Chem trails

Diogenes · 31-05-2009 10:48pm

My name is URL wrote: »

This is getting retarded ffs

read my posts... I don't know how/why/who

So to be clear you don't know how they are doing it, why they are doing it, or who is doing, but you think it's suspicious?

I only posted my experiences of seeing what I saw

and yes, I have watched contrails disappear

The alternative explanation is that jet engine design has evolved over the last 30 years, and the manner in which air is sucked in, and cooled, and injected from engines has changed in our lifetimes.

Let me use an analogy remember how leaded petrol smelled and spewed exhaust as a child? Remeber how we changed from leaded to unleaded petrol. Well airplane engines have evolution in the same time period.

No one has ever given an adequate explanation for chem trailers or what they are supposed to do, or how they are delivered, or if they are infecting the entire planet for (it's been nearly a decade since I've heard about them) why they'd spare for a decade and not have any demonstrable effect.

bonkey · 01-06-2009 8:42am

briktop wrote: »

im just guessing the height , it may have been higher or lower , and some were a slight bit lower than others .

why 35000 feet ?, well if i knew that , id probably know the whole reason then , and wouldnt be posting it here -

The details aren't all that important, to be honest. I was more pointing out that whlie the planes may have looked to be at comparable heights, they could have been vertically seperated by a mile or more. You can have serious changes in conditions over that type of distance.

but normal contrails do not stick around for long ,

As some other posters have since pointed out - this belief is the crux of the matter. If this statement is true, then something is fishy. If this statement is false, then there is absolutely nothing weird going on here at all.

My suggestion would be to look at the explanation(s) of experts as to why some contrails persist and some do not, and then see if you can either figure out what is wrong with it, or even point at what about it doesn't sit right.

As a parting comment, I would also mention that what I find suspicious is this. There are hundreds or thousands of people who are adamant that something is fishy. Many claim to regularly witness these effects. Some have phoned radio stations, others have created websites, and no doubt more have done other actions.

Amongst this group, not one person appears to have taken the initiative to set up video camera, captured the effect they describe, and then made either the video or a time-compressed version of it available.

We see photos of an effect that no-one questions exists. We see photos which appear to be normal cloud formations. We occasionally see photos taken hours apart from more-or-less the same venue.

Don't you find that weird? That amongst all of these people who profess to take this seriously, not one of them seems interested in actually acquiring the evidence to show that this "trail spreading out to cover the sky" effect is real and visibly different to normal cloud-formation ?

My name is URL · 01-06-2009 10:24am

bonkey wrote: »

Amongst this group, not one person appears to have taken the initiative to set up video camera, captured the effect they describe, and then made either the video or a time-compressed version of it available.

There are videos on YouTube of the supposed chemtrails being formed..

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=videos&search_query=chemtrails+ireland&search_sort=video_date_uploaded

ilivetolearn · 01-06-2009 10:53am

bonkey wrote: »

Don't you find that weird? That amongst all of these people who profess to take this seriously, not one of them seems interested in actually acquiring the evidence to show that this "trail spreading out to cover the sky" effect is real and visibly different to normal cloud-formation ?

I concur. I'm not disputing the validity of the claims but if the evidence is accessible then get out there and get it. Hell, I'll do it myself if someone can point out a likely locus above Cork.

briktop · 01-06-2009 11:20am

funny , just saw a fighter jet go over must have been doing near mach 2 high enough . ( im near a base ) left a trail that vanished in a bout 20 secs

i would have expected a modern fighter jet to leave a trail if the evolving engine theory is to hold.

fact is , contrails used to vanish , now many of them do not .

i have seen planes that have been at the same level as a trailer leave no trail, and a following plane leave a trail - and planes obviously above and below do the same thing .

flight paths are broken out in to motorways in the sky , and on some corridors planes will all be stacked up down and around with a couple of k feet between.

if you fly back over the alps from , say turkey or some such , you will look out and see planes all around , some at same flight level , as each other but behind , other above , and below .
some leave trails , some dont in the exact same bit of sky ,

jet engines have not changed much since they were invented , its a very simple device , air goes in , is compressed , fuel is injected , it explodes out the tail pipe - jet fuel has not changed in any way either - its simple kerosene.

the other thing is this , since the trails are pretty much an obvious indicator of an issue with the engines / from a pollution point of view - ( why should our skys be covered in thin cloud just so people can travel ?

envirenmentalists should be up in arms with the obvious increase in cloud cover .

im old enough , and DO NOT ever recall seeing the amount of trails we see today - its not normal , if anything we should be seeing less trails
if engines and environmentalists were working on the issues - but we are seeing MORE .

something not right about that .

King Mob · 01-06-2009 12:17pm

My name is URL wrote: »

There are videos on YouTube of the supposed chemtrails being formed..

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=videos&search_query=chemtrails+ireland&search_sort=video_date_uploaded

But all those videos show only contrails or clouds. They don't show what bonkey was talking about.

briktop wrote: »

,

the other thing is this , since the trails are pretty much an obvious indicator of an issue with the engines / from a pollution point of view - ( why should our skys be covered in thin cloud just so people can travel ?

envirenmentalists should be up in arms with the obvious increase in cloud cover .

So if there's an "obvious increase in cloud cover" then surely you can show some scientific evidence to that effect?

I'm not a meteorologist but I'm pretty sure that those thin wispy high level clouds aren't formed by planes.

Ciaran500 · 01-06-2009 3:46pm

briktop wrote: »

if engines and environmentalists were working on the issues - but we are seeing MORE .

Do you know what a contrail is? The only way for there to be less would be to get planes out of the air. Its not possible to run the engines on fossil fuel and not be left with water vapour, no matter how efficient the engines get.

thecommander · 01-06-2009 4:22pm

briktop wrote: »

funny , just saw a fighter jet go over must have been doing near mach 2 high enough . ( im near a base ) left a trail that vanished in a bout 20 secs

So much guesswork going on here about speeds and altitudes. How do you know its going near mach 2? If the trail disappeared after 20 seconds its hardly a chemtrail then is it?

bonkey · 02-06-2009 10:52am

briktop wrote: »

i would have expected a modern fighter jet to leave a trail if the evolving engine theory is to hold.

Why?

fact is , contrails used to vanish , now many of them do not .

The fact is that many people who believe in chemtrails (or that there's something odd, somehow, about modern contrails) say that they remember that trails used to behave differently. Its not a fact that they did so...its an unverifiable claim. Its almost-certainly unfalsifiable, given that we'd need the same type of video evidence (hours long, of the same area of sky, showing persistent contrail behaviour similar to that seen today) that I maintain we need today to establish the fact of the claims regarding "strange" behaviour.

Also, bear in mind that atmospheric conditions (from pollution) have changed in that time. The exhaust content from planes has changed. The number of planes in the air has changed. These factors also have to be taken into account.

We need to be careful about what is claimed as fact. Facts are evidence-based...and from what I can see the only evidence we have that contrails "used to vanish" is a number of people saying that they remember it that way.

i have seen planes that have been at the same level as a trailer leave no trail, and a following plane leave a trail

- and planes obviously above and below do the same thing .

flight paths are broken out in to motorways in the sky , and on some corridors planes will all be stacked up down and around with a couple of k feet between.

if you fly back over the alps from , say turkey or some such , you will look out and see planes all around , some at same flight level , as each other but behind , other above , and below .
some leave trails , some dont in the exact same bit of sky ,

None of this is conflicting with the conventional explanation of how contrails form, and why they sometimes persist.

im old enough , and DO NOT ever recall seeing the amount of trails we see today -

I bet you don't ever recall seeing the same amount of traffic on the roads either.

There are more planes flying today than ever before. More planes == more contrails.

its not normal , if anything we should be seeing less trails
if engines and environmentalists were working on the issues - but we are seeing MORE .

something not right about that .

There is something "not right". You're assuming that cleaner exhausts would create less contrails. I believe the opposite is true. The cleaner an engine burns, the more it emits exhaust which is suited to forming contrails.

diverdriver · 02-06-2009 12:51pm

Over the years in different forums. I've come across the chemtrail conspiracy nonsense several times. One thing that feeds it is sheer lazy ignorance and certain people with an agenda. Particularly one Clifford Carnicom who has presumably being making a good living out of this for years.

It's amazing how many people don't let their ignorance of a subject stop them from making things up as they go along. It's not as if contrails were an unknown phenomenon. Google it and you will get all the info you need. Including exactly why there have been persistent contrails over Ireland lately. I'll give you a clue: The good weather lately has been something to do with it. How contrails form and how long they last is all dependant on the atmospheric conditions on the day. Lately conditons have been more suitable for long lasting contrails at certain altitudes where aircraft fly. It's also worth mentioning that modern aircraft with high bypass turbofan engines produce bigger trails. So if it seems there are more contrails it's because there are, one reason being the turbofans and another being the simple fact that's there's more traffic.

But to address the chemtrail issue. There are huge flaws in the theory. First you don't need to fly that high to spray. In fact that would be stupid. The material would drift for hundreds of miles before hitting the ground if you dropped it at 35,000 feet. It can be done completely invisibly too. No need to draw attention by trailing a white banner over the sky. Also for our Irish readers, why on earth would anyone want to spray us? I know Fianna Fail is bad, but even they couldn't justify that.

No, the whole chemtrails thing is partly a giant hoax and partly the imaginings of a deranged mind. All fed by stupid, ignorant people too lazy to do even basic research into what is easily explainable.

Really it's true what they say. You can never underestimate people's stupidity.:mad:

6th · 02-06-2009 1:23pm

diverdriver, its looks like you are dangerously close to calling people in this forum stupid?

uncleoswald · 02-06-2009 2:38pm

6th wrote: »

diverdriver, its looks like you are dangerously close to calling people in this forum stupid?

Its not a spade, its an elongated manual digging device.

diverdriver · 02-06-2009 3:08pm

diverdriver, its looks like you are dangerously close to calling people in this forum stupid?

I would like to state at this juncture that at no time was I referring to any person living or dead on this forum. Any resemblance is purely coincidental. Beside it's very carefully worded. I'm just referring to notional stupid people.

I'm quite sure the people on this forum have even now googled contrails, have read and digested the informaton therein and made up their own minds. (The truth is often quite boring though.)

espinolman · 02-06-2009 10:21pm

diverdriver wrote: »

But to address the chemtrail issue. There are huge flaws in the theory.

Exactly which theory are you referring to ?

diverdriver wrote: »

First you don't need to fly that high to spray. In fact that would be stupid. The material would drift for hundreds of miles before hitting the ground if you dropped it at 35,000 feet. It can be done completely invisibly too. No need to draw attention by trailing a white banner over the sky. Also for our Irish readers, why on earth would anyone want to spray us? I know Fianna Fail is bad, but even they couldn't justify that.

The above is one theory which i do not subscribe to , i don't think the purpose of chemtrails is to spray us , i think it is about increasing the electrical conductivity of the athmosphere for purposes of weather control and manipulation using microscopic metallic particles and the reason the are visible is because water vapour condenses around these metallic particles .

6th · 02-06-2009 10:24pm

espinolman wrote: »

i think it is about increasing the electrical conductivity of the athmosphere for purposes of weather control and manipulation using microscopic metallic particles and the reason the are visible is because water vapour condenses around these metallic particles .

An interesting idea.

King Mob · 02-06-2009 10:38pm

espinolman wrote: »

The above is one theory which i do not subscribe to , i don't think the purpose of chemtrails is to spray us , i think it is about increasing the electrical conductivity of the athmosphere for purposes of weather control and manipulation using microscopic metallic particles and the reason the are visible is because water vapour condenses around these metallic particles .

Huge problems with this theory.

How do you know chemtrails have metallic particles?
What's stopping them from failing to the ground?
How would this increase the conductivity of the atmosphere in any significant way?
How would this enable weather control?
Can you point to any instance that is undeniably a product of the weather control?

Nehaxak · 03-06-2009 4:51am

espinolman wrote: »

Exactly which theory are you referring to ?

The above is one theory which i do not subscribe to , i don't think the purpose of chemtrails is to spray us , i think it is about increasing the electrical conductivity of the athmosphere for purposes of weather control and manipulation using microscopic metallic particles and the reason the are visible is because water vapour condenses around these metallic particles .

Wasn't there a particularly good series about the weather (made by the BBC, not the weather, the programme) relating to what you've said about a year or so ago ? All seemed plausible if also somewhat far fetched as it was made for TV after-all.

While I wouldn't totally distance myself from saying the weather could not some day be controlled (maliciously or otherwise), I wouldn't even begin to think it has anything to do with vapours released from aircraft flying overhead. Far as I know, though I'm no engineer/scientist, the vapours are just a byproduct, exhaust fumes if you will. That's it, nothing else to it.

If they are not exhaust fumes then it's the passing of air and moisture (and whatever other particles are in the air) at high speeds through the turbines that create the trail afterwards.

bonkey · 03-06-2009 7:56am

6th wrote: »

An interesting idea.

Also one which would be trivial to test.

Mahatma coat · 03-06-2009 8:17am

this goes back to the aul Cloud seeding with Silver iode

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding

but as I have said before, if it was something cool and reasonably non sinister like this wouldnt they be braggin about it?

espinolman · 03-06-2009 9:04am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

this goes back to the aul Cloud seeding with Silver iode

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding

but as I have said before, if it was something cool and reasonably non sinister like this wouldnt they be braggin about it?

It may be that they started chemtrailing in the early eighties because they were desparate , you see apparently the earths' protective layer was damaged in the late fifties or early sixties by aerial nuclear tests , radiation was coming in causing species to go extinct , as they go extinct global warming occurs .
You know that they created a new van allen belt with their tests , see they did change earth's protective layer.
The superpowers are hardly going to admit that they fcuked up the planet.

Mahatma coat · 03-06-2009 9:22am

See theres an interestin point, if they manageds to creatre a new Van allen belt in the fifties through Nuclear testing, is it possible that the original Van Allen Belt came about as a result of my theorised ancient Nuclear war??

King Mob · 03-06-2009 11:59am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

See theres an interestin point, if they manageds to creatre a new Van allen belt in the fifties through Nuclear testing, is it possible that the original Van Allen Belt came about as a result of my theorised ancient Nuclear war??

They created small artifical belts well below the altitude of the Van Allen belts.

They had no effect on any protective layer.

And how exactly would chemtrails fix this?

And seriously? Ancient nuclear war? What evidence do you have that the Van Allen belts came from one?
Or did you just guess?

espinolman · 03-06-2009 11:20pm

King Mob wrote: »

They created small artifical belts well below the altitude of the Van Allen belts.

Well acording to this the radiation belt from the starfish magaton bomb in 1962 will continue to push to higher altitudes.

The Atomics Weapons Establishment also has a time-motion film of the Monte Carlo simulation of the evolution and decay of the radiation belt from Starfish here. This remarkable film is logarithmically scaled so you get to see the way the intensities vary above the Earth's surface from 100 seconds to nearly 100 years after the burst. As the time goes on, the radiation belt pushes up to higher altitudes and becomes more concentrated over the magnetic equator.

From here : Effects of Nuclear Weapons Tests: Scientific Facts that Discredit Anti-Civil Defence Dogma :
http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2006/03/starfish-fireball-photograph.html

King Mob wrote: »

And how exactly would chemtrails fix this?

As far as i know it can't be fixed , it is a slow motion disaster and the purpose of chemtrails i think is to have some control over the disaster where it cannot be fixed .

King Mob wrote: »

And seriously? Ancient nuclear war? What evidence do you have that the Van Allen belts came from one?

Well operation starfish prime created a radiation belt , so this would indicate it is a plausible theory .

King Mob · 03-06-2009 11:27pm

espinolman wrote: »

Well acording to this the radiation belt from the starfish magaton bomb in 1962 will continue to push to higher altitudes.

From here : http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2006/03/starfish-fireball-photograph.html

So then how is it causing any damage to the environment?

espinolman wrote: »

As far as i know it can't be fixed , it is a slow motion disaster and the purpose of chemtrails i think is to have some control over the disaster where it cannot be fixed .

And how do you know this? Why would they bother doing something that has no effect but must cost billions to cover up.

Can you show a single effect of the supposed damage?

espinolman wrote: »

Well operation starfish prime created a radiation belt , so this would indicate it is a plausible theory .

A small one after it was detonated in high altitude. There is no indication that a nuclear war would cause radiation belts like the Van Allan belts.

Oh and the complete lack of any evidence of a ancient nuclear war makes in implausible.

Disky · 06-06-2009 10:05am

Quite a lot of spraying over north Dublin in the last week.

studiorat · 06-06-2009 10:25am

Ok.

My take on it is they are not Chemtrails, they are Contrails. Now the fact that they are not dispersing in the manner in which they should is not due to the chemical make up of the contrails.

It's because there is something different in the atmosphere.

The quote is from a pal in the states with whom I've been discussing this business with...

I just had a nice conversation with a retired jet engine designer. Showed him some pics I'd taken that day of aircraft and contrails. The truly interesting photo showed two large aircraft at high altitude, flying side by side at roughly the same level. One plane was leaving a persistent contrail and the other wasn't. His guess was these were planes with fan jet engines and the water vapour was a byproduct of the jet fuel consumption. Still, he had some problems with it all--especially with the persistence of the contrails, which is the new feature, and the different results the two planes were getting. Earlier contrails of a decade or two ago consited of ice crystals that almost immediately melted in sunlight. These new ones are forming in a different way--perhaps a mix of ice and water vapor or water vapor and dust. Aside from the chemtrail fans, nobody seems to care or be interested in providing a solid answer that explains the difference between persistent and non-persistent contrails.

A wild guess is there is also more fine dust in the atmosphere, and I'm wondering if that's the real issue. Supposedly, because the solar wind has been at a record low for a while--even stopping dead a few years back (Unheard of before)--there is at least 3 times the usual amount of interstellar dust in the solar system. It seems to be settling at the top of the atmosphere and some think it's responsible for the also recent odd phenomenon of noctilucent clouds. The dust is micro-fine and an irritant too, and it's also interesting that asthma has also been on the increase.

Here's how a cloud forms
http://www.lessonplanspage.com/Sciencecloudslesson.htm
.... and note the need for dust or smoke (which are particles).

Without particles there is nothing for the water vapour to hang on too...

Disky · 06-06-2009 10:33am

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/5411412/New-type-of-cloud-found.html

Looks like the "experts" are covering their tracks.

Could it be any more obvious.

Undergod · 06-06-2009 11:03am

studiorat's pal wrote: »

Supposedly, because the solar wind has been at a record low for a while--even stopping dead a few years back (Unheard of before)

Hmm. That's pretty weird. Here's an article on that for anyone interested.

studiorat's pal wrote: »

It seems to be settling at the top of the atmosphere and some think it's responsible for the also recent odd phenomenon of noctilucent clouds. The dust is micro-fine and an irritant too, and it's also interesting that asthma has also been on the increase.

Can the altitude jets fly at really be considered the top of the atmosphere though?

King Mob · 06-06-2009 11:14am

Undergod wrote: »

Can the altitude jets fly at really be considered the top of the atmosphere though?

Nope, not by any stretch.

Mahatma coat · 06-06-2009 11:17am

ah but the atmosphere is a fluid thing

My name is URL · 06-06-2009 11:24am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

ah but the atmosphere is a fluid thing

True

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXnkzeCU3bE

Undergod · 06-06-2009 11:28am

King Mob wrote: »

Nope, not by any stretch.

That's what I thought.

Mahatma coat wrote:

ah but the atmosphere is a fluid thing

But that makes the statement "It seems to be settling at the top of the atmosphere" meaningless. If it's at the top of the atmosphere, but jets aren't, then how is it affecting contrails?

So: is there more dust in the atmosphere than previous decades? If so is it settled at the top or is it distributed more widely? Have we any way of finding out?

I would think dust like that would contribute to global dimming, but the trend seems to be the reverse in recent years.

ilivetolearn · 06-06-2009 11:28am

My name is URL wrote: »

True

Visually enjoyable clip though it I can't but feel that it stimulates my bowel movement.

King Mob · 06-06-2009 11:35am

A wild guess is there is also more fine dust in the atmosphere, and I'm wondering if that's the real issue. Supposedly, because the solar wind has been at a record low for a while--even stopping dead a few years back (Unheard of before)--there is at least 3 times the usual amount of interstellar dust in the solar system. It seems to be settling at the top of the atmosphere and some think it's responsible for the also recent odd phenomenon of noctilucent clouds. The dust is micro-fine and an irritant too, and it's also interesting that asthma has also been on the increase.

IS there any evidence for the claim of 3 times the amount of interstellar dust or is this guy just making it up?

Mahatma coat · 06-06-2009 11:44am

anyway why does it have to be interstellar dust???

could it be back to the point of theresnothing really sinister, they hang around longer Because ther have been so many planes in or around these flight corridors forso longthatte atmosphere at that point is saturated with exaust partiles, so the new ones take a lot longer to dissipate than they did when we were kids.

sortof a critical mass reached with exhaust emissions from planes, dosent explain the patern flying tho, and thats the sinister bit, the layinout of huge grids ver populated areas like cropdustin, if thats true :eek:

Undergod · 06-06-2009 11:54am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

anyway why does it have to be interstellar dust???

could it be back to the point of theresnothing really sinister, they hang around longer Because ther have been so many planes in or around these flight corridors forso longthatte atmosphere at that point is saturated with exaust partiles, so the new ones take a lot longer to dissipate than they did when we were kids.

sortof a critical mass reached with exhaust emissions from planes, dosent explain the patern flying tho, and thats the sinister bit, the layinout of huge grids ver populated areas like cropdustin, if thats true :eek:

I don't think it has to be, exactly, just that this guy is saying that's where it's coming from. Any dust would work, but this is the specific source of the dust responsible.

Interesting idea about the increase in exhaust particles, but as regards flight patterns, I imagine that flight paths over populated areas are going to be in easily predictable patterns, to simplify safety of approach and all that. Do we have anyone who can tell us about the composition of exhaust (does it contain fine particles that would hang about in the atmosphere) and flight patterns around airports?

bonkey · 06-06-2009 12:34pm

Disky wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/5411412/New-type-of-cloud-found.html

Looks like the "experts" are covering their tracks.

Could it be any more obvious.

Experts classifying a new type of cloud, completely unlike the type which chemtrail-advocates suggest results from chemtrails...

...Yes, I believe it could certainly be more obvious.

King Mob · 06-06-2009 4:49pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

anyway why does it have to be interstellar dust???

could it be back to the point of theresnothing really sinister, they hang around longer Because ther have been so many planes in or around these flight corridors forso longthatte atmosphere at that point is saturated with exaust partiles, so the new ones take a lot longer to dissipate than they did when we were kids.

sortof a critical mass reached with exhaust emissions from planes, dosent explain the patern flying tho, and thats the sinister bit, the layinout of huge grids ver populated areas like cropdustin, if thats true :eek:

Because the guy makes the claim that there is 3 times more interstellar dust than usual in the solar system. Is there anything to support a claim like this?

studiorat · 06-06-2009 11:20pm

King Mob wrote: »

Because the guy makes the claim that there is 3 times more interstellar dust than usual in the solar system. Is there anything to support a claim like this?

Oh Man! Opened a can of fish here! Bit of a hurry right now but here's some of the info, I hope it's some what relevant. More coming...

As far as I can see it's more to do with the charge of the particles. I've a list of links as long as my arm so I'm trying to get through them...

This link has some nice photos though
http://www.spaceweather.com/nlcs/gallery2005_page1.htm

It stems from my mentioning half jokingly that maybe chem trails were an attempt to shield the earth from solar magnetic storms. To protect us from our atmosphere floating off into space!

Anyway the interstellar particles...

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v380/n6572/abs/380323a0.html

Also...

The solar wind is an extended ionized gas of very high electrical conductivity, and therefore drags some magnetic flux out of the Sun to fill the heliosphere with a weak interplanetary magnetic field. Magnetic reconnection—the merging of oppositely directed magnetic fields—between the interplanetary field and the Earth's magnetic field allows energy from the solar wind to enter the near-Earth environment. The Sun's properties, such as its luminosity, are related to its magnetic field, although the connections are still not well understood. Moreover, changes in the heliospheric magnetic field have been linked with changes in total cloud cover over the Earth, which may influence global climate. Here we show that measurements of the near-Earth interplanetary magnetic field reveal that the total magnetic flux leaving the Sun has risen by a factor of 1.4 since 1964: surrogate measurements of the interplanetary magnetic field indicate that the increase since 1901 has been by a factor of 2.3. This increase may be related to chaotic changes in the dynamo that generates the solar magnetic field. We do not yet know quantitatively how such changes will influence the global environment.

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=15049 read very carefully apparently it's all connected... (say's he)

afraid that's all I have time for right now, something's just come up
laterz

King Mob · 07-06-2009 12:09am

studiorat wrote: »

Oh Man! Opened a can of fish here! Bit of a hurry right now but here's some of the info, I hope it's some what relevant. More coming...

As far as I can see it's more to do with the charge of the particles. I've a list of links as long as my arm so I'm trying to get through them...

This link has some nice photos though
http://www.spaceweather.com/nlcs/gallery2005_page1.htm

It stems from my mentioning half jokingly that maybe chem trails were an attempt to shield the earth from solar magnetic storms. To protect us from our atmosphere floating off into space!

Anyway the interstellar particles...

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v380/n6572/abs/380323a0.html

Also...

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=15049 read very carefully apparently it's all connected... (say's he)

afraid that's all I have time for right now, something's just come up
laterz

But none of that supports the claim that there is 3 times more interstellar dust than usual.

And why would this be a problem if it were true?

And how would chemtrails do anything to interstellar dust?

And if that's the reason why is it a secret?

studiorat · 07-06-2009 12:50am

Like I said there's shed loads of articles in this guys research, it's kind of hard to sift through and remember. Anyway...

1.
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=33618

In the 1990s, this field, which is drawn out deep into space by the out-flowing solar wind, kept most of the stardust out. The most recent data, collected up to the end of 2002, shows that this magnetic shield has lost its protective power during the recent solar maximum. In an upcoming publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research ESA scientist Markus Landgraf and his co-workers from the Max-Planck-Institute in Heidelberg report that about three times more stardust is now able to enter the Solar System.

2&3.
"Chem trails" don't do anything to the dust, it's the other way around. Re-read how clouds are formed. The water vapour needs the particle to condense. (grab onto if you will)
The problem is the extra cloud cover is adding to the whole global warming thing as well as being a symptom of it. If you believe an effect similar to the Maunder Minimum is a contributing cause.

4.
It's not a secret. Just for the fun of it. Consider for a minute there is an natural disaster on a global scale impending. The US government for instance discover this and they decide it's better not to make it public knowledge. What better way to hide this fact than in plain view. And call it something else.

The original chemtrail hoax from the 90's used the following paper as citations http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v3c15/v3c15-1.htm

The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United States government.

Obviously the above quote was not one of those citations. It was nothing more than a college project really...

The trouble with conspiracists is that most will uncritically accept near any NEGATIVE story about their perceived enemies, almost no matter how ridiculous. What's most laughable is most are so convinced of his or her "information superiority" that they'll actually rationalize to the stratosphere before they'll admit to themselves that they can be duped. None would ever accept the notion that anyone in the military, the CIA, etc. could actually be leagues smarter than themselves. This is an important fact, if you are considering hiding something from them...

I mean surely if anybody seriously wanted to drug a nation they'd find a better way than spraying them from 50,000 feet. Personally I'd infect the money...

bonkey · 07-06-2009 8:24am

studiorat wrote: »

4.
It's not a secret. Just for the fun of it. Consider for a minute there is an natural disaster on a global scale impending. The US government for instance discover this and they decide it's better not to make it public knowledge. What better way to hide this fact than in plain view. And call it something else.

Disinformation, or COINTELPRO, in other words.

The problem with the idea is that in order for it to work, we almost certainly have to (re)define "the US government" to include the relevant scientific field on a global scale, or sufficient control of all media (including the "free" internet 'they' wish had never been invented) to be able to perpetrate such a coverup.

OK..there is the fringe case where some small, already-classified research project finds something out to do with a forthcoming natural disaster, but where there is good reason to believe that no-one else is likely to find such information (based, somehow, on the unspecified, classified research being carried out). Add in the ability to track everything online, some sort of capability to deal with any hints of someone else catching on, and the idea of disinformation to cloud any leaks and you've got some of the bigger holes "covered".

At this point, though, doesn't the theory already involve - as you put it yourself - rationalizing to the stratosphere?

I mean surely if anybody seriously wanted to drug a nation they'd find a better way than spraying them from 50,000 feet.

Personally, I'm not sold on the argument of motive. I don't believe it is a key factor in the argument either for or against the notion of chemtrails.

Lets assume for a second that something is being sprayed.

Unless we know something about what that is, then the argument of motive is entirely speculative. It doesn't change the fact that something is being sprayed. Asserted effects such as the trail expanding to cover the sky may be part of the effect, or may simply be a side-effect....again, without knowing something about what is being sprayed, we have to make assumptions there in order to bring us anywhere in terms of linking effect to motive.

"Why" is a result which we can derive from finding the "what". We don't need to know it in advance. Indeed, assuming it increases the risk of looking for the wrong thing in the wrong place. It may build a more complete narrative, which may be more appealing in some regards, but the reality is that its merely piling one assumption on top of another, rather than verifying the first one....is there something being "sprayed".

espinolman · 07-06-2009 12:06pm

bonkey wrote: »

.is there something being "sprayed".

Are you trying to insinuate that all the photos' and videos' that people take of chemtrails are done with paint shop or something

I don't understand you people , you need proof for everything , does'nt matter that it can be seen by people all over the world , no you need absolute proof for everything .

bonkey · 07-06-2009 12:28pm

espinolman wrote: »

Are you trying to insinuate that all the photos' and videos' that people take of chemtrails are done with paint shop or something

I'm trying to insinuate nothing of the sort.

I don't think there's a person involved in the discussion, here or anywhere else on the planet, who would claim that planes do not have exhausts, nor do not create contrails.

The non-conspiratorial explanation of what are generally referred to as chemtrails is that there are perfectly normal explanations as to how atmospheric conditions coupled with plane exhausts create contrails that persist for hours, just as there are perfectly normal explanations as to how atmospheric conditions coupled with plane exhausts create contrains that dissipate.

I believe that people see a perfectly normal effect and misinterpret it. The photos I've seen are a mix of contrails and clouds. I've yet to see one with something inexplicable. I've also posted before about how video taken over a period showing this evolution from contrail-to-complete-cloud-coverage would be a key piece of evidence....one which we don't see.

So no, I'm not insinuating that people photoshop anything.

I don't understand you people , you need proof for everything ,

I require evidence, not proof. There is observation that this phenomena exists. There is one explanation which says there are no additional factors required - the non-conspiratorial one. There is another which says that there are additional factors required - the conspiratorial one typically referred to as chemtrails.

I cannot find a flaw in the explanation as to why there are no additional factors required. This doesn't rule out it being wrong, but its impossible to prove a negative. Find nothing in every test, and you still can't prove that there's nothing to be found.

The claim that there is something added, however, can be tested. All you have to do is find something which shouldn't be there. OK...you have to find something that shouldn't be there, show how that something could cause the effects observed, and explain how it could be coming from planes...but first and foremost you have to find it.

does'nt matter that it can be seen by people all over the world , no you need absolute proof for everything.

To quote Hippocrates: Science begets knowledge; opinion, ignorance.

Using the modern scientific method, we test a hypotheses based on its predictions. The "spraying" argument says something is being sprayed. The obvious test to validate that is to look for something that is being sprayed.

You clearly feel that we don't need to gather evidence...that we can somehow arrive at the truth based on some other approach. Could you explain what that approach is?

espinolman · 07-06-2009 1:06pm

bonkey wrote: »

You clearly feel that we don't need to gather evidence...that we can somehow arrive at the truth based on some other approach. Could you explain what that approach is?

I prefer the theoretical approach , i would put together a theory and then try to find out if the theory is plausible or not through research .

So my latest theory is that there is a disaster occuring over a long period of time which is happening in slow motion and so is unnoticed by the general public or that it may be going to occur in the future and that the purpose of chemtrails is to try and gain control over this disaster , so i would research to see if there is anything to back up this theory .

bonkey · 07-06-2009 1:29pm

Such an approach can - at best - lead you to a position wher eyou say that if chemtrails exist and if they have certain properties, then they would support such a hypothesis.

It still leaves you in the position that to support your hypothesis, you would need to verify the existence of chemtrails (i.e. something beyond the conventional explanation for persistent contrails). Having done so, you would need them to have the right properties to match your hypothesis.

This isn't necessarily invalid, but imagine that you came up with your hypothesis, and had done all of this work and research, only to find that there was something being added, but it wasn't at all what would be necessary for your hypothesis.

In such a case, would you consider yourself vindicated ("I was right - chemtrails are real") or shown to be wrong ("I was wrong - my explanation doesn't fit the data")?

polishpaddy · 07-06-2009 1:36pm

Go to cork/dublin/etc airport and ask a worker for a sample of the fuel ,very simple.Throw him a few bob.
Sitting on your computer typing lovely/intelligent sounding posts won't get you answers.

studiorat · 07-06-2009 7:03pm

espinolman wrote: »

I prefer the theoretical approach , i would put together a theory and then try to find out if the theory is plausible or not through research .

I thought people were supposed to do that the other way around. Do the research and then put the theory together?

Anyway.

bonkey wrote: »

Disinformation, or COINTELPRO, in other words.

The problem with the idea is that in order for it to work, we almost certainly have to (re)define "the US government" to include the relevant scientific field on a global scale, or sufficient control of all media (including the "free" internet 'they' wish had never been invented) to be able to perpetrate such a coverup.

Ok, here's an example of such a project...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Geophysical_Year

This took place during the height of the cold war, China was involved, Russia, the US, UK there was even a Polish delegation working in North Korea. The most interesting bit was mapping the land beneath the Antarctic ice cap. It wasn't because they were worried about melt; it was because they needed to verify something really important--more cartographic.

The thing is, each participating group of scientists doesn't necessarily need to know why they are doing a specific piece of research.

Sputnik and Explorer 1 were also part of the IGY, there never was a space race. The Russians had no intention of sending people to the moon until the late 60's.

bonkey wrote: »

Lets assume for a second that something is being sprayed.

Unless we know something about what that is, then the argument of motive is entirely speculative. It doesn't change the fact that something is being sprayed. Asserted effects such as the trail expanding to cover the sky may be part of the effect, or may simply be a side-effect....again, without knowing something about what is being sprayed, we have to make assumptions there in order to bring us anywhere in terms of linking effect to motive.

No, I don't think there is anything being sprayed. But the apparent persistance of contrails and Noctilucent clouds are indicators of something else.
Noctilucent clouds were never observed before the industrial reveloution btw.
The chemicals asscoiated with "chemtrails" are in fact in the air anyway because they are used in so many chemical industrial activities.

For instance the reported levels of Barium found were mis-represented by the conspiracy guys. The Barium levels were actually only 3.4% of the maximum safe levels. They conviently moved a decimal place two spaces!!!

I used the previous analogies to illustrate sterility of the persuit of Chemtrails as a conspiracy theory. But I do think that the contrail issue is an indicator of something else. What exactly that is I suppose will come out over the next few years.

BTW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4nzvAIiUIQ
Here's an interesting talk on space weather that I believe is connected to this whole issue. This is a subject we are going to see more and more of in the coming years. The part early on in the talk about sun spots is very interesting.

espinolman · 07-06-2009 9:37pm

studiorat wrote: »

I thought people were supposed to do that the other way around. Do the research and then put the theory together?

Who said people were supposed to . I am not into 'supposed to's' '

espinolman · 07-06-2009 11:20pm

bonkey wrote: »

This isn't necessarily invalid, but imagine that you came up with your hypothesis, and had done all of this work and research, only to find that there was something being added, but it wasn't at all what would be necessary for your hypothesis.

If the hypothesis does not match reality then you drop the hypothesis and come up with another hypothesis .
If we are dealing with the known , well then its ok to look for evidence because we know what evidence to look for , however if we are dealing with the unknown then a theory can indicate what the unknown might be and what direction to look for evidence .
Lets presume there is unknown data , well we don't know what the data is , so then we don't know what evidence we are looking for .
I suspect there are unknown factors with regard to chemtrails , how would we find out what we don't know , well keep coming up with theories and some of these theories could possibly lead to uncovering what is unknown .

Chem trails

Comments