ice (or a combination of both). Low level clouds like cumulus at made of water, and high level clouds like cirrus are made of ice. Have a look at this article on clouds:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud
Note that contrails are included in the classification as a High Cloud.
And if you really want to get technical, note that the way water transitions between liquid, gas and solid is rather complex, and not simply a function of temperature.
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/phase.html
Thanks again for a nice full answer.
Something which I have noticed is a lack of cumulus (especially over developing lovelies) cloud in nearly all “chemtrail” related videos on Youtube etc.
I have seen small dark low cloud on a few but a random click mostly shows no low cloud. My own pictures seem to show the same.
I had considered that people will film when visibility is unlimited by cloud but watching the sky myself I have noticed a complete lack of trails when (50%) low level clouds are in abundance all day.
On the few videos I have found which show cloud, the cloud seems to be limited to a thin line which exists within a narrow band 500 feet thick or maybe less.
Would only very short trails be produced on these days or could persistant trails still manifest?
Does the lower, warmer humid air have a direct effect on the state of the higher air mass in respect to contrail promoting conditions?
Can the upper air mass influence the lower air mass to promote or supress cumulus even though the lower air mass conditions are very favourable to cloud birth?
Thanks
I hardly ever see cumulus here in Los Angeles. You’ve got to look at the location of where the video is taken.
In Scotland, like most of the UK, the weather is determined by systems of low pressure (which bring low clouds) and high pressure, (which bring clearer skies). I think you’ll find there are more contrails when transitioning from a high pressure system to a low pressure system – hence the contrails generally precede the cumulus.
There is obviously going to be some correlation between the air at high and low altitudes – but this can vary greatly. The boundaries between air masses are not perfectly vertical.
Uncinus, can you advise me where to obtain decent online past and present satelite images for my little island?
The only stuff I can find is very low res.
Thanks
Hi Uncinus…
I was wondering what you know about fall rates and dispersal theory…
It seems to me that anything that is in the sky above…in particular, particulate matter in the aerosolized form of supposed “chemtrails”…would not fall down on the earth directly below but instead drift for 100s and 1000s of mile with the upper winds…if ever actually fall.
…and thus, I find it very difficult to take people seriously who see trails above and then relate their illnesses to them…or worse- take “samples” on the ground and claim it is “proof” of nefarious contaminants in jet exhaust…Sort of seems like Alchemy- a pile of rags will turn into mice if you leave it long enough…
correlation does not equal causation.
Your thoughts?
Bruce, the MODIS images are great. Very high resolution, cover the whole world, and have about 2 years of daily photos.
They only take two photos per days though (one per satellite), both taken around noon.
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/
Here are the UK photos:
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?Europe_2_01/2008134&altdates
(Scotland is unfortunately cut off a bit).
Today’s shows a nice collection of contrails to the West
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?Europe_2_01/2008134/Europe_2_01.2008134.terra.1km.jpg
CSK, the fall rate of aerosolized liquids and solids depends on the droplet size, air pressure, and the air convection currents.
In this context it’s important to remember that clouds are aerosols, and contrails are a type of cloud. You don’t see clouds dropping out of the sky. It’ pretty obvious that if a trail is persisting and spreading over the sky then it’s not falling to the ground any more than a cloud is.
If, for the sake of argument, something was being sprayed out of the back of a plane that fell at the rate of 1 foot/second, then it would take 8 hours to reach the ground from 30,000 feet. Since the winds over that range average around 50mph, it would end up 400 miles away.
Uncinus, thanks for these links, they are great.
Please have a look at the images of the west coast of Norway from yesterday morning (I dont have any good ones) and tell me what you think of the trails there. It is not a main flight route but shows extensive trails for some reason. The trails over Ireland are quite numerous too. I would love a clear copy of the sat image for Norway.
Regards – Bruce
Bruce, I can’t really help you unless you show me the photos that you are looking at.
It’s possible to get other photos from the raw images:
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/2008134/
But it’s a bit harder to work out exactly which image is where.
Thanks for the link, I see what you mean about it being a bit confusing, plenty of plates.
I saw images from the crappy met office UK yesterday.
Think the IR was the one which caught my attention, there was a realy startling number and size of trails just west of the Norwegian coast and Ireland but I forgot to save it and cant get the image now.
I didnt expect to find heavy air traffic in that part of the world.
Thanks again for the great links.
There are many flights from Eastern Europe and the Middle East Canada and the United States that pass through that general region.
Try downloading a copy of Google Earth, then use the Ruler tool to draw a line between two cites, like Seattle and Warsaw, or New York or Chicago and Moscow.
Too many trails appear all at once, something is not right. If you look you can see how the trails suddenly appear all within two hours. There is no way so many flights pass over this part of the world all of a sudden. Same thing happens to often, you should realise this too. More over the trails are too random to be a flight path.
My own personal photographs show random flight patterns over my patch when the contrailers are out to play. Again watching the sky the other day when clear revealed just how little air traffic passes over my patch.
Yes I know you will say I missed seeing most of the flights because they left no trails but it is so obvious as there are only aircraft passing west of here on the air corridor as it was before the random contrailing.
I regularly see markers placed in the sky, it is realy obvious that is what we see. These are clearly used to track air movement by satellite so they know where to drop the stuff or where it has driffted.
You are very lucky if weather modification is seldom or never carried out in your area, we suffer here fairly regularly but often the weather mod is carried out over the sea so the effect is harder to spot.
I can now tell by the colour and texture of the sky if the air has remnants of the treatment contained within, we get all sorts of effects, black sunsets, wierd black low cloud which never brings rain, wierd squashed cumulus hopefulls with fuzzy edges, cloud which is a completely different colour from fresh rising cloud etc.
I could show you pictures but if you never knew how the sky here used to look you would perhaps never understand how different things are now.
It is a weather fact for my area that when we get an east wind or especially south east it will rain. Recently we have suffered east winds with no rain, just wierd dark low cloud. Another anomaly is gusting strong east winds with no rain, again this is not usual.
We have had rain and snow on a north wind several times, again this seldom or never used to happen. The air was usualy dry if from the north and would be a steady 20mph at the most.
Another wierd thing which now happens is long periods of huge gusts descending at night despite there being no (pressure induced) wind.
Unlike most who surround me I am very familiar with my sky and can asssure you it has been molested. Having trudged through lots of old pictures I have failed to find any which show sky conditions which we often have today.
Even without the appearance of contrails I would still have noticed a difference in the cloud forms, infact rumour has it that America has been modifying weather (chemtrailing) for a number of years longer than us, well I had noticed a change in the wind patterns here a few years ago and said repeatedly that the weather was wrong to my flying buddies.
This makes perfect sense if true as most of UK weather comes on a nice low from the Atlantic. I was always hopefull a good southwesterly wind was going to blow and recover the weather here but it never did, instead we have chemtrail looking things now and strange cloud.
So if the contrails are not causing this then why do they pop up at the same time as strange weather?
What is this HAARP thing being played around with?
If I were to believe this machine to be capable of microwaving my sky then I suppose that is what I may see sometimes.
Sorry Uncinus, I realy have tried to convince myself that this all in my mind but it is all in my sky and all over the satellite images to prove further that it is real.
The very existance of your site confirms this further as do the videos of UK skies affected by the opperation. Too many anomalies exist for the whole thing to just be ignored and put down to an increase in air travel.
No evidence exists yet either way so perhaps we must agree to differ on this one, but time may tell.
Regards – Bruce of Scotland
Bruce, I can understand how you might think as you do – but I disagree with you. I disagree with you because you are unable to produce any evidence to back your claims. All I have to go by is you account that you think that the weather is different, and that this is connected to an increase in contrails that you don’ think is coming from normal air traffic.
I think though, that you are simply mistaken.
Do you really think that all the amateur meteorologists in the UK (and there are a lot) have simply overlooked this, or are part of the plot?
And even if they are, then why cannot you produce any data to substantiate your claims? If the weather modification is too hard to measure, then clearly it is not working.
The weather varies a lot from year to year. Our memories of the weather are often fixed by particular times. Has the weather changed? Yes, obviously it has – but it’s always changing, it’s been changing since the birth of the planet. Are there more contrails now? Yes, obviously there are, because there are more planes. Is there a connection – not that there is any evidence of?
I’m sorry – but you really need some actual evidence. That means evidence with numbers in it.
What methods would you advise I use to collect this data quickly?
You make several claims, but phrase them very inexactly.
How exactly do you know “The air was usually dry if from the north”? What is “several times”? 3? 50?
You need numbers. How dry? How much rain? What has changed?
To be honest, it just sounds like you THINKING the weather is different. Perhaps you should ask a local amateur meteorologist if they agree with you – that would be a good start.
People keep records. Find some records, and show that there has been a change.
Good grief, it’s going to be another full time job doing that and after finding any change it will be dismissed as “global warming” for sure.
I will continue to hone my apophenic illusion, hopefully all is indeed well and not as it appears to me.
Thanks for your thoughtfull comments on this subject.
Regards – Bruce
Uncinus, have a look at this and tell me what we are seeing here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itpMmaWhxNg&feature=related
We are seeing contrails being formed from the inner engine. It’s viewed from the emergency exit at the rear of the plane. When the camera turns to look straight out (0:20) , you can see the contrail being formed from the outer engine as well, at the same distance from engine.
Contrails normally form some distance behind the engine. The exact distance depends on several factors, including the speed of the plane, the engine power settings, and the temperature and humidity of the air at that point.
Have a look at this image:
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/9/4/7/0342749.jpg
And imagine what you would see, looking out of the rear emergency exit (which you can see, just before the tail section).
More contrail photos for reference – note the difference distances at which the contrails become visible:
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?album=9976&thumbnails=noinfo&page_limit=15&album_name=The+Best+Of%3A+Contrails&album_creator=Newcastle&disp_order=asc
So the video shows three spray patterns within the trail. I find this an unusual feature in jet exhaust. Also I do not think this was a commercial flight.
Who are the “sky team” with the chemtrail logo on the sticker inside?
If you think about the temperature in the exhaust efflux it seems unlikely that ice would form there.
The links you post seem to show recent photos and prove quite clearly that the site owner picked only pictures with lasting trails (for some reason) or proves all passenger planes now leave huge polluting contrails all over the sky, which is exactly what everyone is so angry about.
The experts claim contrails only form when the conditions are right, and have stated lasting trails are quite rare. This is true as you know, so the appearance in the last few years of huge spreading persistant contrails almost daily need further explination.
Anyone who does not think anything unusual is going on in the sky must surely be either blind, an alien, never been outside before or never looked up.
You have correctly pointed out that I have no proof that any contrails I have seen are comprised of any substance other than dog hair, but you also have no proof they are comprised of ice, you just assume they are.
Your assumtion has little founding, it soley relies on what you have read in books.
My assumtion relies on experience, observation and the overwhelming witness statements and photo evidence regarding the general condition of the sky.
So does the sky above your house look like the ones we see in Jbreezes vids on the tube?
If it does, are you happy with that?
Why do you think this is unusual? It’s just the way the trail breaks up due to the shape of the engine exhaust and laminar flow of air around the wing and the engine.
http://www.skyteam.com/skyteam
It’s an airline partnership.
It does not, it forms a hundred feet behind it, in the frigid air.
No, I was showing you photos of contrails, since we were discussing them. It was an collection specifically about contrails. If you want to see photos of aircraft without contrails there are a lot of them as well.
They have not stated they are rare. In fact they state they are “a familiar sight”. The EB says “sometimes it spreads outwards to form a layer of cirrus cloud”, it makes no mention of it being rare. Where did you read that?
But you are talking about 99.9999% of the population. Are you saying they never looked up? Or perhaps did they simply not find it unusual?
My proof is the thousands of scientific papers on clouds formation, and on contrail formation. All of which agree with basic science of engine exhaust containing water meeting frigid humid air creates contrails. There have even been scientific studies that have gone up there and analyzed contrails, and examined the shapes of ice crystals they contain. Also, the fact that 99.9999% of the human population has not noticed any change is a good indication that there has not been any change.
Sometimes it does, maybe one day a month when the weather is right. For example:
http://contrailscience.com/contrails-above-and-below/
And sure, I’d prefer less clouds – I like blue skies. But I don’t really mind – I live in Southern California, with 300 sunny days a year, so a few more cloudy days is no big deal. I can understand how you’d like fewer clouds in Scotland though.
Yes, I would like very much a little less cloud but especialy this east wind we have suffered for over three weeks to go away.
I have carefully considered your answer and I understand the theory behind all this but again a satellite image set takes my attention.
Again from the UK met IR satellite. Look at the contrails north of Scotland 27/5/08 from 7am onwards, surely they can not be all schedule flights to and from the far north.
I find this image set just as curious as images I saw earlier this month where suddenly a high number of persisting contrails are formed off the coast of Norway.
I also find it interesting how the contrails never seem to form at night, the IR would pick them up if they existed.
Those are flights to the US and Canada from London and Western Europe. There are many such flights every day. Remember also that the trails can be blown several hundred miles in a few hours. That air mass is also rotating the trails clockwise, at 0700 they face more northwest, and by 1300 they are more north facing.
Contrails do form at night – I see them here sometimes, illuminated by the moon, there are just far fewer flights at night, as people prefer to leave and arrive in daytime.
The trails I mentioned are not flights from London to Canada as they do not run in that direction.
If you look carefully the trails are layed about 30deg to the parallel so proving the aircraft were heading way too northerly to reach Canada.
Indeed now I have looked again I can see fresh trails layed in an almost north direction and lots of trails over a cloud bank west of Ireland some of which run very northerly too.
Also these trails must have been massive to show up on the satellite image, proof of their size is confirmed by the fact that the lasting trails over my house never show up on these satellite images as they are obviously to thin by comparisson.
The images prove they are not aircraft on route from Canada.
The images also prove that they are much thicker than the trails I observe at home.
I have considered this may be a side effect of HAARP and wondered if the aircraft were leaving trails because this device when in use changed the air mass in some way, or that some other substance was in suspension within the air mass therefore causing innocent pilots to kill the sky.
Unfortunately if I believed that to be the cause I would be forced to ignore all the other anomalies which exsist within the subject. I would still require other explaination with regard to the shapes, x marks, sudden appearance, persistance, off flight path, colour difference, satellite image anomalies, grids, your website, lack of cumulus, public outcry and general strangeness of the sky.
So I am still far from convinced that all is as it always has been, I also am thrown further into doubt when I examine the photos I have taken over the past months and the videos on the net.
To ignore such a thing on the basis of belief they are only contrails would be bad science and foolhardy of both of us.
After all even you can only assume they are contrails
If I see something brown on the clothes of one of my young sons and he tells me it is only chocolate then I would be a fool to just believe him and stick my finger in it, don’t you agree?
Regards – Bruce
What is the direction from London to Canada?
Bruce, have a look at this image:
http://contrailscience.com/images/london-vacouver.jpg
It shows the shortest path from London to Vancouver, Canada. The paths to Seattle and San Francisco are not much different. This matches the satellite images you posted earlier.
Now, if you could point me to some actual evidence, then I would be happy to discuss it. Show me one of your photos that you find so strange.
And, you can’t seriously be saying that “X marks” are some kind of evidence of anything other that the fact that not all planes fly in the same direction.
Or “persistence”? Perhaps you could quote something that says how long a contrail should last?
Really, all these things have been explained. I tell you what – why don’t you pick the ONE THING that you think would be hardest for me to explain, and I’ll take it from there. Oh, and if it’s something like “lack of cumulus”, then please provide some additional evidence besides your own personal observations.
The shortest route to a destination is not a straight line on the map. It is what is called in navigation a great circle as shown on the google earth picture.
Interesting subject. Timelapse photography is the best way to observe contrails/ chemtrails.
I live about 80 miles from a major international airport. I moved here about ten years ago. Sometimes the local clouds look really wierd. Google provided me with lots of stuf to look at and read, unfortunately a lot of it is crap.
I got a cheap dual-mode digital camera atop a T.V. antenna rotator.
Passenger aircraft routinely dump fuel. at first sight these fuel trails sort of look and behave like contrails. Over time the fuel vapour sort of morphs into dirty cloud like masses. These dirty cloud masses under certain conditions literally fall out of the sky, usually latee in the afternoon. If there happen to be cumulus clouds underneath the falling fuel haze, the fuel haze kind of falls straight through the cumulus cloud. the cumulus evaporates.
Jet fuel vepour develops pendules just as contrails do.
In my area the fuel is dumped at about 10 – 14 thousand feet.
Jet fuel makes tankwater taste foul. beware!
It was tricky getting the USB to work over the 14 metres of cable.
One frame is saved every 5 seconds into an AVI file for review.
Sundogs? only occur in jet fuel aerosol clouds.
Use timelapse and you will see!
Pat, can I see some of your videos that you think show fuel dumps? Perhaps put them on YouTube?
I don’t think that fuel dumps are anywhere near as frequent as you suggest. Fuel is very expensive, and they would only dump it if they are over their safe landing weight. This only happens in emergency situations, when the plane has to return to the airport it took of from, or it has to land at a closer airport for medical or weather emergencies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_dumping
Pat-
You say: “Sundogs? only occur in jet fuel aerosol clouds.”
that is simply false.
See here: http://www.atoptics.co.uk/halo/parhelia.htm
Hi, check this.
http://www.fifeweather.co.uk/videoarchive/2007/ and click 21st May 2007
Also see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXn4tVpgeHk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQYPoeALDEo
Hey SR1419, the picture shows a sky crammed with chemtrails and two brown sun turds, not real sun dogs.
Real sun dogs need clean cirrus, but I agree it looks a little like one.
Bruce, your videos show clouds and contrails. What is about them that you want to discuss?
The clouds around the sundogs are reddish because of particulates in the air. Like sunsets are often red. It’s nothing unusual. I don’t think those clouds are contrails in the the sundog photo – it just looks like some streaky clouds – you often get parallel bands of clouds in the right weather conditions.
Bruce-
The the link I posted was only to help prove that the previous comment from Pat that said
“Sundogs? only occur in jet fuel aerosol clouds” was untrue- it is an Atmospheric Optics website with definitions and examples…
However-
what do you make of this picture…from 1983??? :
http://www.1000plus.com/Imagic/8301sund.htm
Hi SR1419, just saying what I see. The picture you link for my inspection could be from any year but it shows a horrid contrail. The sky in Scotland has never suffered from such vandalism on the scale it suffers now.
I have no doubt that contrails were sighted in the eighties but there were none above my home untill recently. If there had been then I could say-
“I remember as a child I would draw clouds with a ruler untill my great granmother showed me how they used to look”
The weather is changed by the presence of cirrus as has been tested in “potential effects of cirrus contrails on the subarctic” and findings confirmed an overall heating effect from the fake cloud, especially after sun down. In mid summer a slight cooling takes place so an overall effect on lower cloud must follow.
If global temperature was measured and found to have risen then I may suspect contrails are to blame if I believe the science.
The video shows cumulus then clear sky followed by ‘assumed’ contrails, an example of how we seldom see both together. Most chemtrail videos do not show healthy cumulus.
No rain in May for us, square formations on the satellite images, air is full of dust or something too. No, things are not normal here.
So what do you make of the on-off three jet contrail action uncinus? Have you checked the satellite pics for S/W England coast for Tuesday morning?
Can anyone explain why I repeatedly witness contrails starting when aircraft flying in over the sea reach land?
Why are the contrails over my home never visible on satellite when contrails over the Atlantic are bold?
These are questions everyone seems to dodge or just repeat the old “just a contrail” theory.
Bruce, perhaps you could provide some actual evidence that backs up you claims that things are unusual?
The “on-off three jet contrail action” appears to be three jets in formation climbing or descending. I’d guess it was a single large jet accompanied by two fighter jets. Perhaps Airforce One? It’s an old and singular video, and shows nothing actually odd. It’s very unlike most videos people say are “chemtrails”.
Bruce-
…I find it hard to believe that contrails have never been sighted above your house until recently…Is it possible that you just didn’t notice them? ….didn’t notice them until someone suggested that you do??
Contrails have been “sighted” since the the 1940s…just look at all the photos from WW2 and elsewhere on this website. What are you trying to say; No planes flew over your house until recently? Or that contrails are a recent phenomenon? Can you clarify your point?
Contrail-cirrus clouds- the man-made cirrus clouds that result from persistent contrails are very likely effecting the weather…and thus there are a lot of scientists studying this phenomenon…
for more research look up – contrail cirrus and supersaturated persistent contrail.
As for the contrails starting as planes reach land- it could be that the planes are changing altitudes as they reach land- or that the atmosphere itself changes at that altitude over land…the atmosphere is not uniform at any given altitude and thus planes fly through pockets of different air at any given altitude.
…it is doubtful that they are starting to “spray” anything just because they are over land…as what they “spray” would not fall directly below but drift with the upper winds…
…or if they are trying to saturate the atmosphere with something it would not matter that if they were over land or not.
Uncinus, perhaps you could provide us with some actual evidence that these are just contrails and go further to explain the reason why these contrails are not linked with numerous other anomalies which myself and thousands of others are at a loss to explain.
There would be no chemtrail/contrail debate if proof of either was available to the public, but so far the weight of presumtion seems to be that they may not all be just contrails.
How about some satellite pics from the eighties showing hundreds of contrails, even better if these images were over 30 days.
We need to see evidence of contrails which lasted 11-15 hrs, grids and X’s, intense grouping and trails over 300 miles long.
Proof that HAARP was not linked to all this would also be handy, but sadly I find that researching this seems only to bolster my standing.
Regards – Bruce
Okay, the evidence is:
1) They look exactly like contrails
2) Contrails like this have been described since the dawn of aviation
3) All the science agrees that this is what contrails look like
4) No scientist or meteorologist has ever suggested that they are not contrails
There are lots of photos from the ground from the 80s and before showing many long lasting contrails, such as those here:
Contrails which last for hours and spread to cover the sky, 1970
http://contrailscience.com/persisting-and-spreading-contrails/
‘X’s and grids, 1972
http://contrailscience.com/contrail-photos-through-history/
And my favorite photo from 1967:
http://contrailscience.com/thirty-contrails-forty-years-ago/
You ask for satellite photos from the 1980s. Why don’t you show me a satellite photo from the 1980’s that shows ANY contrails? The fact is simply that there are not many early satellite photos online, so the absence of satellite photos of contrails is not really meaningful.
Remember, I’m not the one claiming some kind of global conspiracy here. Any reasonable person would agree that it is YOU who should be providing evidence here, to back up YOUR extraordinary theory.
So what, exactly, is your evidence, and how does it contradict the evidence I laid out above, and elsewhere on this site?
Bruce-
this satellite image is not from the 1980s- it is from 1995 – but that is still 3yrs before “chemtrails” supposedly began according to “chemtrail” believers…an interesting photo nonetheless:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/038.htm
Bruce-
Uncinus is right…it is hard to find ANY satellite images from the 1980s on the web…
But the images do exist (just not on the web as far as I can find) – see here:
http://tiny.cc/DDHWP
2. Data and analysis Return to TOC
a. DMSP imagery
Upwelling radiation in the thermal-IR window and solar wavelengths is recorded by the DMSP polar orbiters and transmitted continuously to U.S. military installations worldwide in DR form. In the continental United States, the data are acquired by two reception installations at Patrick Air Force Base (PAFB), Florida, and San Diego Naval Base (SDNB), California, and archived at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado. Although there is no DMSP digital archive available before the early 1990s, the hard-copy images used here have a nominal resolution of 0.6 km (e.g., Fig. 1 ), which is slightly better than the 1.1-km resolution of AVHRR (cf. Bakan et al. 1994). Contrail studies that used Landsat multispectral scanner system data at 80 m × 80 m resolution report typical contrail widths of 1–2 km (Joseph et al. 1975; Detwiler and Pratt 1984). Accordingly, the 0.6-km resolution of the DMSP DR imagery is capable of resolving contrail-scale cloud features about 90% of the time (Detwiler and Pratt 1984), provided that these clouds are sufficiently thick (i.e., are not subvisual). Thus, the satellite data are detecting primarily “persistent linear contrails” (Minnis et al. 1998) rather than contrails that may be short-lived or narrow or may have become too diffuse through lateral spreading to be detected. The ungridded and unrectified Mylar image transparencies are at a nominal scale of 1:15000000. The DR images are highly appropriate for developing a contrail dataset because of their extensive spatial coverage of the United States and inclusion of large areas of southern Canada, northern Mexico, and the eastern Pacific and western Atlantic Oceans (the outlined areas shown on Fig. 2 ).
Bruce, Uncinus…
just a quick follow up- the research paper link in my previous post above does have satellite images with contrails prior to 1980- read the article and click on the links to images- such as this one from 1977:
“Fig. 1. DMSP DR thermal-IR image acquired by SDNB at 0310 UTC 20 Oct 1977. The imaged area is the western Great Plains of the United States, with Lake Superior and Lake Winnipeg evident in the upper-right and upper-center portions of the image. Twenty-four west– east-oriented contrails associated with patchy cirrus and with clear air were identified over eastern portions of South Dakota and Nebraska and western portions of Minnesota and Iowa (right-hand side of center part of image). The long contrail oriented south-southwest to north-northeast and bisecting the other shorter contrails shows evidence of spreading, diffusion, and thinning.”
If you scroll to the end of the paper past the references and tables, it is the first figure listed.
Uncinus, you’ve the patience of a saint. I’d like to echo some voices from early in this discussion and say that your site–your clear-headedness and your willingness to do legwork (keystroke work?)–have eased my sleep-deprived, over-Youtubed, paranoid mind.
I write to share a recollection that I’ve always enjoyed but never thought would be useful. Some time in the early 70’s I sat on my bed watching a rerun of Daniel Boone from the early or mid-60’s. As the episode closed on some melodramatic note, and Dan’l and his sidekick Mingo turned to walk away into the 19th-century Kentucky wilderness, the camera pulled back to show the beautiful blue sky, its entire length traversed by a bright white contrail. The trail was fairly tight, but clearly durable.
I ran across ‘chemtrails’ while sitting up all night saturating myself in the internet’s infinite trove of ufo hysteria. I’ve always been a boy (now 46) fascinated with the topic (though not enough to have joined the ranks of the cogniscenti), but what was an amusing time-killer became a sort of illness when my young daughter began waking in dread. The only information I could get from her was her claim to have a recurring nightmare of people getting shots. Abducted!! The websites took on a new life. Never mind that only a month before I’d had to hold her arms and legs so a nurse could give her a shot, my daughter screaming throughout what could only be described as a trauma. No, for some reason my inclination is to gravitate to the more frightening explanation. Actually, the reason for this unreasonableness may well be sensible in its own way: I want to be prepared for the worst. Might that be the case with many of us otherwise functional and ‘educated’ paranoiacs?
The human world is beyond our comprehension. Our lives are at the mercy of something inexplicable called ‘the economy,’ the very planet, we’re told, is in a way to batter us with deprivation and disaster, our (U.S.) putative democracy is no longer even interested in hiding its actual plutocratic character. And adult conversation about these matters is relegated to the conversational promiscuity of the internet, where the blessings of freedom and anonymity carry the costs of unaccountability in writing and indiscriminateness in reading. In a kind of opposite madness from that brought on by solitary confinement that imposes sensory deprivation, we sit solitary with these funhouse mirrors on our laps and subject ourselves to every damn thing. Inquiry follows Curiosity, which in the wee hours is only a keystroke from yielding to its prurient or morbid or phantasmagorical voices, and awash in these voices, fear jumps to life. Superstition supplants reason, and why not? No one has a handle on why our lives are like they are, or who exactly holds the reins or what they have in mind for us. New World Order, Aliens, FEMA Camps, spraying us with AIDS? Maybe. It’s possible. And there we languish…maybe, it’s possible, who can say?
So thanks for the slap in the face on the chemtrail business. The billionaires have provided endless hard evidence that they couldn’t care less about our lives. But, whatever they may be hatching, this guy’s going to take it easy on his neck and stop looking up so much.
Good night.
Hi again, wow what a rush to shoot me down there, must get a new tin helmet.
Nice old satellite image of contrails over Canada in SR1419’s link, most reassuring, however the missing factor is time, thats why I thought a series of images would be better but glad to see it. Hope we find more of these old images as they can help prove the contrail theory.
Despite what you may think, I am not hell bent on the chemtrail global conspiracy, I base my opinion on observation and experience and I am still open minded on the subject.
I have tried to convince myself that there have always been lasting contrails and strange cloud formations above my home, but this is simply not true.
I am open to better explainations, example – The upper air has changed due to whatever and contrails are more common because of that.
Perhaps daily flights over the UK are randomly directed to fly over Scotland, all within a time space of 4 hrs and instructed to fly at best contrail forming height.
It must follow that reduction in sunlight will affect cloud and it is accepted that all clouds keep heat in at night therefore contrails do affect the daytime weather and raise night time temperature.
I find it interesting how much research was done in the nineties on contrail formation and effects on climate, yet no mention of contrails in the official garb on global warming though.
The continent of Europe alone is estimated at 20-25% contrail cover daytime and 5% at night, this must have a significant effect on temperature.
Knowing this one would expect the governments to demand that no aircraft will leave a lasting contrail, simply achieved by flying at a different height, however it seems to me that exactly the opposite is true.
There may be a conspiracy to cause a heating effect by deliberate cirrus cloud creation, then when it all stops there will be cooling.
The strange clouds are another matter for debate.
Far from convinced yet folks. (On with the tin helmet now)
Bruce, if planes were to fly over your house at 30,000 feet on a day where it is cold and humid up there, then would you not expect persistent contrails to form?
The upper atmosphere has not changed (there would be a lot of science papers about it if it had). However there are more flights now.
I know you really think that things have changed in some unusual way. But really it’s just more flights, and now you are obsessed by the sky, where as previously you were not.
You notice the contrails more now because you are looking for them.
Not that nobody else has noticed them. That’s because they are not looking for them – just like you were not ten years ago.
Bruce-
a couple of things-
you said: “Hope we find more of these old images as they can help prove the contrail theory.”
…that some contrails persist and spread out and cover the sky in a “haze” of thin cirrus clouds is not a theory…It is a Fact….it is a fact that has been observed and studied for over 50 years… I cannot speak to the sky above you but I do know that persistent contrails are not new.
You said: “I find it interesting how much research was done in the nineties on contrail formation and effects on climate, yet no mention of contrails in the official garb on global warming though.”
Research on contrails has been done since the 1950s…and continues today- search for yourself: supersaturated persistent contrail and/or contrail cirrus
…and in the big picture of climate change- contrail contributions are likely minimal…but this document by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) does address the issue directly:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/038.htm
Dear All,
Has the discussion on chemtrails/contrails ceased, or has it moved to a new forum?
I would love to hear an update on Caroline and Bruce’s plan to collect some emissions from contrails – how’s that one going?
I must admit that I have become slightly consumed by the whole chemtrail debate and have taken countless photographs of the large amount of persistent trails seen around my home (Margate, Kent, UK). Whilst zooming in and snapping on one particular plane that was producing a trail, I noticed the trail suddenly stop. I continued snapping and then approx 2-3 seconds later the trail started again. I made a compilation of this and uploaded to YouTube (see link below). Apologies for tacky music and quality of pics but it shows enough.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82tvnXk955A
Please can someone explain to me how it is possible for this stopping and starting to occur over such a short distance. If the engines were stopped for a few seconds wouldn’t the plane have lost altitude? As you can see from the last shot in the sequence it didn’t (if anything it was rising).
I must also add that the plane was not travelling at a particularly high altitude and I had also photographed other planes (as loads travelled in exactly the same direction and at similar heights over a short period) with some having a continuous huge trail and another still with no trail at all.
Would love to hear a good explanation for this.
Thanks,
Nik
See here:
http://contrailscience.com/broken-contrails/
Epoxynous??
Epoxynous is my YouTube username.
So not only do you comment on this well-made website (btw did you design it yourself? Very nice site) but you also trawl through YouTube looking for chemtrail videos to comment on. You really are dedicated to this!
When I was a kid in England I used to watch a television show called Crimewatch. From a very young age I noticed that the majority of criminals, conmen etc had 2, 3 or maybe 4 aliases. I made a decision then not to trust anyone that used more than one name – my gut instinct on that has so far been proved right! ;o)
P.S. that is light-hearted banter so don’t take it too seriously!
So we should not trust this guy “Nik”, AKA “wellsyboy1978″ then eh?
This site just uses one of the standard WordPress templates. I just add posts and comments. Like I said, it does not take much time.
Ha ha – no they are actually both parts of my name. Can I assume your real name is Uncinus Epoxynous?
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=Europe_2_01.2008246.terra.1km
That’s nothing – here’s today in the USA:
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=USA7.2008255.terra.1km
Check out the banks of cirrus along the north edge. You get lines of clouds ahead of weather systems.
Looks like the ones in your photo have been blown straight along a front by high level winds. Interesting looking. See above Essex, the contrails bend as they enter the bank, indicating a boundary between two different air masses. It would be interesting to see a satellite loop of that forming.
Seems like that’s not too uncommon to get that straight front over Europe. see also:
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=Europe_2_01.2008024.terra.1km
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=Europe_2_01.2008030.terra.1km
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=Europe_2_01.2008090.terra.1km
I like how you can tell which clouds are higher by looking at their shadows, see here for example:
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=Europe_2_01.2008037.terra.1km
Quite dramatic. You certainly have much more interesting weather in the UK than we have in California.
And while I was browsing through them, here’s a day with lots of contrails. Unusual:
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=Europe_2_01.2008123.terra.1km
I have looked at the images you link but see only mares tails and very few contrails, the cloud banks look normal. I see a few contrails in the last image but they are not exeptional.
However, if you look again at the image I linked
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=Europe_2_01.2008246.terra.1km
you can see clearly the cloud in front of the main bank has more contrails running through it than could reasonably be expected. Look at the S/W edge of the leading bank, surely these are something other than just commercial flight contrails. Notice how they all run parallel to the main bank.
The effects of contrails on weather is officialy thought to be slight, however I think this image shows clearly that this is not true and furthers the reason to believe these trails may be more than just contrails.
So science tells us that any cloud cover typicaly raises temperatures (in the northern hemisphere this is true for day and night for 7-8 months of the year)
The image shows a mass of trails which form a large type of “cloud” so one must conclude that these trails will cause a rise in temperature.
Now that would be weather modification even if they are just water trails.
Except these are not contrails, they are just parallel bands of cirrus clouds. Possibly jet stream cirrus, like these:
http://www.cloudappreciationsociety.org/jan07-cloud-of-the-month/
Or maybe formed by the rolling air at the edge of the weather system over Europe. Or some kind of cirrus plume.
Sure, it’s an odd looking cloud formation – but hardly unprecedented. You know there are lots of odd cloud formations.
Here’s an example of a similar cloud formation from over a hundred years ago:
http://picasaweb.google.com/Uncinus/CloudStudies1905And1925#5236030123698122018
And see more modern photos, cirrus radiatus:
http://images.google.com/images?q=cirrus%20radiatus
and altocumulus radiatus (also see in your image)
http://images.google.com/images?&q=altocumulus+radiatus
Hi Bruce
You’re right in that contrails are a form of inadvertent weather modification. The reason we let it go on is because we’re all obsessed with flying everywhere these days – people want to fly to New York for Christmas Shopping or to Marbella for a weekend break. And also because we’re equally obsessed with co2 emissions – and the best way to reduce persistent contrails involves an increase in co2 emissions
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050126_contrail_climate.html
And of course, the chemtrail hoax doesn’t help with genuine attempts to reduce contrails!
Andy
Looking again at the image I linked, I can see clearly the straight cloud is partly or mostly made of contrails, natural cirrus looks nothing like that.
Natural cirrus does not run perfectly straight and cross over its self, also the adjacent weather would cause mixing of the air and deform the cirrus formation which is strangely at 90deg to the weather system.
The natural cirrus is advancing ahead in the form of mares tails at the N/E side of the curved main cloud bank, the fake or seeded cloud has been layed ahead for some reason.
In my opinion the picture shows an atmospheric impossibility.
However, here is a taste of the summer we suffered with some traditional Vogon music.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKCsJ7_8jos&NR=1
I have translated the lyrics, they are as follows-
“Our sky is buggered, our sky is buggered, our sky is buggered, oh pass me another potato Cedric.”
Bruce, why don’t you ask a meteorologist?
Natural cirrus DO sometimes run perfectly straight, hence the varius “radiatus” clouds I linked above.
I see contrails crossing the cloud blank, especially at the NE end. What is odd about that?
Nice video, but again, showing nothing that is not in the 1905 Clouds of the World.
http://picasaweb.google.com/Uncinus/CloudStudies1905And1925#
Really Bruce, go and talk to a meteorologist. It’s not enough for YOU to think the shy looks odd – it really needs some actual evidence that the sky has changed.
What can you show me that is not in Clouds of the World? (excepting, of course, contrails).
The cloud app. soc. pic is most likely contrails, not natural cirrus. I have witnessed the construction of identical forms by aircraft on several occasions. However, since contrails are considered to be clouds these days then perhaps they think cirrus forms just this way.
The other links only show true cirrus radiatus which we can clearly see does not look similar to the cloud form in the satellite image.
The cloud I refered to in the Modis link is clearly fake/manufactured or enhanced.
With ref to the video of the UK sky, my point was how often the sky is like this. We hardly ever get any clear days, and if we do then it quickly becomes buggered by chemtrails within an hour. The fake cirrus then dulls out the sun, sun dogs appear and we have another black sunset.
Fact is that the sky has changed, plenty people can tell you that, I do not need any met folks to confirm it, it is a fact, the video evidence is overwhelming.
On 5th May this year I suffered 26 aircraft in 1 hour intent on killing the sky above my home . It was a calm day and they could be seen and heard clearly. The aircraft activity started and stopped abruptly leaving a breathtaking mess above. To the west I saw some traffic with short contrails.
So if this was just normal traffic I should be able to see and hear these regular flights on any other calm reasonably clear day, right?
Well on other days I may see (if the sky allows) one or two planes fly over to the west, strangely none fly above my house unless they have a lasting contrail.
Now I think that alone is enough proof of something going on and further to it we have satellite images, videos, knowledge of patents for weather mod/warfare etc, scores of people telling us that things are not right and our memory of how the sky used to look.
Sorry Uncinus, it is just not enough to try and beat this down with the contrails stick.
Surely you may be better challenged to do a Chemtrail Science website where we can put our heads and theories together on this, or would it be Chemtrail Silence?
Regards – Bruce
P.S Ever heard of “Smart Clouds”?
Here’s the thing Bruce, if you’ve got a photo of a HUGE cloud that is “clearly fake/manufactured or enhanced”, then what’s the problem? Why do you think nobody is interested?
Don’t you think scientists, or at least the amateur meteorologists, would be interested in such an amazing cloud? Why do they show no interest?
The most likely explanation seems to be that the cloud is NOT UNUSUAL – it’s just a natural cloud bank, albeit a rather straight one with furrows. The most likely explanation is that you are wrong.
As for your plane observations, is there any way you could demonstrate this? Seriously – if you can tell there is something odd going on, then how can you demonstrate it? Video? Photos? A log book? You’ve not given very much in the way of evidence so far.
No, I’ve not heard of smart clouds, do you mean smart dust?
In reply to Uncinus’ comments above – I do not think you can say that “nobody is interested”. There are clearly A LOT of people that are interested in exactly what “chemtrails” are. I would even go so far as to say that a lot of amateur meteorologists and scientits are interested too.
The comments made by Bruce are exactly what I have noticed above me over the last few months, and this is being repeated all over the EU and US (just do a search on YouTube every day for new Chemtrail videos added).
As for Bruce’s plane observations, he has demonstrated this by explaining it to you and us. Why would he lie?? If a number of witnesses in court all stated that they had seen something with their own eyes the judge would not say “show me your log book”!
I urge all those people with a genuine concern about what is going on, chemtrails or persistent contrails, to write to their MP (in the UK or EU) or senator in the US. There is no need to be extremist in your questioning but you DO have the right to ask questions.
As for Smart Dust – sounds interesting and certainly from reading the explanation on Wikipedia this could be an explanation for what is being seeded into the atmosphere. Only time will tell. Like I have always said though, lets hope you (Uncinus) are right about the whole thing and their is nothing to worry about (except hundreds of thousands of people suffering from paranoia).
Nik
I do not know what the met folks think of these clouds, perhaps they do wonder what they are all about. Perhaps they think global warming is causing them, they blame all other weather on it. Moreover they freely admit they don’t fully understand how the weather works, thats why they are always fiddling the computer model. NASA wanted children to record contrail locations to help them understand in which air masses they are formed.
I may be wrong sometimes with my perception of the satellite images as I am not as experienced at reading them as they are, but this image is not hard to read.
I can tell the difference between contrail cirrus and natural, if you watch the sky daily it becomes fairly easy. Backed up with hourly satellite runs from the met I can see them being formed and then follow the cloud mass over my patch.
Ground observation is my strong point coupled with a lifetime memory of how my sky used to look and still should look. Plenty chemtrail stuff on the net show us clearly how the sky is completely overcome with contrails/chemtrails on a regular basis.
The effect on the environment under these trails is simply overwhelming, to suggest there is no effect or only a slight effect is complete madness. These trails blocking the sun cause a big effect on the formation of other clouds so causing a complete change in the localised environment.
With regard to the aircraft activity, what I state is true. There are no regular flights over my home, I have double checked the sky on the few clear days we have had recently for regular traffic and I could never find 26 aircraft in a day, let alone one hour.
It should also be noted that I have tracked these aircraft using a telescope and witnessed some of them flying in 20 minute circuits repeatedly.
I have not logged the movments (time direction) but may do in future. I do have a fair collection of photographs (most with dates) and witnesses.
I am still open to other reasons why we are being overcome with contrail skies, I had considered the jetstream being further south may have an effect. However I find it odd why with the lovely run of cirrus from the north today we had no contrails or aircraft, just clear sky-well that is untill it rained again.
Even if I could find a good reason why aircraft trails have suddenly become so common in my sky, then it would still leave the question over the aircraft movements and numbers un-answered.
Regards – Bruce
Nik-
you said: “just do a search on YouTube every day for new Chemtrail videos added”
…but that, in my opinion, is part of the problem…given the fact that “normal” contrails can and do persist…and spread out into a haze of cirrus clouds…One cannot just look up at the sky and say with certainty that it is a “chemtrail”. Some benign intent contrails behave EXACTLY as “chemtrails” supposedly do…
…and thus just taking a video of a persistent contrail and posting it on YouTube and claiming it is a “chemtrail” is a highly dubious undertaking. The “believers” see the video and nod in agreement that it is more “proof” of “chemtrails” when in fact, it is highly likely that it is just a persistent contrail…
Unfortunately, that just feeds the hysteria and paranoia and does nothing to create sound, effective dialog…
Moreover, Unicinus’ point about atmospheric scientists and meteorologists not raising the alarm about “chemtrails” is quite poignant. There are a lot (100s?) of atmospheric scientists around the World who have and are currently studying contrails…their causes, behaviors and effects on the environment. They study reams of data regarding persistent contrails, they take IN SITU samples directly from persistent contrails, they present well documented and sourced papers in front of their peers…and yet not one that I am aware of (Scott Stevens doesn’t count) is even remotely suggesting that “chemtrails” are real…That is a very important point in my humble opinion.
There is a real concern about the effects of persistent contrails and their role in climate change…and yet not one of the scientists suggest that they are actually “spraying” something into the atmosphere:
See here for an example:
http://tinyurl.com/3fx7sk
So, the evidence, again, in my very humble opinion, just isn’t there that anything other than supersaturated persistent contrails are polluting the skies…and that doesn’t even get in to the efficacy of “spraying” something into the atmosphere as a method for deployment…of an unknown agent for an unknown purpose…and yet is supposedly Global in nature (just look at all the “chemtrail” vids from around the World) and thus would need a cast of 1000s to perpetrate…
Look at Bruce’s observations…26 planes on a single day….what is the number of people required to service and load those planes…certainly many…and thus a HUGE operation…going on for 10 years…worldwide…and not a single peep from anyone.
Highly improbable…
…in my opinion.
Hi Bruce,
I do understand what you are saying and I personally DO NOT think that a secret government is spraying chemicals to kill us! However, that does not rule out the fact that there are bigger and more powerful groups and organisations that “influence” the decisions of governments around the globe. The evidence towards that is clear for all to find, however this is not the place to discuss that…
What I do think, and I am positive that thousands would agree with me, is that persistent contrails/chemtrails are much more common than in the past. In fact, the majority of people that comment do state that they do not remember seeing these in the past. I do not think that Uncinus’ “you just don’t remember” or “you never looked up before” excuse is valid AT ALL, mainly because you don’t forget seeing skies like this even if you only saw it once as a kid, teenager or younger adult.
So the questions (I think) we should really be discussing is “Why are persistent contrails more prevalent now?” and if we are to assume that they are just forming in supersaturated skies, “why is the sky more consistently supersaturated even in mid summer on an apparently clear sunny day?”
This has clearly become a HUGE topic of conversation on the Internet (Google search for chemtrails returned 1.33 million results and Altavista returned 4.36 million results), so I think it does indeed warrant an OFFICIAL explanation by governments. The silence actually just makes people more suspicious. If it doesn’t exist and is all in our minds then why not say so?
I personally think that a weather modification program IS being carried out, which is fine if those involved tell us so, and if they tell us why they are doing it. Hopefully for good reasons but generally things kept secret are normally done so to “protect people” or more commonly to prevent people from objecting and wanting it to stop (e.g. developing weapons of mass destruction – not that I’m saying this is what is happening here).
By the way, if my beliefs here are PROVED wrong I really will not be upset – I can take it ;o) All I really want is the truth and sadly I do not think an anonymous website by one person who has an interest in clouds will convince me or anyone else.
There is no silence from governments, there’s a very comprehensive official response here:
http://www.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-051013-001.pdf
I don’t think this is only because “you just don’t remember” – that’s the answer I give to people who claim that there were NEVER any persistent spreading contrails.
There’s more now because of a combination of factors:
- There are more planes in the air
- Engine design has changed
- Since it depends on the weather, it can vary at random between years, and even between five or ten year periods.
In addition, it do think you NOTICE things more if you are actively looking for them, especially if you feel somewhat worried about them. I never noticed termites before a few years ago when my house was infested – and now I see them on the sidewalk all the time. Were there no termites before? Are there more now? No – I just notice them more.
Nik-
You said: “What I do think, and I am positive that thousands would agree with me, is that persistent contrails/chemtrails are much more common than in the past”
This certainly is true…all the atmospheric scientists would agree with you.
However, persistent contrails DID exist when you were younger…even if you do not remember them…as this paper from 1970 suggests:
http://tinyurl.com/47lcdg
You also said: “I personally think that a weather modification program IS being carried out”
Can you present the most compelling piece of evidence that would suggest this??
Uncinus – where on earth did you dig up that report from? Did you write it? Apparently a Chemtrail is “…a term coined to suggest contrails are formed by something other than a natural process of engine exhaust hitting the cold air in the atmosphere.” Is this really what chemtrails are? Are they not contrails that contain chemicals (for whatever purpose)? Not convinced by that document one bit.
SR1419 – Most compelling piece of evidence?? Difficult to provide evidence when we are not given access to aeroplanes, samples of contrails, government project documents etc. however the most compelling pieces of evidence I can think of (off the top of my head) are. Patent document relating to a method to control global warming by spraying, mention of chemtrails in draft US document, thousands of people saying that something isn’t right in the skies above them, day after day of huge amounts of persistent trails causing a dull “fake cloud” sky with reduced sunlight, reports of huge amounts of plane traffic in places where it doesn’t usually occur, silence by media and government, 67% of the previous 30 year average for sunlight for August 2008 in the UK. These are just a few things, which is why this will not just go away with the “nothing new here”, “always been like this”, “just more planes”, “you don’t remember” etc. etc.
As for termites, you should watch out for those little critters, they may be bugged – in fact I’m surprised they haven’t been killed off by the chemtrails, like the bees. ;o)
Where did I dig it up? It’s linked from the Wikipedia “chemtrails” page, and it shows up in google results, you wanted to find what the official position on “chemtrails” was – and that’s it.
Can you be a bit more specific as to why you are not convinced by the document? What exactly is wrong with it?
And as for the “evidence” you list, it’s very easy to go through it and explain it all without having to resort to “chemtrails”. You could probably explain it all yourself if you had a bit more open mind.
Take, for example, “silence by media and government” – now first there is no “silence” – there have been lots of media reports on the “chemtrail” theory, and several official responses. But the easy explanation here is that there is no chemtrail conspiracy, so the media and government has nothing much to say about it. Explain to me again why you think this is evidence of a conspiracy?
Hello gentlemen, nice to see some fresh discussion running now.
The satellite image I linked previously has still not been convincingly explained, I stand by the opinion that it possibly proves contrails are being used for weather molestation.
I would also like us to discuss the wave clouds which run at 90deg to each other and often appear concurrently with contrails.
Also cloud colour change is worthy of discussion as is HAARP technology as I feel there may be a link here.
Does anyone think it possible that HAARP activity causes any aircraft travelling through the affected area to leave a lasting trail?
What effect would HAARP’s heating have on clouds at any altitude?
Regards – Bruce
We had a similar cloud formation here today:
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=AERONET_UCSB.2008275.aqua.1km
The east-west lines across the cloud bank are contrails, the north-south lines are clouds.
Sometimes clouds just form in straight lines. That’s all there is to it.
I provide photos from 1905 to demonstrate that clouds sometimes form in straight lines. What evidence do you have that they don’t?
Can you give examples of “wave clouds which run at 90deg to each other and often appear concurrently with contrails”, like some photos? I’m just not sure what you are referring to.
Bruce, what exactly do you think HAARP does? Do you think the HAARP web site is full of lies?
http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/faq.html
If so, why?
I need to be more open-minded?!?! I’m the one that is saying chemtrails exist, therefore I would say I have more of an open mind than you. Agree?
What I think you mean is that I need to believe what your website says and forget that this whole chemtrail conspiracy exists.
On the subject of chemtrails/persistent contrails; I was out driving earlier today (approx 15:00 GMT) and the sky was awesome, with nearly every cloud type imaginable. I think we are lucky in that respect in the UK due to the ever changing pressure systems, from all directions, moving across the country. Anyway, I also noticed a few fantastic long and natural cirrus type cloud formations (I wish I took a picture). Obvious it is difficult to gauge the length, but they were extremely long and very pretty. They were travelling in an almost diagonal direction (i.e. not just horizontal) although this may have been accentuated by the curvature of the earth. Naturally our modern sky wouldn’t be the same without a few aeroplanes spewing out exhaust fumes, contrails and or chemtrails. One of these planes, with a clearly defined “normal” contrail (i.e. one that disappeared almost as soon as it appeared) passed straight through this cirrus cloud and there was absolutely no difference in the time it took for the contrail to dissipate.
From a scientific viewpoint, can you confirm if you would have thought it more likely that a persistent type of contrail would have been present in these type of conditions? I would have assumed that if these long and thin cirrus type clouds were present then the air would have been ideal for persistent contrails. Do you agree?
Perhaps it was actually a sylph instead keeping our skies clean ;o)
By “open-minded” I meant being able to consider more than one explanation. I don’t simply mean chemtrails/contrails either – I was referring to the varied bits of evidence you presented. Like: why was August unusually dull? Can you think of more than one explanation? Why not have a look at the satellite photos for August and see if that tells you anything.
Speaking of which, here’s October 5th, (yesterday – not sure what day you are referring to in your post)
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=Europe_2_01.2008279.terra.1km
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=Europe_2_01.2008279.aqua.1km
Looks like the long cirrus formations are over the east. Check out the 250m images, there are indeed some impressive cirrus there.
When the cirrus look like they are descending diagonally, that’s because they are. That’s a “cirrus uncinus” cloud – the ice crystal in the cloud that are large enough are falling towards the ground, and as they pass through regions of wind sheer, they are blown in various directions.
Your plane could quite easily have been flying through descending cirrus, below where they formed. Or it could have been well above the formation layer, and just looked like it was inside the clouds (pretty hard to tell with such transparent clouds).
I am a bit jealous of your interesting weather in the UK. While it’s very nice here, it’s pretty much clear skies all the time. I’d not seen a contrail for literally months until a few days ago (oct 2) when we finally got some contrail weather:
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=AERONET_La_Jolla.2008276.aqua.1km
I anticipate some new YouTube videos from the Los Angeles chemtrail community. Here’s one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ4wliL5w-w
And another of a sunset, noting that the clouds are “orange”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6_WYtJzaS0
You should listen to the audio on that one, this guy must be from LA, he’s acting like he’s never seen a cloudy sunset before.
I had a funny feeling it would be your namesake cloud. It was actually today 6th October 2008. The plane may have been under it but it certainly looked like it was flying through it. Anyhow, I just thought it was something interesting to post – maybe it was maybe it wasn’t!
As for being open-minded, I am a scientist by degree and therefore I do not ever make a decision without seeing all sides of the argument (where possible) and a decent scientific experiment (again where possible). I can guarantee that I haven’t made my mind up on chemtrails/contrails and do indeed remain open-minded to all possibilities, however I rank them within my own heart/head as to the likelihood (through known or unknown science). Sadly that means protective sylphs remains quite low as a natural “preventor” of chemtrails but nevertheless it still remains a possibility, however crazy it may sound to a human mind!
Whether you are a keen amateur meterologist/cloud enthusiast or one of a number of government agents sat in a room together debunking chemtrails (still making my mind up on that one too), keep up the good work! As with all things the truth will always come out in the end, it’s just whether people will accept it, or even see/hear it. Hopefully with all the different information outlets available now people will ALWAYS hear the truth.
N
Nik has a good question left un-answered. I have not seen a rush to debunk the satellite image I linked nor have I seen anything which shows anything similar by nature.
Concerning HAARP, I think I may have used the common term for the steered beam sky vandal and confused you into discussing the HAARP project. It is critical here to be aware that HAARP is only the name for one of the experiments, and therefore should not be proof of sole use of the installation. As is stated clearly in their own web site, the radio station is used as a facillity to run the HAARP experiment from, so is not proof of that being the sole function. They will most likely run several other programes which are classified.
It staggers me to be expected to believe that they are still buggering around looking at radio skip after nearly 70 years of research on this subject.
With respect to any effects it may have on the lower atmosphere, it should be remembered that the ionosphere reflects radio waves, so if you fire a wave from the ground it will bounce off, just as the radio waves do when they come from space.
The Sky Vandal has something like 30 generators, each makes 1,600 horse power, so all the power goes up and lots comes back down. The wave lengths used can be changed, harmonic waves are also used on the back of the main wave, scatter and interference also play their part.
The energy in the waves changes to heat, the wave also has a magnetic field, all things sky borne are affected by this energy and un-doubtedly many others too.
So you think this energy needs special equipment to detect it? Bollocks, anyone with eyes can see it in use.
Uncinus, you may need to spend more time outside and use your eyes and brain more. Quoting ancient books is not answering anything, things have changed. Check out the new sky science, don’t get left behind just because it is not in a book yet.
Just for a laugh check out this guys accent and voice, when I saw this I nearly pished my breeks. Pitty his wife if he has one.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=JrSVbGYM6dc
Regards to you all – Bruce
Bruce-
that video was pretty funny…the accent was a bit over the top…sort of like a cockney accent
The content, however, was spot on.
The stultifying delivery was, unfortunately, at the level that most “chemtrail” believers seem to be at…present company excluded..
I wasn’t sure which satellite image you were referring to but in looking over your posts, the following comments caught my eye. pardon me for picking piece meal points to respond to.
You said:
“Ground observation is my strong point coupled with a lifetime memory of how my sky used to look and still should look. Plenty chemtrail stuff on the net show us clearly how the sky is completely overcome with contrails/chemtrails on a regular basis.”
Surely, you understand that memory CAN indeed be colored by time…or to put it another way- memory is not infallible….Many studies have shown how perceived memories are often quite different that the actual facts. I am not saying that is the case with you…but you have to admit that it certainly IS a possibility.
Persistent contrails certainly existed when you were younger. I am sure you are not trying to say they didn’t….right? Did you look for persistent contrails when you were younger- as you no doubt do now?
However, they..er…we…didn’t have the “net” when we were younger- so, a million videos showing contrails now doesn’t mean that wasn’t the case back then…just that we could not film and post it for the world to see minutes later…
Combine that with a HUGE increase in air travel over the last 20 years…and a greater range of contrail parameters through engine design and fuel development…and perhaps even subtle changes in the atmosphere be they anthropomorphic or not…and one might see a plausible reason for the increase in contrails.
You said:
“The effect on the environment under these trails is simply overwhelming, to suggest there is no effect or only a slight effect is complete madness. These trails blocking the sun cause a big effect on the formation of other clouds so causing a complete change in the localised environment.”
I am not sure who suggested that there was no effect?? Certainly the 100s of scientists who have researched contrails over the last 50 years would agree with you…such as this paper from 1970 would suggest:
http://tinyurl.com/47lcdg
Also:
“With regard to the aircraft activity, what I state is true. There are no regular flights over my home, I have double checked the sky on the few clear days we have had recently for regular traffic and I could never find 26 aircraft in a day, let alone one hour. ”
Are you sure?? …I have no idea where you live but what about flights that are to and from destinations no where near you but might pass over….say…from Cairo to NY or Montreal to Istanbul or flights of that nature…can you say with certainty that no flights would fly over your home?? …you say you couldn’t find 26 but that would suggest you did see some?? can you clarify?
Out of curiosity- do you see planes on days when there are no trails?? Or do you only notice them when a trail is left?
For me, I have 100s of planes flying over me daily but rarely see any of them unless they leave a contrail- be it persistent or not…
As for HAARP- when you say “They will most likely run several other programes which are classified.” ….that is just way too speculative and unconvincing to be taken seriously…
Do tell…what is the empirical evidence that shows proof of this ionospheric manipulation?
…I am afraid I do not see it…and I have been watching the sky all my life…I have a life time of memory and the sky and the clouds all look the same to me…albeit with a few more contrails.
Bruce-
saw the sat. image- interesting picture…
but when say:
“cloud in front of the main bank has more contrails running through it than could reasonably be expected.”
How do you know what can “reasonably” be expected?? What are the factors that would suggest to you there are too many contrails?? That seems to be an biased opinion based on a predetermined belief on your part….rather than actual scientific possibilities…
“In my opinion the picture shows an atmospheric impossibility.”
Why?
…and – no offense- but are you an atmospheric expert that would give credence to your opinion? ….or is that you just do not satellite images like that when you were younger?
Sorry…had to be asked.
“With chemtrails, it was a secret population reduction program” (from the link in reply 14) It’s no secret that America has been involved in eugenics at least until the Carter administration… We were even buddies with Hitler and sold him a lot of the gasses used to kill millions… we sold them in 1938-39, before WWII… Just like we sold Saddam Hussein virtually all of his chemical weapons. There was a joke in congress a while back – something like: ‘We know Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, we sold them to him.’
Possible, but it’s not particularly effective if that is the case. From what I hear it seems to give respiratory problems and not mass death (except the thing in London… I’d link it, but I haven’t been able to verify the deaths from a non-chemtrail site yet, if anyone has a news link to the 8,100 deaths that had to be taken out in refrigerated trailers please post it.)
I know this isn’t a photo but… http://flightaware.com/analysis/allflights_movie.rvt It’s a 24 hour loop of commercial air traffic… chemtrail or contrail, it’s insane to watch… (doesn’t show any trails, just tracked flight paths)
Yeah, there are a lot of planes in the sky, I touched on this earlier:
http://contrailscience.com/there-are-a-lot-of-jets-in-the-air/
Did you also see the “Britain From Above” stuff – pretty visualization of one day’s air traffic:
http://contrailscience.com/britain-from-above-air-traffic/
The video link is either gone or dead in britain-from-above-air-traffic ;-( I love that grid pic of us air traffic, would make a great poster if it’s public domain.
The video still works for me. It takes a while to come up. Try this direct link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/britainfromabove/stories/visualisations/planes.shtml
Well worth watching.
Ahhh… My NoScript software for firefox was blocking the vid ;-p Nice clip, it looks crazy, especially the brief circling part (though you can see several earlier.)
Hello again gentlemen, I note that the BBC clip suggests (as do the charts) that there should be no regular traffic over my home.
Now the dark nights are here I can again (as last year) confirm there are normaly very few, often no aircraft overhead. This is easily done by watching for nav. lights in the clear skies we have enjoyed recently.
If I compare this to summertime observations on lasting trail days when often from say 6pm till 8.45pm or later we had aircraft overfly averaging one every six minutes then sudden stop of activity.
This seems to confirm the theory that the skies do indeed suddenly fill with aircraft over my home but strangely only when a lasting trails are possible.
So we have a deepening mystery along with the unexplained cloud formations etc. Clouds which I considered to be rare are seen fairly regularly here now, usualy along with the sudden contrailing.
However I see only explainations which are at best over simplified.
SR1419 seems to think there may be something wrong with my memory, so does Uncinus.
Well my eyesight is great and you both need to look again at that satellite image I linked, look at the S/W end of that cloud bank, it is solid contrails right through. The N/E end shows random contrails.
Still cant find a natural cloud like the satellite image shows anywhere but I have a couple of pictures of one being constructed above my work which several of us witnessed being formed by aircraft. The flight paths also dont match the direction or position shown by the BBC video. When I said the cloud is an atmospheric impossibility, I mean the air did not form the cloud in this shape. So now having witnessed one being constructed I can honestly tell you this is true.
Wait – Dare someone suggest that my sunglasses have white pinstripes and I have been fooled all along.
Like I said in my previous post, we need to bring our thinking up to date if we are to further our understanding. Simple old contrails are good fun to talk about but something far more unusual is going on. Perhaps we need to consider how ionisation of clouds influences I.N. and C.N.
By the way, it seems the nasty insulting old bloke called “Disinfoagent” who offered to modify his theory to fit our observations has strangely evapourated from Youtube. Perhaps his wife finaly snapped and murdered him after suffering years of his childish wailing along with his unhealthy interest in contrails, or maybe he choked on his false teeth whilst frothing at the mouth with rage over a chemtrail video.
Here is a good guy with humour not anger:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GMpObwggyKI&feature=related
Regards – Bruce (not another “chemtard”)
Bruce, you want to email in your photos? uncinus@gmail.com
And where exactly do you live? Just name a spot within five miles, should be good enough.
Sound like an interesting puzzle. Maybe we can figure it out.
Oh, and can you give a precise heading (specify magnetic or true) of the contrails?
UNCINUS:
Sorry, been away a while.
Esperance where the birds died and “Super Storm” hit has it’s own daily (12 hour) UAS balloon release. The launch point of the balloon is within the town limits and directly in the flight path of the commercial airliners.
R.H at altitude is ACTUALLY quite stable. Also, we are seeing long lasting contrails at levels as low as %30 R.H
I have some great video of a “normal” persitent contrail and just above it the usual long lasting, sky covering one. The persitent one disapeared after 20 minutes. In fact some of the piccies you show may well just be simple persitent contrails.
There is also an enormous amount of literature from official sources such as IPCC documents where it is recommended aircraft (commercial) run their engines deliberately rich to help form a “particulate” that would help reflect sunlight.
There is SO much data available now that to consider these events as “normal” is leaving ones self open to the charge of being a “kook”.
BIRDS AND LEAD:
I have an enormous amount of data on the deaths there. I WAS there when it happened. There was no mine at Esperance, they were transporting the lead as a “carbonate” or “powder” type substance. The ACTUAL lead levels of the birds is TOTALLY kooky. In fact, 2 of the top scientists in charge said outright the results were “unique” and they could “NOT” explain the results.
Birds were DROPPING DEAD at 3mg/kg wet weight. That is UNHEARD of. Birds might start to get a little sick at this level. Water fowl in one study dropped dead at 11mg/kg wet weight after ingesting lead as an alkyline released into their habitat. Pigeons that lived IN the sheds holding the lead were HEALTHY at between 16mg and 45mg/kg wet weight!!!!!! The spread was enormous with birds from 3-98mg/kg wet weight. Wah?
THere is alot more to all this and a doco is in the making and we should release it within a couple of months.
I will use some of the piccies you have collected and attribute them to you and even link to your site if you wish.
Regards,
Brendon.
Bruce; what it actually says is if you’re in one of the areas showing almost no air traffic then what you little you do see is likely military in origin… just makes it more odd?
Quo; the earliest I date that sort of thing to is the early 1990’s… and from what I’ve read the chemtrail theories started to become popular in the late 1990’s? Makes sense to me. I still question the extent and content of ‘chemtrails.’
As far as me calling things theories, essentially everything is a theory. Science stopped turning theories into laws in the 1800’s. That’s why Newton has laws and Einstein has theories despite Einstein’s ideas being more tested and proven (though still flawed, just less so than Newton’s.)
Uncinus
Your doing some great work, keep it up. When I first seen “chemtrail” videos on youtube I was skeptical. You have some very good science to back up the fact that contrails have been around since high altitude flight has taken place.
Bruce,
It feels like your beating at a dead horse here. I read most the messages but gave up at about 75% through. I’m trying to stay neutral and read both sides of evidence before I make a judgment, but you’re just not convincing me that there is a difference between contrails and chemtrails.
At first glance at these video’s I thought that there is a chance that they could be putting chemicals in air, but the more research I did, the more flaws I found in how people say that they can identify a “chemtrail”.
Why would they spray chemicals into the air from 30,000 feet? Why not spray from the ground level. This would be way more effective as the chemicals could be concentrated in certain area’s.
Well I will tell you this, they do spray chemicals on ground level. In my area they spray for mosquitoes using government truck that goes up and down every street in my town. This is repeated in every city in my area roughly 8 times per month during mosquito periods. I will tell you the stuff is horrible and really stinks. I have no idea what the side affects of the mosquitoes spray has on me. But I didn’t seem to suffer any side effects or anybody I have heard about. I had the bad luck of turning to go up a main road and all of the sudden it was there in head of me. I could actually taste the stuff in my mouth as I followed it briefly in my car. I’m more worried about chemicals being sprayed on ground level then chemicals being sprayed from over 30,000 feet up.
Just something to think about.
Sorry Unc. but I cant reveal where I live but you are welcome to drop in for a steak dinner if you are ever in town.
Yes I must get round to sorting through some pictures for discussion.
TonyB- Yes the traffic may be military, the aircraft in question are like passenger jets not fighters. Strangely I never see fighter jets leaving long trails.
BB – The term is flogging a dead horse, not beating it.
Yes I may be “flailing a dead sheep” or “wrestling a decomposite donkey” but equaly may just have a tiger by the tail.
I assume you find yourself powerless to stop the mosquito truck from spraying and are annoyed with it, well I feel the same about my sky, I want it back the way it was please.
There are no side effects from ever lasting contrails, just main effects.
I do not (as so called chemtards) believe barium/aluminium/pathogens/ice or doghairs exist within the trails as I do not see good evidence to prove these theories. I do however use the term chemtrail but do not believe they are a form of germ warfare.
I think weather modification, not germ warfare, is most likely. The trail would need to be introduced high up or over where air masses mix and not at low level. The trail need not comprise of anything other than water or salted water to affect the weather. The simple act of blocking sunlight is enough to change things.
I have already mentioned that I am open to theories on changes to the sky to explain the “chemtrail” phenomenom therefore negating any questions on the unusual air traffic, chemicals or lost pilots.
Interesting thought- If we threw the mosquito spray truck out of a C130 at great height or if a Piper Pawnee was able to spray pesticide at 35,000ft, the effect would be identical to a lasting contrail and most of it would indeed be ice/cloud.
On the ground I would be saying- “What the hell is that?”
Unc. would be saying – “Dont worry, its only a contrail”
Truth is neither of us would ever know for sure untill the truck hits the ground or the Pawnee crashes with a hypoxiated pilot.
Hey Unc, perhaps you could get one of these trucks to spray these bloody termites that ate your house!
Here is a good example of how the sky never looked -
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qkyFGMAT-Qc&feature=related
Are we all happy with a sky like this? Does anyone remember a sky like this as a child?
(Evidence from children not permitted)
There are other sky anomalies possibly not directly related to contrails/chemtrails that the discussion has not adressed yet.
Regards and respect to all – Bruce
That’s quite an interesting point Bruce – what would the trail lok like from a C-130 spraying pesticide at 35,000 feet?
I suspect it would look very unlike a cloud, and very unlike a contrail.
The principle difference here is that a contrail is formed from water vapor (a gas), and pesticide is a liquid. The difference this makes would be in the size of the droplets. Contrail ice crystal are very small, forming in sizes of around 2-10 microns, and they are generally not spherical, but are instead faceted crystals of various shapes that grow rapidly as gaseous water is deposited on nuclei. Pesticide, on the other hand, is usually sprayed as droplets of liquid, already spherical, and quite large, ranging from 20-400 microns. You can spray it smaller, but then you’ve still got the difference that it’s a liquid, and not a gas.
But to your main point – weather control – I’m afraid the objection still remains that you’ve not shown anything of statistical significance. If there was some weather modification going on, it would be a relatively simple matter to show this with statistical analysis of weather records. It’s also something that meteorologists would have noticed.
The other question is that of intent. Are these trails INTENDED to change the weather/climate; is that the purpose?
I say, No. If it is changing the weather/climate, it is an unintended consequence of modern air transport using jet aircraft.
It am always amazed at how in every one of these “contrail” Blogs/discussions/arguments there is always a handful of non-chemtrail believers that are always rude, tell others off for their memories and always refer to the same material.
And when the going gets tough there will always be newcomers to their rescue telling believers or speculators how stupid/unintelligent they are!
Its like “de ja vue” each and every time!!
It honestly makes me wonder if these very harsh non-believers are all disinfo agents, and whether its even worth your while debating with them, cause I have honestly started noticing them as all taking on the same debunking methods.
I have taken the stance of not taking notice of their posts anymore, I am however very interested in the people, as myself, who have gradually noticed (not a small) but a huge change. Its not confined to area’s, countries or continents, its a global phenomenon!! Just like these debunkers have become a constant phenomenon with their identical tactics, same references and material!
Its time to move past them and take the next step!
Hi Corvin, I think you might be seeing similar material because people are responding to similar points, like “contrails don’t persist longer than a few minutes”.
Contrails do in fact form just the same all around the world.
“always refer to the same material”
Atmospheric science/meteorology?
“stupid/unintelligent”
Uninformed and outspoken together. Not a pleasant combination.
“de ja vue”
Deja vu.
“if all disinfo agents”
The government spares no expense…
“same debunking methods”
Same errors of thought.
“noticed (not a small) but a huge change.”
Rather like the fifty-fold increase in civil aviation over the last fifty years?
“constant phenomenon with their identical tactics, same references and material!”
Atmospheric science/meteorology?
“Its time to move past them and take the next step!”
..next few steps…to a library…and study some science, history, logic.
Thanks so much for posting these classic photos featuring contrails/chemtrails. I see more now than ever, but they have been around for a while.
Even classic TV shows or movies show these trails. I recently saw the 1960 classic “The Misfits” and in the desert scenes a few contrails can be clearly seen. Just a few. But they are there. And in the closing credits from 1972’s “Maude” there are brownish trails everywhere in the sky.
That said, as an avid cloudwatcher from birth living here in NE Ohio I have seen more of these in the past 10 years than I have in my 38 years. And waking up about a month ago on an otherwise clear Sunday morning to the closest and largest ‘X’ ever was a bit disturbing. Still, I’ve never been much for conspiracy theories, although there may be some truth in the individual details that make up those theories. Rather, one of my personal goals in the way I process info about anything is to keep some kind of balance – and your site has helped add that balance to my chemtrail knowledge.
Thanks!
Uncinus,
I was reading the post above where you took a quote from the HAARP website and it is most enlightening as to how honest that website is.
“If the ionospheric storms caused by the sun itself don’t affect the surface weather, there is no chance that HAARP can do so either.”
There is a great deal of interest in how the sun affects surface weather. There is strengthening evidence that there is a relationship between weather and solar activity, specifically solar wind streams that buffet the earth. The problem is in knowing what those effects are but the relationship is important. Hurricanes and solar activity are linked and certainly this is surface weather.
So, we can conclude based upon the hilighted sentence that HAARP is actively and purposely mis-leading us. Also, if one takes time
pouring over atmospheric research such as ‘atmospheric ducting’ etc. it becomes clear very quickly that HAARP can influence the
weather. You have definitely helped illuminate that HAARP is not willing to be honest with those reading their FAQ’s.
See; http://climateresearchnews.com/2008/10/us-hurricane-counts-significantly-related-to-solar-activity/ (and this is just barely
scratching the surface)
Oh, anecdotally, I ALWAYS check spaceweather.com for the Solar wind stream info. as it appears to effect the thermal winds
that I like to windsurf. A slightly stronger ground wind effect than has been forcast for at my local pond correlates with the earth being inside a solar wind stream -others have noticed this relationship also.
Regards,
Bryan
It’s not clear to me how HAARP could influence the weather. Perhaps you could explain it?
And just to be clear, here’s the full quote:
If you do have a correlation between solar wind and the the wind over your pond then perhaps you could document it with actual measurements? What you suggest sounds very unlikely, so would be interesting if true.
Hi Uncinus,
My point is that HAARP is not forthcoming to the public. They are mis-leading those reading their information.
The sun does effect our weather. Haarp says it does not. It throws into serious doubt their claim that HAARP
cannot effect the weather.
HAARP is a microwave transmitter. The air or ‘atmosphere’ has some ’stuff’ in it. A focused microwave is going to heat it. Now, if we trust HAARP’s PR team, we are told that HAARP is not powerful enough to cause this heating, or any weather effects. I don’t trust them. HAARP has the strength to create a man made billowing light show in the sky which they’ve demonstrated, and focus energy into a powerful beam (especially when combined with other arrays) They say they can’t effect weather but we know that they also tell us that solar activity doesn’t effect weather and it in fact does.
HAARP has amazing capabilities and they ain’t talkin’ to the public. Did you know that HAARP gets back more energy than it uses? It is a net energy creator! Reality is stranger than fiction, stranger than conspiracy.
The observation about correlation of surface winds and solar stream is anecdotal, it would take me a long time to gather the data and then it would probably be inconclusive for any number of reasons, maybe I’ll jot down the info. though… The correlation between solar activity and weather has data behind it however. In 2005 strong solar flares seemed to coincide with a few different Hurricane’s rapid intensifications. Really interesting.
Analyze the Spectrometre results of a fresh contrail ! The military has done this in the past. Time for evidence!
Regards,
Bryansail
The sun affects the weather.
HAARP does not affect the sun
Therefore, HAARP does not affect the weather
The ionosphere does not affect the weather
HAARP affects the ionosphere
Therefore, HAARP does not affect the weather.
Bryan, do you have ANY evidence to back up your claims? Anything?
And, more to the point, can you please bring contrails back into the conversation. That’s what this site is about.
Uncinus,
Your very odd logic flow does not negate that the HAARP website is misleading the public in their FAQ’s.
They are very clearly being dis-honest as I have demonstrated.
The concerns with HAARP are very warranted based upon those who are in the forefront of the R & D of
atmospheric heaters. Dr. Nick Begich has written a book that is very well researched (over 400 citations) that will
help you in understanding the concerns about weather modification. Bernard Eastland has made claims that
HAARP can be used to modify weather. He has a vastly superior knowledge base of transmitter array capabilities
than either of us. The HAARP PR boys cannot be honest about HAARP capabilities because arrays used to find Oil
underground are well known to effect living tissue in deleterious ways. It is well understood that HAARP can
lift areas of the ionosphere (40 to 60 miles up). What kind of effect does this have on the atmosphere
below? Certainly there is likely to be an affect, right? No effect on weather would be rather amazing actually.
For excerpts of Nick Begich’s book http://www.avalonhealthinfo.com/articles/46/1/The-Militarys-Pandoras-Box/Page1.html
Haarp creates artificial aurora http://www.nature.com/nature/links/050203/050203-7.html
It is naive at best to say that HAARP is not a concern to weather patterns and biological entities. Are you aware
that planes are routed away from the focused microwaves of HAARP? Unfortunately wildlife is not so easily given
a heads up.
Contrail paths are thus modified to fly around HAARP’s focused transmissions (to return to the subject matter)
What evidence do you have Uncinus that lifting an area of the earths ionosphere does NOT affect weather?
Remember that we have already shown that the HAARP PR team is not to be trusted.
Regards,
Bryan
You said:
Show me where on the HAARP web site it says that the sun does not affect the weather.
In fact, quote me ONE THING on that site that you can demonstrate to be untrue.
Uncinus, this is where the HAARP website is dishonest (taken from the full quote above)
“…If the ionospheric storms caused by the sun itself don’t affect the surface weather, there is no chance that HAARP can do so either.”
It is a false statement as we know that ionospheric storms caused by the sun DO affect surface weather.
Just search google for solar activity+hurricane. So there is definitely a chance that HAARP can effect weather.
A key question is, what evidence is there that lifting a section of the ionosphere does NOT effect weather.
Back to contrails, in addition to the things you mentioned for the reasons contrail behavior may be different now’ such as jet engine mixture and design being different, than during WWII or as recently as the 1980’s I would add these.
More particulates in the air. A current sunset picture taken anywhere on earth shows an orange haze along the horizon
that used to be reserved for known smoggy cities such as L.A. Ca. Amazing how degraded air quality currently is compared
to recent history.
Upper air is now colder than in previous decades, http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/earth/atmos/ozone.htm
Based on theories of atmospheric coupling, it is likely that the water vapor content at 25 to 45,000 feet is
changing also. http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/earth/atmos/ozone.htm The article is interesting also in that
it shows how changes high in the atmosphere are linked to surface changes. Hope that the researchers at the
ionospheric heater arrays are paying attention (wink)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/04/010418072442.htm
The measurements are for the stratosphere but the article makes clear that there is more transport of moisture
from the lower atmosphere to the upper atmosphere.
So when people on your forum keep mentioning that they see more contrails than they remember as a kid, they are likely
right for reasons beyond just jetfuel mixture changes and focused observation. While I agree with you that they weren’t really thinking about contrails as much when they were growing up (and that memory is a very peculiar thing) I think that contrail persistence and occurance is increasing/morphing continually based upon more inputs than we can track effectively.
Regards,
Bryan
If I google for solar activity+hurricane, you get mostly refences to the paper “United States and Caribbean tropical cyclone activity related to the solar cycle” by Elsner and Jagger, which says:
I think you are simply confusing your levels of the atmosphere, and where they are, and what people mean when they say “upper atmosphere”. The ionosphere, which HAARP heats is about 70KM up, as they say in the quote, above. The lower stratosphere and upper troposphere are at around 20km up
You see they are two totally different things. Nobody has ever shown ANY linkage between the ionosphere and the weather at ground level. Sure the sun heats the troposphere, which causes weather changes, but HAARP does NOT heat the troposphere, it heats the ionosphere, so how can you say their web site is inaccurate?
Uncinus,
I am floored. Are you not aware of Atmospheric coupling? I mentioned it in order to thwart possible confusion.
There are many papers available discussing the linkages between the upper and lower atmosphere. I am not confused on this
matter to any degree. I can’t believe you are even arguing this as there is documentation of the link. It’s not even arguable.
That is a good graphic, now imagine this Uncinus, HAARP lifts the ionospheric line in your graphic, forming a bubble that pushes
up into the area of the thermosphere. My question (for the last few posts) has been what is the corresponding action beneath
this bubble? Surely there is an effect. This is known as atmospheric coupling and has been studied for decades.
Ionospheric disturbances do cause surface weather changes, this in known. The HAARP website says that they don’t. You can find many more papers than the one you mention. Papers on solar variability (CME’s and solar wind streams) affecting surface weather go back many decades. The former Soviet Union has done a great deal of research in this area as far back as in the 1970’s.
I am not nor have I ever been discussing the sun heating the troposphere. I am discussing ionospheric storms which impact surface
weather. I have shown that HAARP’s FAQ is a sham, a mis-direct. That will really become clear if anyone looks closely at HAARP’s
capabilities.
-Bryan
Uncinus,
Are you not reading my posts? There is no reason for you to suggest that I am simply confusing my levels of the atmosphere as
I spelled out specifically HAARP’s effect on the ionosphere and the ionospheres height in my post above.
Your disregard of HAARP’s incorrect information is baffling.
The link between ionospheric storms and surface weather is real.
HAARP is not telling us the truth. This is hardly surprising.
Regards,
Bryan
So point me at a paper. It’s known that surface weather (like hurricanes) can affect the ionosphere, but not the other way around.
Find me one paper that shows that ionospheric disturbances cause surface weather changes, because everything I’ve read says there is no evidence of this.
Ok Uncinus, I will show you how solar variability effects the surface weather. Keep in mind that this is a very controversial subject
because the dynamics are so complex. There are researchers and meterologists who throw out the link entirely because it is so
complicated that it is not going to be a useful tool to predict weather. That they deny a link is only because the link is too chaotic
to be useful to them and there are instances where they state they don’t care because it can’t be used as a tool to forcast weather.
This doesn’t mean that solar windstreams don’t cause weather changes. Cloud formation is linked in many of these studies which is
an example of solar forcing affecting surface weather. The sun’s variability affects Hurricane activity which is detailed in the paper you looked at as well as previous papers showing the same link. It is not surface weather affecting the ionosphere (which happens no doubt)
I will link you up to the hilt, but in return I ask that you answer the question I repeatedly have posed about the effects on the
mid and or lower atmosphere caused by HAARP lifting the ionosphere. It is established that HAARP can lift (perhaps even tear a hole in) the ionosphere. What is the corresponding effect to the layers below the ionosphere that HAARP can cause to expand like a bubble going up into the thermosphere?
Would you like to go first or shall I?
Peace,
Bryan
You can go first, but while you are doing that could you also explain what “lift the ionosphere” actually means, given that the the ionosphere stretches from 50km to 1000km. Can you define what exactly is being lifted, where it was, how big it is, and where it is lifted to?
Bryansail, your name rings a bell…
You demonstrate an incapability to connect things together, and call Uncinus’s perfectly reasonable logic “odd”.
Logic and reason are the first things you need before you attempt to deal with a scientific subject, for without them you will never escape your belief system and develop your understanding.
The first thing you don’t understand is the distinction between solar RADIATION and the solar WIND. It is Electro-Magnetic WAVES from the Sun that warm the Earth. The PARTICLES of the Solar Wind have a negligible effect on the Earth.
The second thing you don’t understand is that the “thermosphere” is practically a VACUUM, and above ninety miles it is certainly a vacuum so intense that it cannot be achieved in a laboratory using a typical reciprocating air pump.
The individual molecules (and ions, and particles) of the atmosphere at that altitude are so far apart that their “temperature” is perhaps better defined as their “speed”.
If HAARP’s radiation is “tuned” to accelerate these molecules (and it is) then it is also NOT tuned to accelerate the molecules in the lower “atmospheres”. (For if it were, then it wouldn’t reach the thermosphere, would it?)
Understanding that there is so little material in the thermosphere also helps to explain the vanishingly small “coupling” with the atmosphere beneath it.
Didn’t you ever see the experiment with a bell-jar, vacuum-pump, and electric bell? You know, the one where the bell (though ringing) becomes SILENT?
I think the only “truth” in what you write is that you don’t “trust” HAARP.
Perhaps you should emulate that bell until your understanding improves…
Hi Jazzrock and Uncinus,
Solar particles are different from solar radiation Jazzrock, very good. Gives you a definite chance in following along then with
my posts. I’m glad that you are also able to distinguish between heating the ionosphere and tuning HAARP in the lower atmosphere. Both are possible, and yes they are very different things. I like your description of how different the upper atmosphere is in terms of molecular action that also is quite astute. I think you need to increase your own understanding
of solar radiation changes on earth during solar wind stream events however. Solar radiation reaching the earth does increase
during periods of intense solar activity. This is in addition to cosmic rays level increases.
Uncinus wrote;
“The sun affects the weather.
HAARP does not affect the sun
Therefore, HAARP does not affect the weather
The ionosphere does not affect the weather
HAARP affects the ionosphere
Therefore, HAARP does not affect the weather.”
The problem I have with Uncinus logic flow is that he wrote, “HAARP does not affect the sun Therefore, HAARP does not
affect the weather.” -There is a definite problem with this statement, can you really not see that ? HAARP does not
need to affect the sun in order to affect the weather. That is an odd piece of logic because A) it is not true and B) it
does not relate in any way to the claim that I have shown-that HAARP’s webpage is disinformation. The key to
understanding that it IS disinformation is in reading what the researchers who have worked with these antennae arrays
have to say about HAARP’s capabilities. The reason you and Uncinus are in trouble regarding HAARP, is that you are
going up against physicists and respected scientists who say that HAARP is most definitely capable of influencing
the earth’s weather systems. It is not me who is defining HAARP’s capabilities, I defer to those who know
the most about atmospheric microwave transmitters, the researchers themselves. Some of these ‘experts’ are from
Russia, some from Europe and some from the U.S. and many of them are on record that HAARP is capable of far more than the cute
little HAARP webpage will have you believe. If HAARP did not affect elevations well below the ionosphere, then there
would be no reason to re-route air traffic around HAARP activity. If you and Uncinus are going to claim that HAARP only
affects the ionosphere you both have a huge uphill battle. Actually it’s worse, you both are not paying attention to
what HAARP has demonstrated. If HAARP only affects the ionosphere then ARCO has seriously mis-spent an amazing amount of
money in their investment. In Bernard Eastland’s patent (this one is already in operation and the design of HAARP
aligns very closely to the patent cited) it is mentioned that one of the capabilities will be; “to facilitate “missile or aircraft destruction, deflection, or confusion” by lifting large regions of the atmosphere “to an unexpectedly high altitude so that missiles encounter unexpected and unplanned drag forces with resultant destruction or deflection of same.” Jazzrock wrote, “Understanding that there is so little material in the thermosphere also helps to explain the vanishingly small “coupling” with the atmosphere beneath it.” your statement does not sit well with the patent that is very closely aligned with HAARP. For missiles to encounter un-calculated drag means seriously altering vast regions of the upper atmosphere to the point where drag is changed. I don’t know why you went that route Jazzrock but it doesn’t seem to mesh with Eastlands statements or other’s who have studied HAARP. Go here and read the entire article; http://www.haarp.net/ Better yet read Nick Begich’s book, Angels don’t play this HAARP to understand better the resonance issue and the molecular changes that ripple far beyond the upper atmosphere. HAARP increases highly charged particles in the atmosphere and it is known that this effects weather. This website has 2 videos embedded from youtube done about HAARP and they are both well worth a view. The second one has some interesting allegations about weather manipulation as well. http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/tag/haarp/
Cosmic particles, many which come from our own Sun do affect weather. There are many papers stating that they have an impact that is immediately measurable. Additionally, Solar particles raining down through the earth’s electro magnetic shield have a measurable impact on cloud formation. It is scientifically noted in dozens of papers that cloud formation is increased when the Earth’s shield is being buffeted by a solar stream. The negligible effect that you allude to is rather dubious based on the sheer volume of research on Solar Variability affecting the Earth’s weather. That angle (that any affects from solar particles is negligible) is based on the chaotic effect the particle streams have. If the effects can’t be modeled effectively then the result must be negligible-I have a serious problem with that logic flow as well, Jazzrock. I’m sure you are aware that solar particles increase earthquake activity as well as affecting weather. I already have pointed out that during a solar wind stream BOTH radiation and x-ray levels can be increased. It is not just particles. Here is some reading for you Jazzrock, you asked for it. The first research details effects of long term solar activity and solar flare effects on weather. http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/IASTP/43/ It also illustrates that both x-rays AND solar radiation levels can increase during a solar wind stream event. Here’s another one, you have to go down to #4 to get to the examination of solar wind changing weather, http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm There are many other papers detailing changes in cloud concentration during solar wind events, let me know if you’d like them as well.
Uncinus the top embedded video discusses the lifting of the ionosphere, but to get the exact answers you requested will probably require you to contact the researchers themselves. The information in the you tube clip (some from science channel program) mentions that the ionsphere is heated at 120 miles (193.2 km) above the earth. Diameter of the area being heated is approx. 30km (although military documents say that the diameter can vary). The amount of lifting is most likely mentioned in U.S. patent # 4686605 but the lifting acts as a lens or a mirror (a focusing device) you could roughly calculate the amount of lifting by using the diameter and raising it to the level of a standard lens. This paper has some in depth information on HAARP which may help in
understanding the lifting effect. http://foia.abovetopsecret.com/ultimate_UFO/Advanced/HAARPResearchAndApplications.pdf
The document while posted at above top secret is a military document worth reading.
Another page with excerpts from a book about weather warfare by Michael Chossudovsky (ask for it for Christmas)
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/weather-warfare-beware-the-us-military%e2%80%99s-experiments-with-climatic-warfare-by-prof-michel-chossudovsky/
Let me know if you would like more information on concerns with HAARP capabilities by scientists outside of the U.S. (since
going against the grain of HAARP’s cute website is somewhat of a sensitive subject.
Look forward to your answer Uncinus. Keep in mind, if you have studied HAARP closely, it is indisputable that HAARP can be tuned to create effects in lower level atmosphere (lights and plasma-already demonstrated by HAARP) and ground penetrating capability
(also already demonstrated)
Regards,
Bryan
oh, also Uncinus wrote; “HAARP affects the ionosphere
Therefore, HAARP does not affect the weather.”
I’ve asked Uncinus to reply to this but I also disagree with the logic flow he mentioned here as well.
For one thing HAARP affects more than the ionosphere, the ionosphere is simply the focusing lens, the lens
actually can increase the power of HAARP and that energy can be focused tightly or widely down to the
earth. Additionally HAARP effects can be created well below the ionosphere as has been demonstrated
by causing light shows at lower altitudes. Molecular changes that HAARP is capable of include
changing the composition of molecules increasing certain types and decreasing others. HAARP is freaky
stuff, and it aligns closely with Tesla technology which way above any of our understanding, although
looking into Tesla technology will reward even our (by comparison) feeble minds.
An outstanding book that goes into depth far beyond the Begich book on HAARP is Gerry Vassilatos, Secret Cold War Technology, Project HAARP and beyond. This book is outstanding for going in depth on the true nature of HAARP and it’s real capabilities
which are definitely not mentioned in the HAARP website. This book is also a valuable research tool for those looking into Tesla’s
radiant energy.
http://books.google.com/books?id=xfABAAAACAAJ&dq=Gerry+Vassilatos&source=an&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result
I think I’m almost ready to get back to the subject of contrails. The subject of contrails may relate closely to HAARP actually…
Regards,
Bryan
There’s a difference between air and an airplane. One is unaffected by radio waves, and one is.
Okay, now again, can you tell me of one paper that shows that ionospheric disturbances cause surface weather changes? Because that’s what you claimed, and that’s what I asked you to show.
I’d appreciate that
It is in EVERYTHING I sent you Uncinus. It is all related. Upper atmospheric disturbances and lower atmospheric disturbances are
entangled. I guess you are not a big fan of chaos theory, nor of ’spooky action at a distance’ -there is truth in both, yet I don’t
think that I should be required to explain them step by step to you. If you read the Begich book or the Vassilatos book I think
you will have a really hard time believing that HAARP can’t affect the weather, actually you should be suspicious of the
capabilities just by looking at the links above.
You said you would answer my question and I have given you some data on ionospheric lifting (which is not a thought experiment unfortunately), so now it is your turn to tell me what that lifting and changing of molecular composition might cause underneath. Tag your it.
…oh, contrails.
This is a great website on contrails, Thanks again. Sincerely this website is an amazingly cool counterpoint to all the chemtrail websites. So do you have any comment on atmospheric cooling changing contrail behavior? I think you were too excited to delve into HAARP capabilities and you never commented, lol.
The NASA paper that I linked you discusses how water vapor concentrations are changing and temperatures aloft
are decreasing. Interesting I think and it may relate to all the claims of I never saw this as a kid. Although, as you’ve mentioned
there is a lot more air traffic than in the past and jetfuel mixtures are different. I actually think that contrails are more prevalent in part because our atmosphere is not the same as it was in recent history.
With regards to contrails, do you think that JP-8 is a good idea? Seems to me like trade-offs, some good, but potentially
troubling health effects. I think JP-8 would be banned from automobiles very quickly as it is pretty nasty stuff.
Peace,
Bryan
with regards to radiowaves. It is true that the stated reason for moving air traffic to avoid HAARP is that the transmitter will
interfere with radio communications. Sure, yeah, cool that, I always turn off my portable devices on lift off and landing for the
same reason.
…but here’s the problem, HAARP’s transmitting range is very wide, so wide that it is considered a microwave transmitter.
I don’t recommend configuring your microwave to run with the door wide open. Microwaves heat molecules. Heating
is a weather phenomenon. HAARP is a weather phenomenon as well.
-Bryan
I’m sorry Bryan, but you keep saying that ionospheric disturbances cause surface weather changes, and now you say that I have to somehow deduce that from watching several videos and reading a book and several web sites?
Why can’t you just give me a link, and quote the actual content that says ionospheric disturbances cause surface weather changes? Like, for example, if I were to claim that the lower weather has an effect on the “space weather”, I would give:
http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/COSPAR04/00557/COSPAR04-A-00557.pdf
Perhaps you could explain that a bit? HAARP transmits radio waves in the range 2.8 to 10 MHz, whereas a microwave oven runs at 915 Mhz or higher. Microwaves have a wavelength between 300 Mhz and 300,000 Mhz
Hi Uncinus,
Actually I did do just what you said but instead of writing it out I requested that you go to the link and
read it. It seems as though, please correct me if I’m wrong, that you perhaps go to the link, scan some
of it but don’t read it. Perhaps this is why debating you gets me about as far as boxing a glacier
would.
A solar wind stream buffeting the earth is an ionospheric impacting event. This is not even a question.
HAARP’s website FAQ section (which is a farce, politics rather than science) states;
“…If the ionospheric storms caused by the sun itself don’t affect the surface weather, there is no chance that HAARP can do so either.”
Here are but a very tiny sampling of effects seen during ionospheric storms,
and Uncinus I already have done this, so this is seriously stepping backwards for me to even
post this.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VHB-4C037TN-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=690cdacacc119fd5fc04dbf2abb09c3f
Short-term effects of the energetic solar proton events (SPE) on the different characteristics of the lower atmosphere were studied in the North Atlantic region, which is an area of intensive cyclone genesis and development. The data of aerological soundings over the set of Danish stations (Greenland, Faeroe Islands and Denmark), the vorticity data at the different pressure levels and weather charts at the Earth’s surface were used. It was shown that the SPE under study are accompanied by noticeable pressure and temperature decreases at the high-latitudinal stations in the cold (October–March) half of year as well as by relative vorticity increases in the troposphere. The most pronounced effects were found in the region of the arctic front near the south-eastern Greenland coasts and Iceland. The weather chart analysis showed that the effects discovered seem to be related to the intensification of the deepening of well developed cold cyclones in this region. The results obtained suggest that the SPE with particle energies sufficient to penetrate the stratospheric heights may influence the cyclone evolution over the northern part of the Atlantic Ocean, a possible physical mechanism involving the radiative forcing of the cloudiness changes which may be associated with cosmic ray variations.
http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/IASTP/43/
The formation and radiative effect of clouds is one of the major uncertainties in climate modeling (Houghton et al., 1995). Due to the large radiative effect of clouds, any insufficiency in the parameterization of clouds will introduce major uncertainties in the results of the climate models. Recent results have indicated strong correlations between the total cloud cover and the cosmic ray flux, …
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0477(1975)056%3C1240%3ASVATLA%3E2.0.CO%3B2&ct=1
Mechanisms possibly connecting solar activity to meteorology of the lower atmosphere are reviewed. Besides direct variations of solar visible emission, solar-related fluctuations in some aspect of cloudiness could be important. Any such variations in cloudiness are likely to be related to variations in production of ionization near the tropopause by galactic cosmic rays, the only geophysical phenomena unconnected with upper atmospheric processes known to have a striking (negative) correlation with solar activity. Such a connection might involve a dependence of sulfate aerosol formation on ionization and in turn a dependence of cloud radiative properties on variations of the aerosol particles’ action as cloud condensation nuclei.
The most convincing argument yet, supporting a strong impact of the sun’s activity on climate change, is a direct connection between cloud coverage and cosmic rays, discovered by H. Svensmark and E. Friis-Christensen [111] in 1996. It is shown in Figure 6. Clouds have a hundred times stronger effect on weather and climate than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Even if the atmosphere’s CO2 content doubled, its effect would be cancelled out if the cloud cover expanded by 1%, as shown by H. E. Landsberg [53]. Svensmark’s and Friis-Christensen’s result is therefore of great importance. The thin curve in Figure 6 presents the monthly mean counting rates of neutrons measured by the ground-based monitor in Climax, Colorado (right scale). This is an indirect measure of the strength of galactic and solar cosmic rays. The thick curve plots the 12-month running average of the global cloud cover expressed as change in percent (left scale). It is based on homogeneous observations made by geostationary satellites over the oceans. The two curves show a close correlation. The correlation coefficient is
r = 0.95.
http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm
Short-range variations in the intensity of cosmic rays, caused by energetic solar eruptions, have the same effect, though shorter. The plot shows that strong cosmic rays go along with a larger cloud cover, whereas weak cosmic rays shrink the cloud cover. The global cloud coverage diminished from its peak at the end of 1986 to its bottom in the middle of 1990 by more than 3%. According to observations by V. Ramanathan, B. R. Barkstrom, and E. F. Harrison [91], clouds have a net cooling effect of -17 W/m2 . Svensmark and Friis-Christensen [111] conclude from the diminution of this cooling effect between 1986 and 1990 that the solar irradiance has increased by about 1.5 W/m2 within these three and a half years. A change of this order is quite remarkable, since the total radiative forcing by carbon dioxide accumulated since 1750 has been estimated by the IPCC not to go beyond 1.5 W/m2 . This means that cosmic rays, strongly modulated by solar activity, achieve an effect within three and a half years for which the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere needs centuries. This shows clearly to what extent the greenhouse effect has been overestimated in comparison with the solar contribution to climate change, which turns out to be the most important factor.
http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU05/00129/EGU05-A-00129-1.pdf
According to Tinsley (1996) lower atmospheric conductivity is primarily determined by the incoming cosmic ray flux.
(incoming cosmic ray flux varies strongly during Solar wind storms-my comment -Bryan)
http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall05/nats101s54/LivingWithAVariableSun_PT2005.pdf
-page 34, right side column under section Rapid variations and space storms
The localized heating migrates to lower latitudes over a period of hours to days, altering both neutral and ion densities on global scales. …
http://ams.confex.com/ams/12meso/techprogram/paper_125948.htm
A sun-weather correlation, namely the link between solar magnetic sector boundary passage by the Earth and tropospheric vorticity area index (VAI), that was found by Wilcox et al. (1974) and shown to be statistically significant by Hines and Halevy (1977) is revisited. Using the ECMWF ERA-40 re-analysis dataset for a period from 1963 to 2002, we have verified these results for the northern as well as the southern hemisphere winters. The Wilcox effect is corroborated by a correlation with coronal holes where the fast solar wind originates. Ground-based measurements of the green coronal emission line (Fe XIV, 530.3 nm) are used in the superposed epoch analysis keyed by the times of sector boundary passage to show a one-to-one correspondence between the mean VAI variations and coronal holes. The VAI is modulated by high-speed solar wind streams with a delay of 1-2 days. Prikryl et al. (2007) have proposed a mechanism invoking solar-wind-generated auroral atmospheric gravity waves influencing the growth of extratropical cyclones. It is observed that severe extratropical storms and explosive cyclogenesis tend to occur within a few days of the arrival of high-speed solar wind.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/x5512041336157r6/
Abstract The observed effects of solar flares and interplanetary sector crossings seem to indicate that particle precipitation in the Earth’s upper atmosphere decreases cyclonic activity in the troposphere. As an extrapolation to longer term effects, it is suggested that the recurrence of prolonged periods of enhanced solar wind particle precipitation in the upper atmosphere during alternate solar minima could cause the recurrence of extreme droughts.
Those are but a few, note that the cyclonic link to high solar wind speed events is noted by other researchers in previous studies
(you now have 3 links spelling out a very specific correlation between ionospheric events impacting weather, in addition to all
the other studies here)
As an additional note, the link between increased earthquakes and high solar wind speed events may also link to short term
weather variability seen during ionospheric storms. Probably only the damn Russians have looked at that link so far lol.
Uncinus, I took a couple of pictures of the circular contrail over L.A. from Nov. 21st, let me know if you’d like me to e-mail
them to you. I took them around 10 a.m. while on Foothill Blvd. in Upland, Ca.
Regards,
Bryansail
as an additional note, cosmic ray flux is moderated by solar wind stream events which are ionospheric storms. Cosmic rays actually
decrease during periods of fast moving solar stream events. So it is a more complex relationship, (which is why so many meteorologists don’t care or are completely in the dark regarding solar variability impacts of weather) just letting you know that
I am already aware of the context of linked material.
Regards,
Bryansail
I suppose, Bryan, that now you will have to argue that HAARP is as powerful as the Sun, rather than NEGLIGIBLE compared with it.
Otherwise all these words are sophistry… Care to do the sums?
Those links all say that cosmic rays affect the weather by increasing cloud cover.
Cosmic rays also, of course, affect the ionosphere.
But where does it say that altering the ionosphere will affect the weather?
Cosmic rays (solar and galactic) fly though space and hit the earth. They first hit the ionosphere (90 KM up), where they excite it. Some of the rays continue on and ionize the atmosphere near the tropopause (8-17 KM up), which is theorized to increase cloud cover when there are more rays.
So where does it say that the state of the ionosphere is having an effect on the lower atmosphere (the tropopause)? Sure there’s a correlation, because increased cosmic ray activity hits both the ionosphere and the troposphere. But the CAUSE of the correlation is the increased amount of incoming cosmic rays.
Here’s an analogy. Say you’ve got a river, with some rapids (the ionosphere), and then furthur downstream downstream you’ve got a waterfall (the tropopause). Now the water is the cosmic radiation. When there is more water flowing down the river, then the rapids will be more violent, and the waterfall will make more noise. So there’s a correlation – when the rapids are churning, the waterfall is roaring. Would you then say that the rapids are causing changes in the waterfall? No, it’s the increased water flow that’s causing the change.
Suppose I stuck an outboard engine in the rapids and stirred them up more. Would that change the waterfall? No, the amount of water flowing over it is the same.
So tell me again, how does the ionosphere affect the lower atmosphere?
Yes, I would like to see circular contrails. Were they anything like the Voodoo contrails on Nov 20th? Or were they actually the same, and you just mistook the date?
http://contrailscience.com/voodoo-contrails-over-los-angeles/
uncinus@gmail.com
So you DON’T read the links through the links! The transmission of radio waves changes substantially by a couple of different processes.
Pulsing of radio waves is one key component to the actual power transmission capabilities of HAARP.
Another is the focusing effect of the ionosphere. It has been mentioned to you previously that the
focusing causes actual power transmission exponentially greater than the original transmission.
If it seems like magic, it is basically because the amazing power gain actually violates established physics laws.
Again, HAARP is pretty freaky stuff.
HAARP actually transmits in a Broader HF Frequency Range than you mention as noted from
http://www.viewzone.com/haarp.exec.html which is taken from a joint Air Force and Navy paper
The energy generation of HAARP is not that analogous to microwaves. One effect of HAARP is to accelerate electrons to KeV or MeV energy levels. Try doing that in a microwave oven, you can’t, microwaves are non-ionizing while HAARP transmissions are ionizing.
Regards,
Bryan
You were the one saying it was like a microwave oven, so I’m unclear of the point you are now making by explaining how is not like a microwave oven.
Could you show me where scientists say HAARP violates existing physics laws – because that would be very interesting.
Also, since HAARP’s radiation is of a lower frequency than microwaves, how exactly can it be ionizing?
Where does it fall in this spectrum? Surely in with Radio, on the right?
The 21st is the date that I actually transferred the pictures. I just checked and it was the 20th because I brought my car in for servicing on the 20th when I took the pics. So I did snap a couple of pictures of the voodoo contrail. In my photo the trail is to the South, I also checked the metadata which has the date as the 20th of Nov. The timestamp is off though- I believe I took the picture at 11:42 am but am not certain, it may have actually been 11:20 a.m. I’ll e-mail them to you.
-Bryan
Hmm, I wonder if the confusion arose because HAARP is after all the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, which might naturally lead people to think it falls in the High Frequency part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
In fact, as you note, the frequency capabilites of HAARP are in the range 1Mhz, to 15Mhz, which put in the Low Frequency part of the spectrum.
This apparent contradiction is due to HAARP using High Frequency Radio Waves, so it’s a high part of the low part of the spectrum. See:
(note this is the other way around from the previous image, lower is on the left).
So you can see, although HAARP is correct in saying it uses High Frequency radio waves, they are not particularly high frequency when it comes to the full electromagnetic spectrum. Now if HAARP was actually EHFAARP, you might have a problem.
based upon the stated ability of HAARP to accelerate electrons to KeV or MeV levels it has to be to the left of the chart.
I wish it stayed as radio waves but based upon the Naval / AF paper it has to be gamma, x-ray or UVL. Cool chart.
If the HAARP array can produce an aurora effect, plasma discharge, and a light show it is creating an ionizing effect.
That is in part why many physicists get spooked by HAARP, as HAARP has demonstrated ionizing effects already.
In nearly everything I have read about attempts to get energy from the vacuum, (so called ‘free energy’) there is
critical attention placed on a very high speed pulsing. HAARP mentions in their own data pulsing energy this way as well.
The conspiratorial crowd takes the Begich info. and runs with it, there are stories of dead carribou in Alaska, and human deaths from an alleged ozone hole created by HAARP that eventually aligned itself over Siberia, other tinhatters claim airline crashes have occurred from these arrays as well as claiming HAARP has caused bizarre weather over Iraq. Also claims supposedly from radio operators that HAARP increased its signal during both Rita and Katrina. Also claims of a thunderstorm in Russia where black clouds appeared suddenly, large hail accompanied by thunder that sounded unlike any thunder the locals had ever heard before (1000 times louder)
-All just wild web-mania speculation probably, …hopefully.
Regards, -B
Which Navel/ AF paper? If you mean this one:
http://foia.abovetopsecret.com/ultimate_UFO/Advanced/HAARPResearchAndApplications.pdf
then it says nothing about any radiation that has a higher frequency than visual light.
Where has HAARP demonstrated ionizing effects? They say:
http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/ion4.html
Uncinus wrote;
“But where does it say that altering the ionosphere will affect the weather?”
The HAARP FAQ website states;
“…If the ionospheric storms caused by the sun itself don’t affect the surface weather, there is no chance that HAARP can do so either.”
So we are arguing semantically now.
I actually think that your question is much more scientifically sound than the HAARP FAQ’s statement. The HAARP FAQ thing
is rather trickily worded. It is not well stated at all. Hopefully they are reading along and will remove it entirely.
I still suspect that lifting and / or tearing a hole in the ionosphere isn’t such a good idea and can ripple outwards or worse.
Begich in his book claims that a never before seen pocket was created just above the ionosphere after one HAARP experiment.
The clarification of High Frequency makes sense -high in the radio wave spectrum but I think there is a focusing effect that
can cause the frequency to do things that normal radio waves don’t do.
-Bryan
I’m certainly not arguing semantically. It’s quite a simple question: Can HAARP affect the weather?
I think the following two statements are true:
A) HAARP only affects the ionosphere
B) The ionosphere does not affect the weather.
Now, if those are true, then HAARP cannot affect the weather.
You disputed A by claiming HAARP used ionizing radiation, which I’ve shown you is not true, as was likely a confusion in naming.
You disputed B by giving several links showing how cosmic rays affect the weather, but I explained how that is irrelevant, as the ionosphere is not the source of those rays.
Can HAARP affect the weather? That is not a semantic question.
There is a semantics angle to the difference in your statement and HAARP’s statement.
This paper discusses ionization by HAARP. It validates my claim that the HAARP website is garbage as
do the books that I have linked.
Taken from the Naval / AF paper and in direct contradiction to the HAARP website claim that they are not creating new ionization;
http://www.viewzone.com/haarp.exec.html -this document is different than the one you sourced recently and much more intriguing
with detailed discussion of ionization in direct contrast to the PR website;
and this;
Currently most information available states that HAARP is now the most powerful transmitter array on the planet although there
is chatter that there is another array in Alaska even more powerful than HAARP, I couldn’t substantiate that as there is no
documentation.
So, if HAARP is now more powerful than anything the Russians have, we are capable of stimulating ionization.
HAARP can cause ionization, the action is EM more than thermal, ionization and weather, do they relate?
If haarp can cause plasmas to appear in the air, there is ionization occuring.
Uncinus your second chart, where is the ELF on that chart? It should be shown on the far left
Regards,
Bryan
Plasmas = new ionization, true power generating capability and changing the chemical composition of the upper atmosphere
Here’s a bit about the power capability of HAARP Uncinus and Jazzrock;
THE AMPLIFICATION EFFECT
Another aspect of HAARP that is extremely important is a non-linear effect. Researchers at Stanford University discovered that if you put energy into the upper ionosphere and magnetosphere, in the ULF range (ultra low frequency range), you can create a catalyst which causes natural energy to be released. They found that the signal sent up was amplified by a thousand times when it arrived there. HAARP, when it is fully completed, will have ONE BILLION WATTS OF EFFECTIVE RADIATIVE POWER. If you can manipulate that energy to get the amplification effect, it is huge. They have also created some new signal amplifiers. According to patents, transferring energy through this transmitter into huge Mylar reflectors and bouncing the signal back to the earth to where it can be re-introduced to the energy grid, is supposed to be economically feasible in the next couple of years. The problem is that if the reflector moves only slightly, you may have a path of energy rolling through your neighbourhood. Research also suggests that by using this instrument, you could actually change the chemical composition of the upper atmosphere.
WEATHER MODIFICATION
The idea that HAARP can be used for affecting weather systems is pretty startling to us. HAARP researchers felt that manipulating weather systems would be advantageous in terms of drought control, and producing rainfall where it is needed. With HAARP, you can create a column-shaped hole with a diameter of 30 miles that rises a couple of hundred kilometers through the atmosphere. The lower atmosphere then moves up the column to fill in that space, and it changes pressure systems below. The fact is, that it can literally be used to divert or alter the course of jet streams.
The April/May 00 issue of Scientific American is about weather, and there is a specific article on the effects of a slight bend in the jet stream. This slight change happened to occur right above the HAARP facility. That little movement caused a storm front 4,000 miles away in east Texas and Louisiana to move into central Florida where it deposited a couple of tornadoes. This is interesting but it is not conclusive that it was a cause and effect relationship. However, weather modification is certainly possible with only a slight change. In fact, the European Space Agency contracted Bernard Eastlund, and in 1998 he completed a paper on how to knock out tornadoes using HAARP instruments on the ground. That paper was peer-reviewed and presented in Italy and it was widely accepted, in fact, so much so, that NASA and FEMA contracted Bernard Eastlund to do further research on weather modification using satellite-based technology and this was published in late 1999, early 2000.
The problem is we cannot model the entire global system. We don’t even understand fully how the weather operates. And yet, the experiments go on. The issue of weather modification is disturbing because we have treaties that forbid it. The last three secretaries of defense have all suggested reopening that treaty because there would be significant military advantage.
3. Earth penetrating tomography is one of the primary uses of HAARP. HAARP can act like a broadcast antenna and sends a signal back to the earth in the ELF (extremely low frequency) range, that can pass through the earth and sea for several kilometers for communication with submarines or determining underground nuclear facilities, tunnels, and defining mineral strata.
Problems with using HAARP for Earth Penetrating Tomography
Brooks Agnew, a specialist in the area of earth penetrating tomography, did research back in the 1970s using 30 watts of electricity to send a signal into the earth to locate underground oil and gas deposits. Brooks used only 30 watts of power, but he said that if you increased this to a few thousand watts, you could possibly create problems that you don’t anticipate, in other words you might trigger geophysical events within the earth. This statement was echoed in a lecture given by the previous Secretary of Defense, Cohen, on April 27, 1997 at the University of Georgia. He was speaking on weapons of mass destruction and he asserted that “electromagnetic waves can be used to stimulate geophysical events such as earthquakes, climate change, volcanic eruptions and the like”. In fact, there is an international treaty going back to 1977 forbidding the use of weapon technologies which do these very same things. The fact that we might trigger a geophysical event using this system, has been and continues to be a major concern. Secretary of Defense Cohen also stated that this is being used in an ecotype of terrorism, whereby they can alter climate, set off earthquakes and volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves. You can bring it up on the DOD’s website and see it yourself.
the above is excerpted from http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=20011005223152
The problem is that the HAARP FAQ statement does not work. It is a bogus statement really. The earth’s weather is affected during periods of ionospheric storms. It’s like they are saying the aurora borealis does not effect the earths weather, therefore HAARP can’t either. The sun’s variable solar wind activity which illuminates the aurora display, now THAT is what can effect the earth’s weather.
HAARP does a great deal more than create an aurora, it can be used to make defense shields, tap into the earth grids vast EM energy field, communicate half way around the world, cause explosions, create lightning ( weather ) and cause ionization events.
It’s not me saying it. It’s our Governments own document that I sourced above. I haven’t even gotten into what the Russians say their array and ours can do. It is evident that the HAARP website is not an honest source of data based solely on the Joint Naval and AF document, since I expect you may start to resort to character assassinations very soon (Nick Begich, that crazy Bernard Eastland etc.)
-Bryan
That documents states explicitly that HAARP can NOT do those things:
http://www.viewzone.com/haarp.exec.html
See, they are quite clear that it would require microwave radiation. HAARP only produces radiation in the HF band of the radio spectrum, so it can’t be doing the things you suggest.
So, for the statement to be bogus, either:
A) Disturbances in the ionosphere must affect surface weather
and/or
B) HAARP must affect something other than the ionosphere.
I’ve discussed a lot of reasons why these are not true. Could you clarify which, or both, or those statements you still think are true, and why? I’m starting to think there is a logic disconnect somewhere.
Uncinus there is a logic disconnect you read and somehow it slides off you like teflon, drink some coffee, do some
jumping jacks, something.
The document specifically says that it will be able to do stimulate ions once power generation is increased (power generation has
been upgraded since the publication of this document)
Read again this;
The Soviets, operating at higher powers than the West, now have claimed significant stimulated ionization by electron-impact ionization. The claim is that HF energy, via wave-particle interaction, accelerates ionospheric electrons to energies well in excess of 20 electron volts (eV) so that they will ionize neutral atmospheric particles with which they collide. Given that the Soviet HF facilities are several times more powerful than the Western facilities at comparable mid-latitudes, and given that the latter appear to be on a threshold of a new “wave-particle” regime of phenomena, it is believed that the Soviets have crossed that threshold and are exploring a regime of phenomena still unavailable for study or application in the West.
Effective-Radiated-Power (ERP)
The AIM project is a good one though and is an example of ability to modify weather as well. AIM can be used in conjunction with
satellites and or earth based arrays as well.
As for B, HAARP can effect weather,
Read this;
http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=20011005223152
As for what happens when HAARP creates a bubble in the atmosphere, the air underneath is is moved into new position.
That is weather modification. HAARP generates way more than enough power by accessing existing power in the earth’s grid
to change weather on earth. HAARP can create lightning (certainly you agree with that by now) Lightning is weather friend
there is no mystery to that nor that HAARP can create it.
Don’t read the stuff with out listening and paying attention. It is ridiculous that you ignore so much and make me re-gurgitate
it again and again and again.
Begich and Eastland are legitimate sources for HAARP info. The HAARP website is not.
That would be evident to you if you were not the teflon man.
-Bryan
I must fly off for a while.
Part of the problem Uncinus is that you obviously don’t believe what you read unless it is the HAARP PR website.
Somehow all the other stuff you read you deny. Get over it, haarp can easily modify weather. This has been
known for some time by many people. It really isn’t a big deal or that controversial. HAARP can’t discuss the
real applications because it is DOD. If they slap China with an earthqauke as a warning they don’t want it widely discussed (it still
is, many EU countries reported on their newscasts that HAARP did it – I don’t know but they certainly are
capable of it. I already linked you the data lol. The data for HAARP’s true capabilities is extremely robust. I have
pointed you to 2 of the finest books on the subject but there are many more documents that you can research.
It’s interesting stuff, the new warfare, is so very different than combating armored tanks and guns.
Later,
Bryan
I’d ecourage people to look at Begich’s web site, and judge for themselves:
http://www.earthpulse.com/
I’d also like to know how HAARP creates lightning.
If the molecules/ions/particles are accelerated by HAARP’s focussable beam, then a HOLE is not what will be produced.
What will be produced will be an INCREASE IN PRESSURE (Boyle’s Law).
NOTHING will “rush in to fill the hole”.
If anything, the accelerated volume will EXPAND a little. The expansion of such a low-pressure phenomenon in the first place is NOT likely to “depress” the denser atmosphere beneath it.
These statements have nothing to do with physics or truth.
Clear as a bell out today, I can see way over 50 miles in all directions. I guess the chemtrail sprayers have the day off
(tongue firmly in cheek)
Yes Begich’s website is non-traditional.
I would encourage people when they review a paper by Patrick Mcginnis to look at the date of the paper and
then consider that his ’science’ has very possibly been politicized by the Bush Regime. It is well accepted that
atmospheric and climatic science has been very much distorted due to political agendas during the last 8 years
(that we know of.) The concern with the established scientific community is well known by those who pay
attention to the evolution of scientific knowledge.
I’ll get back to you when I can source the lightning info. to an adequate level.
Peace,
Bryan
HAARP has noting to do with contrails. Why is this even being discussed?
Yeah, I got sucked in. Back on topic everyone!
Weather manipulation does have a relationship with chemtrails, not contrails Ross.
I’m not even close to proving chemtrails but I’m not giving up.
The reason I can’t let chemtrails drop entirely is in looking at Government papers which
cause alarm bells to go off.
An example is that the best evidence of NASA not being honest is in the NASA data itself.
NASA information is the data that shows they are not being honest. Same thing with
chemtrails. While I don’t believe that a chemtrail program is related to the majority of
contrails in the skies, I still think there is testing and use of chemtrails for communications,
defense applications etc.
Here’s an article on artificial lightning. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080414082517.htm This is the publicly available stuff. Note in the article it discusses the next step CREATING lightning by using more sophisticated high speed pulsing of energy (laser in this case) The high speed pulsing is being used now by
HAARP and if you look at Eastlund’s patents -in use today at HAARP, AIM etc.
you quickly see that the pulsing is very advanced ala Tesla.
I’m glad you brought up AIM Uncinus, as AIM is also Eastlund stuff and is a weather
modifier as well.
The power generation of HAARP becomes amplified exponentially by the high
speed pulsing.
Uncinus where is your link on Bernard Eastlund’s credentials? Or on Tesla’s? Seems most disingenuous to not
include a link for people to look up his biography since his work is the basis for HAARP.
It is not Begich’s science that is the basis for HAARP.
Peace,
Bryan
Jazzrock,
You are essentially saying the Bernard Eastlund and Tesla have nothing to do with
physics or truth. Good luck with that !
-Bryan
Ross, RFMP>VTRPE>DUCTING>HAARP>ATMOSPHERIC RF DUCT>barium salts>CHEMTRAILS.
All just pie in the sky, thought experiments, futuristic 22nd century research and hallucinations according to Uncinus and Jazzrock… except that they aren’t.
There are known problems with ducting over land (see Naval documents) that need fixing and through the use of Vulcan like technology they have been solved. The solution is BARIUM.
Why is barium special? It is amazingly conductive to energy input. There are so many papers, and so much research
done on the subject that is would make your head spin (again, all just thought experiments per Uncinus, Jazzrock).
The information is out there.
Bernard Eastlund has done some work on how Barium can be employed. Several of his ‘patents’ are already
in use (for 2 well documented examples see HAARP and AIM-also known weather modifiers)
This is why we went wayyyyyy off subject into the made up world of HAARP capabilities… except that they aren’t made
up.
High speed pulsing (as many as 30,000 pulses per SECOND) and resonance are 2 keys to the mystery (Tesla did this with astonishingly powerful effects such as the creation of lightning)
As a further note, I’ve linked documents to the above in the past and won’t do so again since a real discussion of DOD chemtrails
appears to be outside of the interests of this website.
The effects commonly referred to as ‘orbs’ appear to be closely related to barium and energy input, they are often seen
in photos taken of chemtrails / contrails. Uncinus has pointed out that they are ‘birds, balloons etc. and sometimes they
probably are. Many times those shooting persistent contrail videos and photos do not see the orbs until examining the
pics or videos as they are quite small. U tube has many videos of these birds and balloons for your viewing.
As Jazzrock and Uncinus will tell you, don’t take my word for it go out and research it. Read about Tesla and the
close similiarity between his patent the Eastlund patent that aligns very closely with the HAARP facility.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_tesla.htm
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/haarp/esp_HAARP_12.htm
Remember, plate tectonics was ridiculed at first, the Wright brothers were scientifically shredded and currently there
are strong political reasons to not believe HAARP, AIM and barium salts are being deployed. Naval employees are
on record as saying that Eastlund is crazy etc.
“Theories have four stages of acceptance:
i) this is worthless nonsense;
ii) this is an interesting, but perverse, point of view.
iii) this is true but quite unimportant.
iv) I always said so.”
– J.B.S. Haldane, 1963
“All great truths began as blasphemies” – George Bernard Shaw
We now return you to your regularly scheduled program;
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/aviation/contrails.pdf
Regards,
Bryan
“The mind likes a strange idea as little as the body likes a strange protein and resists it with similar energy. It would not perhaps be too fanciful to say that a new idea is the most quickly acting antigen known to science. If we watch ourselves honestly we shall often find that we have begun to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated.” – Wilfred Trotter, 1941
“The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false.” -Paul Johnson
“Reality is far stranger than conspiracy” – me and no doubt countless others.
unaccepted science:
* Ball lightning (lacking a theory, it was long dismissed as retinal afterimages)
* Catastrophism (ridicule of rapid Earth changes, asteroid mass extinctions)
* Child abuse (before 1950, doctors were mystified by “spontaneous” childhood bruising)
* Cooperation or altruism between animals (versus Evolution’s required competition)
* Instantaneous meteor noises (evidence rejected because sound should be delayed by distance)
* Mind-body connection (psychoneuroimmunology, doctors ridiculed any emotional basis for disease)
* Perceptrons (later vindicated as Neural Networks)
* Permanent magnet levitation (“Levitron” shouldn’t have worked)
If one researches the possibility that HAARP or similar technology created the China earthquake they should also
look into the same lights being reported over the midwest U.S. during the flood of 1993.
For further research into weather modification related to chemtrails;
* International Committee of the Red Cross, Expert Meeting on Certain Weapons Systems and on Implementation Mechanisms in International Law ,July 1994;
* Metz, Kievit, The Revolution In Military Affairs And Conflict Short Of War, Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College at 9 (July 1994);
* Heating Up The Air Waves, Jane’s Defense Weekly, Vol. 23, No.13;
* Hayeslip, Preszler, NIJ Initiative On Less-Than-Lethal Weapons, National Institute of Justice at 16-18 ,March 1993;
* Edwardson, The Right To Prevent The Commission Of International Crimes, International Health And Alternative Medicine Conference (October 9-10, 1993);
* Smith, Best, Electromagnetic Man, Chapter 10 (St. Martin’s Press, N.Y. 1989)
When I say that we can and are manipulating weather, I am met with vehement derision here.
yet really all I am saying is that we can scale this http://www.physorg.com/news68812957.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9293-physicists-create-great-balls-of-fire.html
up and the information for doing so exists, the lab that is creating it is HAARP.
It is really so hard to believe we can scale this up??? Why? Think, reason, investigate, LEARN.
Peace,
Bryan
Tesla is still being scoffed at here and elsewhere.
-Bryan
Tesla is not being scoffed at. Tesla was a good scientist – if perhaps a little prone to hyperbole and self-promotion.
If anything is being scoffed at it is those who invoke the good name of Tesla in the pursuit of a particular brand of pseudoscience. Really – to suppose that technology created 80 years ago can create remote earthquakes and nobody would have written a thing about it in all that time. Don’t you find that a little odd?
You talk about chemtrails – could you even define what you think a chemtrail is? What does it look like? What does it do? How many are there?
Uncinus, I’ve seen another physicist dismissing HAARP make the same claim about invoking the good name of Tesla, then that same person went into zero detail about Tesla’s work and how it aligns closely with Eastlund’s work and HAARP. What I find odd (reality being so much stranger than conspiracy) is that Tesla reputedly drove a car without using any oil, or that Tesla technology lost out to JP Morgan who destroyed much of his work. Tesla’s treatment by the established scientific community is definitely ‘odd.’ Those who claim Tesla’s good name is maligned become silent when it comes to Tesla saying he could harness energy from the earth itself. That is odd -definitely.
I find it odd that you would write here that no one has written a thing about it in all that time. I referred you to Gerry Vassilatos
book already. For a really interesting look at Tesla’s technology I would refer you to John Bedini or Edwin Gray or Dr. Eugene Mallove. 2 of the 3 are dead under bizarre circumstances and Bedini’s work is well outside of established science despite the fact that his work aligns closely to Tesla’s.
Another stream of info. that is most bizarre is Steven E. Jones relationship to dispelling cold fusion and then his relationship to
mis-direction in 911 investigations. Dis-information is his specialty.
Your comment is a great example of my previous quotes about the scientific establishment and the difficulty in getting to truth
due to politics, greed and control issues.
Indeed Tesla IS being scoffed at by his science still actively being kept out of the mainstream. HAARP is a net energy creater
just as Tesla claimed he could do with his Tower. Where is Tesla’s tower in todays world, Uncinus?
Uncinus wrote;
The subject of barium in chemtrails is well traversed. It is not up for discussion here because…
“The mind likes a strange idea as little as the body likes a strange protein and resists it with similar energy. It would not perhaps be too fanciful to say that a new idea is the most quickly acting antigen known to science. If we watch ourselves honestly we shall often find that we have begun to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated.” – Wilfred Trotter, 1941
To you barium is a strange subject. You resist it because it requires too much serious consideration and it doesn’t have a Government stamp of approval. It is most uncomfortable to you just as the orbs are. The orbs exist in photos, videos and
much personal testimony yet you object before you have even listened or payed attention. Your current belief system is
far too entrenched even when contrary evidence is available.
-Bryan
Tesla was not a “good scientist.” He was likely the greatest genius ever. Einstein stated he was not the smartest man alive, he stated that Tesla was. Why did I not learn about Tesla like I did Einstein when being mis-educated? Why? Look into it, seriously.
-Bryan
See how well Mallove got along with the established scientific community and where it landed him,
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2004/07/27/scientists_violent_death_shocks_cold_fusion_research_network/
Then look at Steven E. Jones involvement with dispelling it. Fascinating. The Tesla ‘death ray’ is in the hands of black projects.
The chance of it seeing the light of day to benefit mankind is nearly zero (it is free energy)
Then look at how building 7 came down and think about resonance and high speed pulsing as exists with in the framework
of HAARP (Eastlund did the REAL Tesla science)
Now, what am I doing? I am ‘pursuing tesla technology which is called pseudoscience by you and the other
entrenched mainstream scientific community. Tesla technology was destroyed by those who were greedy. This is
not made up. It is the ‘real’ history which is continually being re-worked by the elite and you are following the
bread crumbs of the establishment which is the same as scoffing at Tesla.
-B
How is Tesla science called pseudoscience? Tesla said that through resonance he could do amazing things (hyperbole according
to the breadcrumb followers) such as make a ‘deathray’ Ahh wacky crazy, insane you say. How dare you slander the great Tesla you say. Well the dis-association of metals through resonance has been demonstrated repeatedly.
Here’s the super crazy nutty bizarre bloke who has done it. His name is John Hutchinson. The U.S. Government studied his work in
fact at Los Alamos (the official story of their investigation of the Hutchinson effect is ridiculous and worth a look)
Hutchinson’s work is the REAL Tesla stuff although Hutchinson doesn’t have the mind that Tesla did and has serious control issues
with the technology. The treatment of Hutchinson is that he / “it” is pseudoscience. …and so it goes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeUgDJc6AWE
Now imagine the Government working with this FOR MORE THAN 30 years, with the best minds in the world. Do you think that
maybe they have advanced it a bit more than John? Come on now, think.
pseudoscience lol. Ahhh the establishment that’s right. IMPOSSIBLE, how dare you slander Tesla again lol.
-B
Brown’s Gas and the Hutchinson effect are both examples of Tesla technology and both of them are covered up and ridiculed.
Modern examples of scoffing at Tesla.
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/8863/HEffect1.html
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/
http://www.svpvril.com/svpweb9.html
Brown’s gas is basically what Stanley Meyers was doing. Stanley Meyers is dead.
You will find him under ‘pseudoscience’ which is scoffing at Tesla.
If you come away accepting the vast amount of data on the internet stating that Meyer’s was a fraud, that’s great, good
for you for following the breadcrumbs of the establishment. Take more time though and study Brown’s gas. That’s great it
exists, but is not a net creator. Good job, you’ve been bought and sold by the mainstream scientific community.
How did you gloss over the effects and amazing properties of brown’s gas? Did you know that it can take radioactive Nuclear
waste and render it inert? No? That’s because it is ‘pseudoscience’ and because Tesla is still being scoffed at today.
-B
Why are so many ‘pseudo scientists’ who are forwarding radiant energy concepts (slandering the great Tesla-who’s true genius is not discussed or even accepted) dead under strange circumstances Uncinus. Why? Come on now REALLY think, I dare ya.
-B
Wouldn’t any plane that spews out JP-8 be a ‘chem’ trail Uncinus? Are you well versed in the concerns with JP-8 and the EDB that is a component of JP-8? Have you looked at the Government reports detailing how Government pilots become ill more than other
Government employees? The Government data implicates JP-8. I’m sure you’ve already taken a look at that data of course.
No need for me to discuss Barium as the data on it’s deployment from aircraft is readily available and has been linked here before.
That we only have a few random admissions of the deployment of barium from aircraft certainly does not mean that it hasn’t been deployed more than we have been told. We just really don’t know. As for how the chemtrails look I think it is safe to say that they look and behave much like contrails wouldn’t you agree? Or does this ‘cloud’ the issue a bit more than you would prefer.
-Bryan
Uncinus,
How about the Shuman Resonance, how does that relate to oil deposit searching capabilities, submarine communication and causing earthquakes. Yes, I am invoking the good name of Tesla AND HAARP capabilities all in the same sentence.
Bryan, it’s getting hard to take your Tesla worship seriously, you seem quite worked up about it. perhaps you need to step back a little from statements like:
Is it slandering someone to doubt their claims in the absence of evidence? Sure Tesla was genius, one of the most important scientists in history, making great strides forward in magnetic fields, AC power tansmission, induction motors, etc. There’s a good page on him at Wikipedia, that has a huge list of his contributions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla
Now, if these other inventions that you describe were real and viable, then with the vast advances in science in the 70 years since then it would be a simple matter to duplicate them, and post evidence of them on the internet. The internet is not censored, so why is there no such evidence?
Browns gas, Stanley Meyers water car, John Bedini’s magnetic motor, Edwin Gray, not censored, but when they get to the point
of putting it in the hands of the public they are bought out or killed. It not really so simple to duplicate the high speed pulsing
sequences by the way. This is seen in the difficulty of those attempting to replicate Tesla’s work today. There are some small
sucesses often but difficulty in harnessing what was easy for Tesla.
Wiki is an absolutely hilarious way to get to know Tesla. Very good of you to follow the breadcrumbs of the scientific establishment Uncinus.
One theory of why we do not see these inventions powering our Airplanes and vehicles is that the same technology is a nightmare
in the wrong hands. -You might even say a ‘deathray’ lol. There is probably an element of truth to that. Or perhaps factions of
Governments and other elite don’t want you to know that we have the ability to (today-for some time actually) to travel amongst the stars and I am paraphrasing from the former head of skunkworks Ben Rich n a speech he gave at UCLA some time ago.
So its about control really and there are many attempting replications of Tesla’s best work today. Join a discussion group, many of them exist. You are after all saying that they are all ‘pseudoscientists’. Why not take a look, really take a look.
Except that you prefer the cozy confines of your accepted belief system which includes that if all this were real it would be available
to you and I. See my quotes on the scientific process again. There is evidence of them look DEEPLY into brown’s gas, because
the internet is full of mis-direction by the entrenched scientists as Gene Mallove discovered.
-Peace,
Bryan
HAARP is Tesla, Eastlund is Tesla. Once again I am boxing a glacier because if wiki doesn’t talk about it – it can’t exist.
numbers i) and ii) from J.B.S. Haldane, once in a while you like to toss in a number iii) as in yeah HAARP exists so what
without looking at the relationship between Tesla patent and Eastlund patent and the HAARP microwave transmitter.
-Bryan
So, 70 years ago, Tesla claimed to have invented all these amazing things, but nobody today can demonstrate that they work.
So why do you think they work?
Shouldn’t we be discussing JP-8 and contrails?
Sure, we are discussing that over here:
http://contrailscience.com/barium-chemtrails/#comment-6477
But I think there’s a related topic here. Where do you get your information? If you think the “the internet is full of mis-direction”, then how do you discern the thread of truth? How exactly are you picking out what is true, and discarding what is false?
Have you considered at all that your own preconceptions might be playing a role in what you select as true? If you already believe that Tesla’s genius was suppressed, then will you automatically reject all evidence to the contrary?
True science is not about pushing a position. It is about finding models that best represent observable facts. It does this with verifiable evidence. Since nobody has ever demonstrated any evidence of the toxic effects of contrails at ground level, then we can assign such claims the same weight as we assign Tesla’s claim of being able to beam energy to other planets.
http://www.tesla-coil-builder.com/Articles/july_11_1937.htm
Good point Uncinus. I am going to reflect more on that and try to remember to keep it close as I go forward.
Discernment…
http://www.infoniac.com/hi-tech/nasa-strike-moon-with-double-sledgehammer.html
These are exciting times for new paradigms in science.
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/1126/2
The red rains (seen in Kerala, India recently http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/080122_red-rain.htm ) are an amazing phenomenon as well and there is evidence that many meteors show signs of biological life as well.
The primary researcher working on the Viking mission has never backed down from his claim that evidence
of life on Mars was discovered more than 30 years ago.
http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/viking_life_010728-1.html
http://www.spherix.com/PressRelease/pr072903.html
In looking at these issues I also ask for the gift of discernment. …cue Jazzrock lol .
-Bryan
Life on Mars? Now we are really getting off topic
Levin has the same data as everyone else does, he just comes to a different conclusion.
The problem is that there is not enough data to come to ANY conclusion. Nobody knows why the LR experiments gave the results they did. Time will tell.
But does this have anything to do with contrails? Perhaps you should start your own blog to more fully expound your theories. I’m afraid they are not doing much useful sitting in my comments.
Except that they relate to scientific inquiry, the stubbornness of the entrenched (funded) scientific community and how long it often takes for controversial ideas to see the light of day.
Hello again gentlemen, nice to see the discussion seems to be running at full tilt thanks to some input from Bryan, this makes for very interesting reading.
Poor Bryan, we now have JazzRoc trying to beat him down, or is he holding him whilst Unc tries to give him a good kicking? Don’t worry Bryan, I will hold your coat for you.
Here is proof that some people actually worship the humble “chemtrail”. The guys who sprayed this one were playing a practical joke on the people of Turkey. Must be a great job to have.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=uZeaftWQxFk&feature=related
Regards to all – Bruce
.
Ironically, the more efficient an engine is, the more of the fuel is combusted, so more water is produced?????? So the more modern an engine is, the more likely it is to produce a persistent contrail.
Somthing wrong here? An engine can not produce water!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! only consume it. To much water= engine problem.
Birger, when jet fuel burns, it makes mostly carbon dioxide and water. Exactly the same as with cars.
Birger:
You know NO science, do you? Kerosine (chemical name DECANE) is a hydrocarbon which when ignited will burn to carbon dioxide and water.
The combustion formula goes:
2*C10H22 + 31*O2 -> 20*CO2 + 11*H2O, or
DECANE + OXYGEN -> CARBON DIOXIDE + WATER
Asterisks are used here to represent the numbers of the molecules, and the oxygen is a 21% constituent of air.
The true combustion formula would actually a lot more complicated than that, as aviation kerosine (JP-8) is a fractionation of petroleum approximately of the same molecular weight as kerosine, with smaller molecules removed because of their dangerously low flashpoints, and larger molecules removed because of their tendency to freeze into waxes at low temperatures.
There are actually 166 separate isomers approximating kerosine in JP-8, but the predominant part of the fuel IS kerosine. The differing isomers tend to assist combustion performance, damping resonances in flame propagation, and helping complete combustion.
Contrary to Bryansail’s repeated (and baseless) assertions, there is NO ethylene dibromide in JP-8. Its only use was as a combustion chamber solvent for gasoline engines using leaded petrol before the start of the seventies – it combined with the lead oxide to form lead bromide vapor, and prevented “leading up” of the head space, piston crown, and exhaust valves.
Claims of “poisoning” by JP-8 are basically true, but it is the decane isomers (many of them mutagens) which are the cause, and not (non-existent) EDB…
The JP-8 debate would hold a lot more creedence if all the fuel handlers, refiners, motorpool maintainers,grounds people, etc, who are in actual CONTACT with the fuel had a higher disease rate, rather than the pilot who never intentionally touches the fuel! Heck, there are even people running it in their diesel trucks!
Regarding “chemtrails”, I am waiting for something a little more concrete. I have seen no concrete evidence that it is anything other than enhanced condensation due to the increased efficiency of modern turbofans. Seems that the mid to late ’90s were the watershed days for the beginnings of the “chemtrail” era. Coincidentally, this is the same time that the newer, very efficient turbofans from GE and Rolls Royce began replacing the older, less efficient models. As with anything of this scale, it took years for the conversions to happen.
As far as older accounts, I read a B-17 pilots report that said that the contrails were sometimes so persistent that they could follow them many hours later back towards the bombing areas.
The fact that the chemtrail proponents keep changing their story regarding what chemtrails are composed of, and what they are for, means they are on a fishing expidition. Sometimes it is arial spraying of biotoxins for experiments. Other times it is barium or aluminum for radar and radio wave propagation. And, now, it is for seeding climate changes. Once this latest is shown to be unlikely, what will be next? As proposed before, if all the proponents got together and put in $5 each, they could charter a plane, rent some good, reliable lab equipment (not some scrapings off a home air ionizer!!), and put this thing to rest once and for all. I’m not counting on it happening any time soon!
Just wanted to say that in 24 years i had never seen any of these contrails in the city where i live. The first time and only time i was one it was at an extremely low altitude, i thought it was a trail of some sort but i wasnt sure where it came from until i accidently found everything about chemtrails/contrails on youtube, i’ve only seen one over these skies in 24 years, i just thought that was a bit suspicious.
Oh and i also like to mention that after i saw this contrail/chemtrails weather has been very unusual on this city, never in 60 years my parents had ever seen sun dogs, cirrus clouds, giant rainbows, etc on these skies.
The fact that some people believe that these chemtrails are related to weather modification makes me wonder if this changes in our weather are actually being caused by a weather modification program.
That’s the thing about unusual weather – it does not happen very often.
You live somewhere where contrails are rare because of the weather. On a rare day when the weather was forming sun-dogs, etc, you also saw a contrail.
Sometimes you get unusual weather, it’s a fact of life.
Thats no exactly what happened Uncinus. Me and my brother saw a large contrail just on top of our house at a very low altitude – it was the first time we saw something like this so we were not sure what it was.
I had seen jets leaving contrails which faded after a few seconds so seeing a persistent contrail caught my attention.
It was after this event that the weather changed dramatically over the next few weeks, we could see sun dogs, cirrus clouds, rainbows, stuff which not even my parents who have lived here for more than 50 years have witnessed before. Not to mention that there was even a devastating earthquake which destroyed a whole town where I live.
The fact that there exists a weather modification program is a bit suspicious and i think its irresponsible to ignore these facts.
I think its important to keep an open mind about this issue.
Regards.
I think this is a bit suspicious, what do you think?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRnT-NXGIPI
Just watch the video, it doesnt matter what he is saying.
You live in Peru? Are you talking about the unusual weather in 2007, and the Aug 16 2007 Earthquake, or something more recent? You know Peru is prone to earthquakes, so why do you think this is significant?
Your video I do not think is unusual – it shows a broken contrail, as explained here:
http://contrailscience.com/broken-contrails/
Yes i am in peru and i know we have earthquakes around here, but like i said the persistent contrail, the earthquake, the cirrus clouds, the sun dogs and the giant rainbows are things I have only seen after I saw this gigantic and persistent contrail above my house.
Here are a few videos :
This is the solar halo which appeared over the devastated city a few weeks after the earthquake, very rare to see around here, i’ve never seen one until now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7T_A5gNHxU
–
This is a contrail and a rainbow seen In Mocegua-Peru in January 2008, i dont know if you understand spanish but the people who recorded this are confused about the nature of the object, which probably means that we are not used to see persistent contrails on the skies of peru.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjb1RZJeuRg
–
Here is a video of a rainbow on february 23rd 2008 in lima, its very hard to see but its there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NprG7E6ssxk
–
Here is another rainbow video from march 2008 in lima.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOWNNiY3WEo
–
November 2008 in lima
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg6j3hn_0os
–
And the latest february 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5oyWtI1DTk
As you can see this type of sightnings are becoming more usual since the earthquake which happened after i saw the first most persistent and largest contrail in my whole life.
Its inevitable to feel a bit suspicious about all this knowing the fact of the existence of a weather modification program involving the creation of artificial clouds.
And what i have to say about the broken contrails is that the one shown in the video i posted is broken in a very suspicious way, too many times over too little time. Now i ask you this, if this were in fact some type of chemtrails forming artificial clouds dont you think the people behind it would know how to make them look like harmless contrails?
Just a thought.
Sorry Halo, but I think that what’s happening is that you are interested in the subject, so you start noticing things, whereas before you were not interested, so you did not notice them. Solar Halos are not that unusual – if you keep watching the sky then you’ll see several every year. Rainbows are even less unusual.
Do you know what makes solar halos? Have a look at this:
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/halo/circular.htm
I really don’t see why you think the broken contrail is “suspicious”. If the air has uneven pockets of humidity, then a plane flying through it will leave a trail exactly like the one you see. This on-off behavior has been observed many many times for nearly a hundred years.
Well the interesting thing is that i am not the only one noticing this rainbows, the videos showing this unusual events (to me and to others i know) began in 2007, around the same time when i saw the contrail and the earthquake happened.
I mean im pretty sure it would be very hard for me to not notice a rainbow or a sun dog in 25 years. My parents had never seen one over these skies until now.
But you’ve not seen any more persistent contrails?
So, if one persistent contrail in Peru can cause earthquakes and a lot of rainbows for several months, then what about those areas of the US where we see tens of persistent contrails EVERY DAY, but with no actual effects.
Consider the possibility that you are simply seeing a period of odd weather. These periods happen. Some years it rains a lot. Some years there’s lots of sun. Some years are windy. Some years have lots of ice in the upper atmosphere. It’s the weather. Has there never been a year in the past that has odd weather?
The only persistent contrail i could see was the one i mentioned.
I remember i saw a video on youtube where some airplanes left a few contrails on the sky and after a few minutes a parhelion was formed.
but that could’ve been just a coincidence.
Something else which i find suspicious is that most of these airplanes look like comercial airplanes although i’ve heard people saying that these planes dont have any logos. Do you know anything about that?
Parhelions can form in contrails, because contrails are made of ice crystals. Here’s a good example:
http://paraselene.de/upload/bilder/108188.jpg
And another where the parhelion is more part of the general condition, but still intersects the contrail.
http://flickr.com/photos/21649179@N00/264140258/
The planes without logos thing is fairly obvious nonsense. Mostly because you can’t see the logos on many planes when they are five miles up. Also, many armed forces planes don’t have many logos, and still have to fly around.
http://flickr.com/photos/joekuby/2344853350/
And of course, you’ll notice these people don’t have photos of these planes with no logos. Because when they take clear photos, it’s very easy to identify the plane.
Ok, thank you for the information Uncinus.
It seems like contrails are rarely formed in Lima, because i’ve only seen the one i told you about.
I’ll have to see if i ever get to see one again.
I guess I’ll start to worry a little if contrails become more usual from one day to another, that would be very strange.
regards.
Halo-
here is another interesting photo with contrails and sundogs…from 1983:
http://www.1000plus.com/Imagic/8301sund.htm
UNcinus, i find it interesting that most if not all the planes you show leaving “contrails” during the 40’s and beyond are military planes..ever hear of chaff?? And yes they do still use it, before you contadict yourself you yourself admitted this in an October 07 reply, these planes are spraying chaff which is NOT a contrail in the conventional sense. I have caught you in several contradictions so please, at least remember what you have posted in the past.
Cheerio
Which planes exactly are spraying chaff?
And for reference can you find a single photo on the internet that is actually admitted to be a plane spraying chaff? Because all the chaff I’ve heard of has been invisible.
It’s very interesting how someone who doesn’t believe in chemtrails would try so hard to convince everyone that they are not real, most people would say ” believe what you want to believe” i mean after all why would it concern you so much that you spend alot of your time and energy trying to convince people they are not real, most people wouldn’t care who beieved they are real or not if they thought they didn’t exist..
A sign of a true disinformation site
I can’t argue with that.
It’s interseting that even in the 40’s the media and certain peoples thought it news worthy enough to report on these “contrails” even back then..why? Because they weren’t NORMAL! The Government was doing testing even back then on aerosol spraying and it’s very well documented that they did this testing throughout the 70’s.
Now i know anything posted here is like pissing into the wind but come on people, WAKE THE HELL UP!! This isn’t mass hysteria coming from millions of people all around the earth, people see that this isn’t normal, yes it can be difficult to wade through all the dissemination of information that the government spreads but do your own home work. Your gut instinct is usually right on track.
It think the reason they were reporting on them is that were highly unusual. There was very little high altitude flight back then in the US, so when people saw them, they had not seen anything like it before, and did not know what it was.
Now, billybob, can you explain WHY you think they are unusual (especially if, as you say, they have been seen since the 1940s)?
Well Uncinus, because we know that when the gov is in testing mode it’s on a limited scale until they get it perfected which at that point they can proceed with the full blown program.
Spit, rinse, repeat ;-(
Here is a very interesting read, it’s quite long but well worth it, scroll down to second article.
http://www.themonsterguide.com/MAGAZINEFeaturesCrowdedSky2.html
So you think that these persistent contrails are a secret program dating back to the 1940s? That’s quite a program.
And your article on chaff. Again, you’ll note that chaff is visually invisible. So how would it be forming these long white trails that persist and spread?
It’s interesting how 3 of my respnses haven’t been posted on your board?? Oh well..I guess they just hit too close to home???
#1 – You obviously didn’t read the whole article (no surprise) for if you had you would understand that it helps neither your opinion nor mine, it’s simply a nice read
#2 Indeed it is quite a program, and not the only one to date back even before then. Shall i support your uneducated mind with tons of links and documents that you will never read??? Why waste my time, other than to shut this disinformation site down???
Spit, rinse, repeate..
I doubt this will even get posted but oh well..oh and your ip address and domain..what are you trying to hide???
There is an official online petition at Number 10 Downing Street right now for an explanation as to what these long lasting contrails/chemtrails are.
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Chemtrail-Sprays/
Hope that helps.
What if the explanation is simply that they are long lasting contrails? That’s certainly consistent with science.
Uncinus, I’ve been reading to most of your debate and is very hard to get around your logic, I don’t claim to know if some of them are chemtrails but you seem to be 100% sure that NONE of these contrails could be a chemtrail, when the truth is you DON’T KNOW for sure, actually some of them could very well be chemtrails is not a ridiculous idea, you claim to be open-minded but you are exactly the opposite, like people that claim for SURE 100% there’s no life outside planet Earth, when the truth is YOU DON’T KNOW FOR SURE, accept it, even science has been proven to be wrong many times,we know science is controlled by the same people who control education, religion, the media your government and everything else so please have some common sense, I really don’t know how can u sit there and tell people this events are perfectly normal and they been going on, you are insulting people’s intelligence all over the world, off course is hard for us to come up with hard evidence cause no one is working on our behalf meanwhile you have all the government institutions and powers at be working to sell the idea that “EVERYTHING IS JUST FINE” just go back to work and don’t worry. To top it off we have to deal with people like you, you either have an agenda, are working for them or you are just an arrogant prick with a lot time on your hands that has the audacity to say YOU KNOW FOR SURE NONE OF THOSE CONTRAILS ARE CHEMTRAILS…the truth is YOU DON’T KNOW, you remind me of of some Christians that say their religion is the only “RIGHT ONE”
Hilarious.
Very true, but the point is that the is NO EVIDENCE that they are not contrails. They look and act just like contrails, so what exactly is it that makes you think they are not?
Do you know about the treaty signed at the U.N. on weather warfare? they acknowledge there that they can cause droughts and floods at will, to drive the people out of the rural areas and into the cities, they have already done it, and use the excuse of global warming to say is the people’s fault and there’s too many of us, don’t you know about several depopulation projects that have been plotted since before the 60’s and are now common knowledge, like global 2000, MKULTRA, project Naomi and the such? ELF and making the sky a superconductor, it all makes a lot more sense to me than your explanations for the unmistakable huge increase on “persistent and expanding Contrails” as you and NASA’s “Contrail Education” calls them. IT”S JUST TOO DAMN FISHY.
Sometimes you gotta follow your GUT and not follow what your beloved scientists and scholars tell you like gospel, as far as I know they are compromised.
anyways good luck with your endeavor, I sure hope you are right;)
Marcus….
let me get this straight….
…a global, clandestine spraying campaign involving…
” several depopulation projects that have been plotted since before the 60’s and are now common knowledge, like global 2000, MKULTRA, project Naomi and the such? ELF and making the sky a superconductor….makes a lot more sense to me than your explanations for the unmistakable huge increase on “persistent and expanding Contrails””
all that makes more sense to you than simple science??
…the microphysical properties of ice, water and soot…combined with the physics of ambient atmospheric conditions is less plausible than a global spraying campaign involving 1000s of planes, 1000s of people for – apparently- multiple purposes…??
Can you explain that??
Moreover, it is not Uncinus’ explanation…it is Science’s explanation…testable, repeatable, observable science that follow the laws of physics…this is what is known as a fact. That is the beauty of science you do not have to “follow what your beloved scientists and scholars tell you like gospel” – you can find out for yourself.
Have you, in fact, researched contrail behavior enough to know that this explanation is not possible??
lol some folks must be new to this planet..
i love airplanes and the sky..i have looked up for 50 years…something has changed..
the contrails are different now….they actually change the weather…
i started noticing this in the late nineties….it’s*new*..
the sky..used to be a beautiful deep blue…now it’s a silvery haze that isn’t exactly cloud-like..and isn’t like pollution… i have old photos…forget the contrails from the past…please notice the colour of the sky…
these ‘chemtrails’ don’t happen every day either..sometimes there are breaks of up to a week… and then, like today….there was an airshow…
we are being sprayed…..’terra-forming and geo-engineering ’specialists’ have been calling for adding aerosols to the sky to reflect the light from the sun back into space for a while now….just google.
when they DO announce chemtrails..and they will…it will be as a counter to global warming…..wait and see.
So just go back to sleep..your gov and the elite loooooooove you!
oh, get a flu shot for the *new* ’summer flu season” lol geeez
Neon.
…why the willful denial??
You say “i have old photos…”
…and yet there are old photos on this very page that contradict everything you assert.
The old photos on this web page and website are just the tip of the iceberg. The historical record and evidence – both scientific and anecdotal- of contrails…and the sky…behaving EXACTLY as you decry is overwhelming and undeniable.
How do you explain that?
This website makes me think. I never believed in the whole “chem trail” theory, until last year. The contrails ARE very different now. And, They ARE changing the weather. I see it every (rare) clear day. They come out around noon time, and by evening there is nothing but artificial clouds, and a white haze covering the whole sky. It looks very intentional, and very creepy if you ask me. It could explain the horrible weather that is happening here in New England.
On the other hand, it could be due to global warming making the air more humid at certain altitudes. that could cause contrails to look different, and “bigger” because it’s happening at a lower altitude now.
Either way, it’s ticking me off. I am missing clear days. I consider it “cloud pollution”.
Luke, it sounds like you haven’t read one thing on this site. Look at the articles in the left hand column, read them and try to understand them. They explain everything you’re observing using science, logic, tests and photographic proof more than 50 years old.
I agree that clear days are much better than overcast ones, but fortunately for us the overcast days apparently aren’t being created by chemicals in the air.
Luke:
Check out WIKI definitions of “troposphere” and “stratosphere”. They show that there a marked change in atmospheric behavior at the TROPOPAUSE.
You can see with your eyes the evidence for this change: it is the altitude where cumulonimbus clouds flatten out to make their “anvil”. It varies from a maximum of 45,000 feet at the Equator to 18,000 feet at the Poles.
Above the tropopause the atmosphere is laminar and stable, quite different from the turbulent unstable atmosphere we are familiar with, with its cumulus clouds.
All the water in the stratosphere is in the form of either (completely invisible) water vapor – or in ice crystal clouds, known as cirrus.
Present-day aviation puts three hundred million tons of water into the stratosphere each year. This can only escape downwards to the troposphere by gaseous diffusion – there is NO RAIN up there to bring the water down in great quantities.
In 1994 a survey put the proportion of stratosphere which was SATURATED with respect to ice at 17% – meaning that at that time, aircraft flying in the stratosphere aircraft would produce PERSISTENT contrails for 17% of their flight time. Since then, passenger aviation has DOUBLED.
This doesn’t mean that the trails have necessarily doubled, of course, but it does mean that from the point of view of local sky coverage with white diffusing trail ice – it’s worse than it was then.
As for how long this has been happening: the first time would have been over Germany in 1943 with thousand-bomber raids.
When did I first notice it? Trying to have a sunny picnic on the downs near Dunstable in 1972. But I knew what the phenomenon was… I knew it was damp already in the stratosphere – there were already cirrostratus and horsetail cirrus clouds up there as the contrails were forming and not dissipating.
But then I didn’t know that horsetail cirrus was Cirrus Uncinus…
Nice try . . . but, no cigar! Few people actually look at the sky anymore so they don’t know what’s what. So it’s like politics, when an observant individual notes something unusual and refers to the unaware, they are unaware that they are unaware. As A Registered Respiratory therapist, it’s my business to know what is harmful for my patients to breathe, this is why I keep a curious eye to the sky and pollen counts. Contrails from jet exhaust fade within a relatively short time, as the water particles cool to ambient temperature and pressure, reverting back to ambient conditions and evaporating. Chemical composites in chemtrails remain in gaseous suspension sometimes for hours. I’m not going to attempt to debunk the photos offered here however this site is relatively new, it hasn’t been here for long. I first started noticing Chemtrails over Central Texas in 1997 from observing a perfectly manufactured cross on a totally cloudless day.
One day driving to Austin I noticed that A military plane that had been spray a fresh trail failed to terminate the spraying as they made approach and landed at Grey Army airbase in Killeen. What is more compelling evidence; other than my eye witness is that the employees of a major US defense contractor have obtained a patent on the spraying of particulates into the atmosphere, or in other words, chemtrails. This startling discovery is the lead story in our latest installment of ATS News with Johnny Anonymous. There are few conspiracy theory subjects as controversial as chemtrails, and this new discovery by a AboveTopSecret.com member adds some startlingly volatile fuel to the fire.
http://media.abovetopsecret.com/media/4842/ATS_News_04_-_US_Defense_Contractor_Owns_Chemtrail_Patent/
So I’ve seen enough evidence to know that there is a concerted effort in planning and implementing a program which sprays chemicals in our atmosphere.
Hehe, nice try yourself. What you probably saw was a common fuel dump. Also “Contrails from jet exhaust fade within a relatively short time, as the water particles cool to ambient temperature and pressure, reverting back to ambient conditions and evaporating.” is completely wrong. Well, if it’s a short live trail, it’s right But, persistent contrails persist BECAUSE the temperature stays low and humidity high in that particular area of the sky. You haven’t “seen evidence” You’ve misunderstood fact. Also, show me that the “spraying of particulates into the atmosphere” apparatus results in trails that look ANYTHING like the trails we see over our houses. You assume SO MUCH!
George:
Well, NO. That’s only ONE of THREE things that may happen. And at the end of your sentence is a MISTAKE.
They AREN’T “water particles”. They are STEAM MOLECULES at 1100 C. They will nucleate upon partially-unburnt kerosine (JP-8) fragments somewhere past ZERO on the way down their temperature drop to MINUS FORTY (Celsius or Fahrenheit), and end up as MICROSCOPIC ICE CRYSTALS.
In VERY DRY AIR (and warmer than -40) these crystals will evaporate as soon, or soon after, they form. The AIR becomes MORE HUMID by the weight of the water added by the plane.
In SATURATED AIR at -40 these crystals have NO PLACE TO EVAPORATE INTO, and so MUST REMAIN. They REMAIN relatively LIGHT IN WEIGHT and their fall rate is low. The AIR becomes POTENTIALLY MORE HUMID by the weight of the added trail. The air CANNOT SUPERSATURATE because the evaporated ice crystal would leave a SEED nucleation particle in saturated air.
In SUPERSATURATED AIR (which by definition would have to be rigorously free of SEED particles, and occurs for at least 17% of the time) the trail ice crystals ACT IMMEDIATELY AS SEED PARTICLES, and rapidly put on weight as they TAKE OUT WATER VAPOR FROM THE AIR. The HEAVIER ICE CRYSTALS INCREASE THEIR FALL RATE and will fall out of the stratospheric layer from which they formed. They may have gained in weight by a factor of TEN THOUSAND. An hour later, in general, these enlarged ice crystals will be SUBLIMING back to water vapor in the UPPER TROPOSPHERE where the temperature is RISING as they are FALLING. Particulates used in the forming of the trail will be released here. The net result of this latter activity is that THE TRAIL BECOMES LESS SUPERSATURATED AFTERWARD. Continued flights through this sector of the stratospheric layer would bring it DOWN to SATURATED.
It could NEVER be true that a passing plane (with its engines on) would leave the air in such stratospheric layers UNAFFECTED – “revert back to ambient conditions”. They MUST leave A HUNDRED POUNDS OF WATER PER MILE. There are already, additionally, MANY TONS of WATER just hanging there as water vapor along that same mile.
The AIR TEMPERATURE up in those layers (where the pressure is just a fifth of what it is down here towards sea level) lowers the saturation pressure with respect to ice. This, on occasion, makes the STRATOSPHERE SPECTACULARLY INTOLERANT of added STEAM.
You get MASSIVE FOUNTAINS of falling ice crystals. I REALLY MEAN MASSIVE. I’m talking EIGHTY THOUSAND TONS OF ICE released over a five-hour flight. Not regularly, just occasionally.
Not regularly, just occasionally, lads and lasses.
THAT was your “evidence” when you said you had “seen enough evidence to know that there is a concerted effort in planning and implementing a program which sprays chemicals in our atmosphere”.
Uh-uh…
Ah two things.
I should have written “THE LAYER BECOMES LESS SUPERSATURATED AFTERWARD”. A typo…
ALL of my account of the three possible outcomes of planes leaving contrails in stratospheric layers (and down to the tropopause) is in fact a simplification of the jargon-ridden details you can derive for yourself from the LINK “Contrails to Cirrus” which you will find on this site page on the left below ARTICLES.
George-
Your knowledge of atmospheric physics is extremely lacking.
Please research “contrail cirrus” and “supersaturated persistent contrail” to help clear up some of your misconceptions.
Thanks!
…oh! …and please do “debunk” the photos on this site. I am quite curious as to how you will explain away 60 years of photographic and scientific evidence that contrails can and do persist.
Thank you. I wasted two years of my life on this nonsense. The first stupid thing I did right off the bat was look up “chemtrail” online instead of studying jet contrails. Very interesting information about modern engines creating more of vapor, BTW.
It’s not easy coming back from a conspiracy theory that you’ve invested so much time and energy into, but if I managed it I know it can be done. Thank you again.
Janet
Excellent job Janet. It’s good to hear about a success story every now and then. Please help the others who aren’t as fortunate. Thanks.
As I’m sure you’re aware, it ain’t easy. This is a subject that people see in very black and white terms. People think I’ve gone to “the other side!” Ha ha ha…oh well. Thanks again.
Janet
Bruce, QuoTodt and all other concerned with CHEMTRAILS.
Please understand this website was just created for the reason to debunk chemtrails and teach the public that these are normal. A Dis-Info project.
If millions of people are questioning the same thing as you are, doesn’t that make you wonder?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/apr/21/uk.medicalscience#history-byline
The UK Ministry of Defense realeased a government report for the first time a comprehensive official history of Britain’s biological weapons trials between 1940 and 1979. Many of these tests involved releasing potentially dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms over vast swaths of the population without the public being told.
While details of some secret trials have emerged in recent years, the 60-page report reveals new information about more than 100 covert experiments.
Do you really think that our current government would tell you they are testing on you? Seriously. They would rather create dis info agents just like this website to educate the people on CHEMTRAILS they call contrails. LOL
The basic problem with your theory is that “chemtrails” look and behave exactly like contrails. That’s really all I’m saying.
How is it “disinfo” to provide verifiable facts?
How is it “disinfo” to point out that some of the claims made by Believers of “chemtrails” are in fact False?
How do some tests the British gov did in the 50s and 60s prove that every persistent contrail today is really a “chemtrail” ?
Torture the data until it confesses I guess.
Yes it does.
It makes me wonder what happened to seeing something that you thought odd, asking loads of people about it, everyone saying they’ve seen it and then concluding that you were probably wrong to think it was odd. I’m pretty sure that’s how it used to normally work.
For what it’s worth, wouldn’t a conspiracy on this scale require vast expenditures, resources and an army of manpower sworn to absolute secrecy for what…more consumerism, better mind control, a docile labor force? Don’t we have better things to worry about? Here in Northern Israel when conditions are right there are dozens of contrail circles overhead but those are IDF F-15s and I’m living 9 miles from the Lebanese border where the Hizbullah are rearming with zillions of rockets right under the UN’s nose in flagrant violation of their security council resolution. Which conspiracy would you worry about?