Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

CHEMTRAILS

1…1617192122…39

Comments

  • #542
    SLUMLAMB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 48 ✭SLUMLAMB


    Monty Burnz wrote: »

    Re. I'd be astonished if any planes in our airspace were unidentified. So you can be pretty sure that the identity of all these planes is known.
    KNOWN BY WHO ?
    Hi Im new here but am not new to this topic, that does not mean I know the truth behind it all we can all only speculate as to the reason behind it all, but I cant understand why some poeple just wont accept that something out of the ordinary is going on. If they dont get a solid answer to a question off anyone they think its all bull. NEWSFLASH-- nobody has an answer thats why they are posting their thoughts/theories on the forum if you think there is nothing going on then why are you even reading the comments. Surely it would be better to have an argument on a topic that has a right or wrong answer if thats what your after, bottom line if you dont know dont argue just let poeple share their expierences and see what comes out of it. I travelled over most of Leinster yesterday and from noon the clear blue sky was interrupted by trails being left by 3 or 4 planes which flew back and forth until the trails criss crossed each other. This continued until the sky was covered with ''cloud'' and was still going on as it got dark. These were not trans atlantic flights or any commercial flights because any pilot I know of would be sacked if he decided to deviate from his flight path for the craic, never mind meeting up with 3 pilot buddies mid flight to try replicate "etch a scetch" in the sky. More people need to post their views on this. If there is a legitimate reason for it why all the secrecy?


  • #543
    RoboClam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 582 ✭✭✭RoboClam


    :(


    I really would like to debate this topic. Every time I try to make my point my post just gets forgotten and the usual "The sky has never been like this before" posts start appearing.


  • #544
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    Kevin Irving wrote: »
    You've been keeping an eye on the skies yeah?

    How many planes have been passing over every day?
    What types of aircfaft were they, who operated them?
    What speed were they flying at?
    What kind of engines/wing design did they have?
    What percentage of those have been leaving contrails?
    What altitude were those planes flying at?
    What was the air temperature at that flight level?
    What was the air pressure at the FL?

    Without those basic questions (and probably 100 more), you can't even say more planes have been flying over, never mind claiming that they are chemtrails.

    Time to wake up to what? The fact that you think more planes have bene flying over recently because you only notice contrails since the sky has been nice and clear these past few days?

    Phone met eireann and ask them.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUvj6Dc6W8g


    Ignorance is bliss, ehh Kevin


  • #545
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    SLUMLAMB wrote: »
    KNOWN BY WHO ?

    That's 'known by whom?'

    Anyone who has enough interest to check. There's ample websites and apps to track commercial, military, and private jet traffic on a live basis. No-one was goofing about drawing patterns in the sky - you simply saw various jets on intersecting flightpaths.


  • #546
    Samba
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,476 ✭✭✭Samba


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    It could be done very easily if the proponents of chemtrails actually wanted to put their theories to the test. Send up another plane to take samples. Why won't they do that? Tap Jim Corr for a few bob.

    lol.
    RoboClam wrote: »
    :(


    I really would like to debate this topic. Every time I try to make my point my post just gets forgotten and the usual "The sky has never been like this before" posts start appearing.

    I think you made a pretty damn good point!

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=70219631#post70219631

    I've raised the question there again, hopefully this is nothing more than the scientific definition of a persistent contrail.


  • Advertisement
  • #547
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Samba wrote: »
    Monty Burnz wrote:
    It could be done very easily if the proponents of chemtrails actually wanted to put their theories to the test. Send up another plane to take samples. Why won't they do that?

    lol.
    To be honest, 'lol' isn't a good counter-argument. Why don't the people who lecture us about chemtrails takes samples and prove their case? The question stands, in spite of 'lol'.


  • #548
    Samba
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,476 ✭✭✭Samba


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    To be honest, 'lol' isn't a good counter-argument. Why don't the people who lecture us about chemtrails takes samples and prove their case? The question stands, in spite of 'lol'.


    :facepalm:

    For the record, lol was in relation to Jim. :)

    Secondly, come off it, no one has the means to tail a commercial/military/private jet liner with scientific equipment to extract samples from a persistent contrail, never mind the fact that you would probably be in breach of countless aviation authority rules, the latter being more pertinent.

    Tbh I didn't think that your particular point merited any response but now that you have it, I do hope you're satisfied and realise how ridiculous your statement sounds when you nonchalantly suggest that someone should send planes to tail airliners in controlled air space. :eek:

    This thread is starting to look like the Monty Python argument clinic.

    I for one will be trusting the opinion of those in the aviation forum and those who provide scientific proof to counter "chemtrail" claims until such a point that concrete evidence is provided.

    It's very easy to take up one side of an argument with the same response of "prove it", anyone can do that, however I've alot more respect for those who produce counter claims with a little more substance, regardless of the traditions of onus.


  • #549
    5uspect
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,525 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    If they're "spraying" to do something nefarious to the ground population you don't have to follow the aircraft to get samples. Simply take samples at various altitudes from ground level to typical flight levels where contrails persist. You wouldn't even have to go that far. 10,000 ft would be enough to get a good mapping of the air content.

    The concentration of nasty stuff should increase dramatically once you get close to the level at which it appears to reside.


  • #550
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Samba wrote: »
    :facepalm:

    For the record, lol was in relation to Jim.:)
    Fair enoughski.
    Samba wrote: »

    Secondly, come off it, no one has the means to tail a commercial/military/private jet liner with scientific equipment to extract samples from a persistent contrail, never mind the fact that you would probably be in breach of countless aviation authority rules, the latter being more pertinent.
    Nonsense. Richard Branson has a private space programme ffs. All that 'chemtrail' proponents need to do is fly up and take a sample of a chemtrail, and they have their proof. Nobody needs to tail any planes - I thought one of the big issues with 'chemtrails' is how persistent they are.

    If I thought my life depended on it, I'd be able to organise it. Collect donations on line, make a plan, and take a sample. Simple.

    Unless you can explain why taking a sample is impossible?


  • #551
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    The cost of helium balloons?

    http://www.eoss.org/pubs/faqloon.htm

    $45 a shot adds up.


  • Advertisement
  • #552
    Samba
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,476 ✭✭✭Samba


    5uspect wrote: »
    If they're "spraying" to do something nefarious to the ground population you don't have to follow the aircraft to get samples. Simply take samples at various altitudes from ground level to typical flight levels where contrails persist. You wouldn't even have to go that far. 10,000 ft would be enough to get a good mapping of the air content.

    The concentration of nasty stuff should increase dramatically once you get close to the level at which it appears to reside.

    A very reasonable and realistic suggestion, which you could probably do with a weather balloon.

    I decided to fire off a quick email to Rosalind Peterson and questioned if these PCS could simply be explained with scientific reason.

    So the main argument is these persistent contrails were only recognised and documented as of 1988, pretty weak imo as atmospheric conditions have probably changed with global warming since the 1940's, could that potentially explain the larger number of jets producing persistent contrails simply different atmospheric conditions which are more prevalent today?

    Dear Mr. Samba:

    Thank you for writing. I don't dispute the information below although the older Appleman information has been updated in recent years by NASA studies to some extent.

    New scientific information has come out from NASA and other university studies on this subject over the past 25 years. Please note that jet contrails that persist were not a part of our skies here until first identified from hours of old photographs going back to the 1940s. The first persistent jet trail was noted in Mendocino County in 1988. It was rare to seem them here until the early 1990s. Since then their intensity and also persistence have increased dramatically...especially since 2002.

    We are not in the direct flight of commercial airlines...thus, most of the jets leaving these man-made clouds and persistent jet trails are military. And since we are hundreds of miles from the nearest large airport we are not in the direct re-routing areas for jets that circle when unable to
    land which is rare in Sacramento, San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose airports.

    Our Congressman got the flight paths for both and we easily determined that the flights leaving the persistent trails were military...also identified by former Air Force pilots.

    Note: NASA research studies show that increasingly persistent jet contrails may turn into man-made clouds (or white haze), that are “…trapping warmth in the atmosphere and exacerbating global warming…” NASA (2005), goes on to state that “…Any change in global cloud cover may contribute to long-term changes in the Earth’s climate. Contrails, especially persistent contrails, represent a human-caused increase in the Earth’s cloudiness, and are likely to be affecting climate and ultimately our natural resources…”


    I will send the article that I wrote in 2009, which still pertains today with the links. My two websites have about 19,000 documents and photographs between the two of them. I can state for the record with NASA and university studies as backup that the jets and general aviation are having an enormous impact on agriculture for a variety of reasons. Also when they produce man-made clouds they reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the earth with the following consequences:

    1) Lower crop production due to lack of direct sunlight reaching the Earth-disrupts photosynthesis.

    2) Increasing asthma from jet fuel emissions - EPA reports (also includes crop damage)

    3) Increasing lack of Vitamin D in adults and Children - increasing Rickets and other health effects from this decrease in direct sunlight reaching the Earth - Check sunlight section of my website.

    4) Solar panel power production decreasing under man-made clouds and white haze produced by jets.

    5) Molds, mildews, fungus, flu viruses, and crops pests increase with lack of direct sunlight.

    6) Check the weather modification section of my website. These programs are exacerbated by persistent jet contrails which NASA and other studies state change the climate.

    7) If you go to the Aluminum or Navy (CARE) sections of my website you will find information about upper atmospheric testing that is currently ongoing...some have been taking place for more than 30 years. The toxic chemical exposure from these sources as well as rocket fuel, which contains aluminum particles, is highly toxic - even more toxic than jet fuel
    according to my Pentagon and Military studies along with EPA studies.

    8) The Geoengineering Section will give you an idea of U.S. Government plans to set up Solar Radiation Management schemes to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth. U.S. House Science & Technology report is online on Geoengineering on their website. If you consider reducing the amount of direct sunlight reaching the Earth with these experiment and couple it with the Jets producing man-made haze and clouds...we will have a real crisis as the chemicals and particules (or gases), are toxic and can cause acid rains while polluting water and soils.

    There is a lot more which I have found during 8 years of intensive research to try and find out what I could about the impact of the jets.

    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Fair enoughski.

    Nonsense. Richard Branson has a private space programme ffs. All that 'chemtrail' proponents need to do is fly up and take a sample of a chemtrail, and they have their proof. Nobody needs to tail any planes - I thought one of the big issues with 'chemtrails' is how persistent they are.

    If I thought my life depended on it, I'd be able to organise it. Collect donations on line, make a plan, and take a sample. Simple.

    Unless you can explain why taking a sample is impossible?

    Heh, another question for the aviation forum, anyone got a lend of a plane?:D

    While I disagree with ease in which you claim this could be done, i think a more cost effective and realistic way of taking sample would be through a weather balloon but I have to agree with you, it's very surprising that no one has even attempted to carry out such tests.

    Personally I'm not quite convinced enough to make me want to go out and start taking samples.


  • #553
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    1941 persistent contrails.

    http://consci.s3.amazonaws.com//wp-content/uploads/departing-bomber-contrails.jpg


  • #554
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Samba wrote: »
    I decided to fire off a quick email to Rosalind Peterson and questioned if these PCS could simply be explained with scientific reason.
    I fired off a quick email to David Icke and he said it was due to lizard people...:confused:


  • #555
    Samba
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,476 ✭✭✭Samba


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    I fired off a quick email to David Icke and he said it was due to lizard people...:confused:

    I'm afraid the argument clinic will be closed for the day after this point.

    Admit it, you read the first line of my post then hit the reply button right? :)

    Your analogy is poor and irrelevant, the point of my email was to present a counter claim to someone who maintains to have carried out factual investigative work, I was interested to see her response. Having received it I'm openly admitting her argument looks very weak despite the avalanche of information she claims to have, it all appears to be backed up by frail and weak foundations with little or no substance.

    If anything I'm confused by your post tbh.


  • #556
    5uspect
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,525 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    Samba wrote: »
    A very reasonable and realistic suggestion, which you could probably do with a weather balloon.

    I decided to fire off a quick email to Rosalind Peterson and questioned if these PCS could simply be explained with scientific reason.

    So the main argument is these persistent contrails were only recognised and documented as of 1988, pretty weak imo as atmospheric conditions have probably changed with global warming since the 1940's, could that potentially explain the larger number of jets producing persistent contrails simply different atmospheric conditions which are more prevalent today?

    More importantly engines have changed dramatically since the 1940s.
    All the military aircraft leaving contrails in WWII were piston engined just like your car. The hot gases being expelled are much cooler than jet engines.
    Also they didn't fly as high since they weren't pressurised.

    Then came turbojets in the 50s. Small hot jet engines that accelerated a small amount of air very quickly. These deliver thrust by effectively squirting hot, high pressure air through a nozzle after it goes through a turbine to extract a small amount of energy to power the compressor completing the thermodynamic cycle. The exhaust gases consist of very hot fuel with a high concentration of combusted fuel.

    These were followed quickly by turbofans on the first jet airliners. Here a turbojet is placed in a shroud and a fan attached to the central shaft of the turbojet and front of the shroud. Now instead of accelerating a small amount of air the turbjet core powers the fan. The fan compresses a lot of air by a large amount, heating it up. However it's still very cool compared to the superhot core. Then a nozzle accelerates this volume by a small amount. Since there is much more mass here you get more momentum than from a turbojet. The turbine just before the nozzle extracts energy to power the engine.

    Then towards the 80s we saw a new generation of high bypass turbofan engines. Now the bypass ratio, how much air goes through the duct compared to the core, is dramatically increased. Some bypass air is bled off to cool the core which is increased to even hotter temperatures. All of this improves efficiency. The hotter the core the better and the more mass flow the better. The main thing leaving the engine is hot air, lots of it.

    So with these changes in the amount of air passing through engines you are far more likely to see persistent contrails since you are depositing far greater amounts of hot air which cools much slower due to its mass.


  • #557
    SLUMLAMB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 48 ✭SLUMLAMB


    5uspect wrote: »

    So with these changes in the amount of air passing through engines you are far more likely to see persistent contrails since you are depositing far greater amounts of hot air which cools much slower due to its mass.

    If these were con trails they would be constant not intermittent and also they would be coming from the engines which are on the wings not the tails of these planes. Your missing the point that its the same 4 planes going back and forth not different planes just following the same innocent flight path they are currently over the skies of Kildare for any one who lives near Kilcullen or Athy they should look up and if you have a good enough camera try to get a clear picture or a video of the planes stop start criss cross tachnique and put an end to the sceptics argument that its just normal planes going about their business. Another thing if you go towards Newbridge its completly overcast and huge black clouds can be seen in the distance. I suspect north Dublin is the same since the planes were there yesterday. does anyone have any more info on the weather there ?


  • #558
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    SLUMLAMB wrote: »
    Your missing the point that its the same 4 planes going back and forth not different planes

    And their reg numbers? Since you can establish they're the same four planes.


  • #559
    caseyann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,941 ✭✭✭caseyann


    alastair wrote: »
    And their reg numbers? Since you can establish they're the same four planes.

    I think what he is saying to be able to say same planes is actually witnessed them turn around and fly back.


  • #560
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Samba wrote: »
    I'm afraid the argument clinic will be closed for the day after this point.

    Admit it, you read the first line of my post then hit the reply button right? :)

    Your analogy is poor and irrelevant, the point of my email was to present a counter claim to someone who maintains to have carried out factual investigative work, I was interested to see her response. Having received it I'm openly admitting her argument looks very weak despite the avalanche of information she claims to have, it all appears to be backed up by frail and weak foundations with little or no substance.

    If anything I'm confused by your post tbh.
    Fair enough - my point was just that if you ask certain people, you know what they are going to say in advance.


  • #561
    SLUMLAMB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 48 ✭SLUMLAMB


    alastair wrote: »
    That's 'known by whom?'

    Anyone who has enough interest to check. There's ample websites and apps to track commercial, military, and private jet traffic on a live basis. No-one was goofing about drawing patterns in the sky - you simply saw various jets on intersecting flightpaths.

    Thanks for the grammar lesson but thats not what we are here for. Dont tell me what I did or did not see. I saw the same four planes not jets which had the ability to turn on and off their "con trails" explain that to me then. I didnt just glance up into the sky and decide what it was I watched them from 12 noon until it got dark flying over and back leaving intermittent trails, thats why I posted it here to see what other people have seen not to read stupid arguments. Where were you yesterday did you look up? How do you know for certain "No-one was goofing about drawing patterns in the sky" ? Your right about one thing no one is goofing about but there are patterns in the sky


  • Advertisement
  • #562
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    SLUMLAMB wrote: »
    If these were con trails they would be constant not intermittent and also they would be coming from the engines which are on the wings not the tails of these planes.
    Hang on.
    I thought these chemtrails where meant to be coming off the wings.
    caseyann wrote: »
    Just found this video footage,not sure if anyone else posted yet.

    Alleged chemtrail spraying.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28dQaaLQGQ

    So which is it? And how do you know?


  • #563
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    alastair wrote: »
    And their reg numbers? Since you can establish they're the same four planes.
    I'm sure if he can identify that they are the same planes he will be able to explain how he knows that they are the same...


  • #564
    caseyann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,941 ✭✭✭caseyann


    King Mob wrote: »

    So which is it? And how do you know?

    King Mob what?


  • #565
    *melanie*
    Closed Accounts Posts: 207 ✭✭*melanie*


    Is this a normal amount to have? This morning.
    168419_1842757833425_1374987225_32126644_6097122_n.jpg


  • #566
    SLUMLAMB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 48 ✭SLUMLAMB


    caseyann wrote: »
    I think what he is saying to be able to say same planes is actually witnessed them turn around and fly back.

    Yes exactly thanks for pointing that out for me. I think some people are focusing on stupid things to try and steer people away from the real issue and these people have no real argument against they just keep saying "its planes wit con trails" they obviously have not seen the full extent of it and how these trails keep growig until the whole sky is covered.


  • #567
    SLUMLAMB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 48 ✭SLUMLAMB


    King Mob wrote: »
    Hang on.
    I thought these chemtrails where meant to be coming off the wings.


    So which is it? And how do you know?

    Firstly I never mentioned chemtrails and the planes were low enough for me to be able to see the trails coming from the back/tail centre of the plane not the wings given that there is a considerable difference between the span of the wings and the tail its fairly easy to tell which part of the plane is producing the trails.


  • #568
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    I think we just got proof that caseyann is trolling the board or is...not the sharpest tool in the box.
    caseyann wrote: »
    You are welcome.I know what you are talking about a i have seen it a good few times of late.
    I just found this,not sure if it is a credible site and havent read whole lot yet.

    Houston, TX - A stunning photo of Earth taken from Outer Space is sending shock-waves through the scientific community today. The photo reveals that the beautiful blue marble in space is gone. It has been replaced by a hazy white ball of filth, laced with chemtrails, and obviously dying.

    "We did it, we killed it." said Dr. Karl Saygun from NASA. The famed astronomer spoke from his office.

    "The federal government has been spraying chemtrails in the atmosphere since 1996. We were trying to combat Global Warming, instead we killed the Earth." he said, and shook his head with dismay.


    121206-3409PlanetEarth.jpg

    http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i89926


  • #569
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    caseyann wrote: »
    King Mob what?

    He's saying that you can identify chemtrails by the fact that they come from the back of the plane and not the wings, yet you posted a video which you think shows the chemtrails coming form the wing.

    So which is the correct answer, from the wings or from the tail?


  • #570
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    SLUMLAMB wrote: »
    Firstly I never mentioned chemtrails and the planes were low enough for me to be able to see the trails coming from the back/tail centre of the plane not the wings given that there is a considerable difference between the span of the wings and the tail its fairly easy to tell which part of the plane is producing the trails.
    Right, but how did you know they were the same four planes the whole time? Do you have any evidence or proof at all?


  • Advertisement
  • #571
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    SLUMLAMB wrote: »
    Firstly I never mentioned chemtrails and the planes were low enough for me to be able to see the trails coming from the back/tail centre of the plane not the wings given that there is a considerable difference between the span of the wings and the tail its fairly easy to tell which part of the plane is producing the trails.

    But you said clearly that they can't be contrails because they are coming from the tail.
    So if they aren't contrails and you are posting on a thread about chemtrails, it's not exactly a leap to assume that's what you where referring to.

    So if they aren't contrails and they aren't chemtrails what are you suggesting they where?


Advertisement