Chem trails

jessop1 wrote: »

whats this?

or this?

or this?

what about this??

or this???

What is what??? They are contrails you nutcase

Kippy I wasnt misquoting you just waving you in the general direction of the offending comment. anyhoo forget about that.

You are continuing to put words in my mouth.

To clarify, The main visible difference between contrails and chemtrails is that chemtrails linger for a lot longer and quite often spread, combining with other chemtrails to form artificial "clouds".

As for who and why, thats another days discussion. I suppose the main point I'd leave you with is that something is visibly going on out in the open that we can all see, research and gathering of evidence has taken place - and the responses and in most cases silence from the official channels is suspicious in my opinion.

Its off to leaba mesel, must be all the hot air

:D
g'night.

TheThing! wrote: »

They are contrails

I very strongly disagree, as do many.

I wont lower myself to respond to your insults, which are quite telling of your desperation, imho.

jessop1 wrote: »

I very strongly disagree, as do many.

I wont lower myself to respond to your insults, which are quite telling of your desperation, imho.

Well sorry for getting desperate when a guy posts a bunch of photos of obvious contrails and somehow thinks that they qualify as evidence

the first few mins of the documentary video I posted here show clearly the difference between contrails and chemtrails - although this is blatantly evident when you look up at it actually happening.

Now I am off to bed.

jessop1 wrote: »

the first few mins of the documentary video I posted here show clearly the difference between contrails and chemtrails - although this is blatantly evident when you look up at it actually happening.

Now I am off to bed.

No, sorry still just contrails

And by the way, I like how you competely ignored my counter arguments to your belief in this silly theory

oscarBravo

jessop1 wrote: »

whats this?

Contrails.

jessop1 wrote: »

or this?

Contrails. Characteristic of a junction between air corridors, where several planes will make basically the same turn.

jessop1 wrote: »

or this?

Contrails.

jessop1 wrote: »

what about this??

Looks like skywriting to me.

jessop1 wrote: »

or this???

That's definitely skywriting. The plane doing the skywriting has a red circle around it, you can't miss it.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Contrails. Contrails. Characteristic of a junction between air corridors, where several planes will make basically the same turn. Contrails. Looks like skywriting to me. That's definitely skywriting. The plane doing the skywriting has a red circle around it, you can't miss it.

You are right, of course. What I dont understand is how these people can put forward the pattern of the contrails in the air as evidence that they are chemicals being sprayed. Why is this? Can only chemicals that control minds or something like that make weird looking patterns. (I'm not even sure any of the patterns are particularly weird looking anyway)

oscarBravo wrote: »

Contrails. Characteristic of a junction between air corridors, where several planes will make basically the same turn.

Wow I'm surprised all those planes didnt crash into each other at that junction, cos thats an awful lot of equally recent looking "contrails"! :rolleyes:

Normal airplan contrails do not linger and thicken in that way.

Also, the altitude of those "contrails" doesnt look anywhere near the 26000 feet or above at which contrails form. And if they are indeed at 26000 feet or higher they must be absolutely enormous to look that big from ground level - which begs the question as to how a normal contrail from a normal sized jet egine would expand to such a size.

and re: the ones you call skywriting - I've seen those types of ones myself, huge X's and curves etc "written" in the sky over cities and suburbs etc for no apparant reason. Why on earth would someone be doing that??

You see none of those excuses come near adding up to explain away the blatantly visible evidence, never mind the huge amount of analytical evidence that have been gathered on the various aspects of chem trails.

This jessop1 guy is a true believer. The position he has created in his mind is now bullet proof, ie there is no lenghts to which he will not expand the conspiracy to in order to prevent you from arguing against it. Dont even try

oscarBravo

jessop1 wrote: »

Wow I'm surprised all those planes didnt crash into each other at that junction, cos thats an awful lot of equally recent looking "contrails"! :rolleyes:

How do you judge the age of a contrail? Bear in mind that in a busy air corridor planes can pass through the same airspace within minutes of each other.

jessop1 wrote: »

Normal airplan contrails do not linger and thicken in that way.

On the contrary, they do. I've seen them do that all the time. What's your basis for believing that they don't?

jessop1 wrote: »

Also, the altitude of those "contrails" doesnt look anywhere near the 26000 feet or above at which contrails form.

How do you judge their altitude?

jessop1 wrote: »

And if they are indeed at 26000 feet or higher they must be absolutely enormous to look that big from ground level - which begs the question as to how a normal contrail from a normal sized jet egine would expand to such a size.

Why wouldn't they spread? Dispersal is exactly what you'd expect a contrail to do.

More pertinently, why do you believe a deliberately sprayed chemical agent would disperse over a wide distance, but that jet engine exhaust wouldn't?

jessop1 wrote: »

and re: the ones you call skywriting - I've seen those types of ones myself, huge X's and curves etc "written" in the sky over cities and suburbs etc for no apparant reason. Why on earth would someone be doing that??

I'm guessing they're practicing. There was one posted earlier:

chemtrails%2015.jpg

I used to have an almost identical picture in my phone, taken at the 2006 Salthill Air Show (RIP).

jessop1 wrote: »

You see none of those excuses come near adding up to explain away the blatantly visible evidence, never mind the huge amount of analytical evidence that have been gathered on the various aspects of chem trails.

The "visible evidence" doesn't amount to anything, unless you can answer the questions I've posed above.

jessop1 wrote: »

and re: the ones you call skywriting - I've seen those types of ones myself, huge X's and curves etc "written" in the sky over cities and suburbs etc for no apparant reason. Why on earth would someone be doing that??

I'm shocked and saddened that you haven't looked into this. You should really research stuff y'know! here are some youtube links:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiASMjBkkiU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xBcRsE9zyk

aww dont be sad!

nice vids, which show actual words being written in the sky. (I'm not denying that skywriting exists you know!)

But why would random x's curves and stars etc be written in the sky for no apparant reason and with no audience?

as I said before, none of the excuses given come near explaining what people are actually seeing and recording.

Oh, and Gordon, what letter is this?

*

An asterisk or a kiss. Come on, do I have to point the obvious out to you!

bonkey

What would happen if multiple aircraft flew the same track (lets call it a flight corridor), spaced at regular intervals where there were steady crosswinds and the conditions were suitable for contrails?

jessop1 wrote: »

But why would random x's curves and stars etc be written in the sky for no apparant reason and with no audience?

As has been stated, it's either for testing/learning or for reasons that you cannot comprehend. Just because you don't think there is an audience doesn't mean that there isn't.

That asterisk for example, maybe someone wanted to blow a kiss to his girlfriend - why would he tell everyone that he's doing that when he wants it to be solely between him and the kissee?

6th

jessop1 wrote: »

Also, the altitude of those "contrails" doesnt look anywhere near the 26000 feet or above at which contrails form. And if they are indeed at 26000 feet or higher they must be absolutely enormous to look that big from ground level - which begs the question as to how a normal contrail from a normal sized jet egine would expand to such a size.

So the shots where taken from the ground? On what type of camera? What lens?

bonkey

jessop1 wrote: »

and re: the ones you call skywriting - I've seen those types of ones myself, huge X's and curves etc "written" in the sky over cities and suburbs etc for no apparant reason. Why on earth would someone be doing that??

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that the cities where these curves are commonly seen have busy airports where you'd find aircraft running "loops" on a holding pattern.

As for the X, *, or other similar formation, ...put planes on two non-parallel different flight paths. These will cross each other when looked at in a 2d representation, but in reality the aircraft will be seperated by hundreds or thousands of feet of vertical seperation. Now...if conditions at the various altitudes the planes fly at are conducive to contrail formation....what would you expect to see?

Owen

jessop1 wrote: »

Oh, and Gordon, what letter is this?

That looks like a merge by a display team such as the Red Arrows. Honestly, if people are stupid enough to believe this, how do they figure out teh internets?

If there was a conspiracy, why on Earth would someone use this method. It's woefully inefficient, expensive, and here's the real rub, when you drop any substance from a plane at those altitudes, it freezes! Temps at altitude are minus, most chemicals would freeze solid, and the friction as they fall would change their latent state, changing their chemical properties anyway. It's a very childish theory, and when you examine the science behind it, and the incredible lack of precision and coverage spread in using such a method, you start to wonder that if there really is a big conspiracy, why don't they just taint products we all use, like water, or milk?

jessop1 wrote: »

Wow I'm surprised all those planes didnt crash into each other at that junction, cos thats an awful lot of equally recent looking "contrails"!

Use your eyes, and head. They didn't all go through at the same time, contrails can linger for hours after planes have passed. Any child looking at the sky can fathom that.

jessop1 wrote: »

Normal airplan contrails do not linger and thicken in that way.

Yes, they do.

jessop1 wrote: »

Also, the altitude of those "contrails" doesnt look anywhere near the 26000 feet or above at which contrails form.

I saw a plane landing at Dublin Airport last month. The winglets at the end of the main wing structure were creating vortexes of disturbed air at about 50 feet above the ground, and at low speed, so you can imagine that at higher speeds, it is entirely possible to leave trails of wake air at lower altitudes.

TheThing! wrote: »

Dont even try

I can see you are not.

oscarBravo wrote: »

How do you judge the age of a contrail?

If its still there after a couple of minutes or so its generally not a contrail. I accept that in some atmospheric conditions they can linger for longer and even spread and expand somewhat, but not into the thick soupy sky gunk that I have myself witnessed on numerous occasions and shown in some of the pics above.

More pertinently, why do you believe a deliberately sprayed chemical agent would disperse over a wide distance, but that jet engine exhaust wouldn't?

because one is an exhaust fume of relativley little volume and the other is of significantly higher volume. Aside from the studies which have shown the fallout from these things in the sprayed areas, its obvious from just looking at them that they are far more voluminous than normal contrails.

oscarBravo wrote: »

The "visible evidence" doesn't amount to anything

Actually, it does.

r3nu4l

jessop1 wrote: »

Actually, it does.

Actually it doesn't. Only scientific analysis of these 'chemtrails' will account for their chemical content and their likely toxic effects (if any). Doesn't matter how often you post on a bulletin board about them, unless you can show scientific results from a credible source then you haven't a leg to stand on.

Wow... I have no chance of responding individually to a pack of 6, 7 or more...

Of course there would be a massive propoganda campaign to support such a vast conspiracy... and if you are genuinely deluded enough not to find our increasingly soupy skies strange or even worrying, see my signature.

6th

Jessop, can you address post 109?

r3nu4l wrote: »

Actually it doesn't. Only scientific analysis of these 'chemtrails' will account for their chemical content and their likely toxic effects (if any). Doesn't matter how often you post on a bulletin board about them, unless you can show scientific results from a credible source then you haven't a leg to stand on.

Many such analyses have actually been done.

here are just a few links:

http://www.rense.com/general79/chemm.htm
Barium found in chemtrails aftermath (originally posted by zarathustra)
http://www.carnicom.com/ there are a number of different research analyses in the sampling and analysis section of this site

as for whats credible or not - depends on whether you believe the propoganda or not - and your own eyes of course.

6th - no idea what camera or lens used - I'm using the items in the foreground to judge height or size.

Owen

jessop1 wrote: »

and if you are genuinely deluded enough not to find our increasingly soupy skies strange or even worrying, see my signature.

The only person genuinely deluded in this thread my friend, is you. There are no chemicals being sprayed in the sky, go get some flying lessons for yourself, and when you're sitting in the theory classes for the exams, they'll actually explain the science to you, rather than the pseudo science you're trying to pass off as 'evidence' here.