Chemtrails, not by Jack White.

[Peter McKenna]

Peter, Charles:

A good site from the UK from a researcher who studies contrails:

http://hazelrigg.es.lancs.ac.uk/amy/Home.htm

Another excellent site to read is:

http://contrailscience.com/

Be sure to read the sections on the history of 'chemtrails' and chemical analysis of same.

Thank you Evan. Good sites with sound scientific information.

I will stand corrected (slightly) in that I said that "It is incorrect to assume that contrails will disappear in minutes. This could occur but would be atypical." From the studies done it appears that on average, the population of non-persistent contrails (contrails which last < 5 minutes), is anywhere between 5% and 25% of the total contrail population, which is a greater frequency than I had supposed (based on the heat input required to change water/moisture to water vapor/gas). This maybe due, at least in part, to the effect of wind shear. The non persistent contrails are atypical, but occur at a greater frequency than I had assumed.

If I am reading this information correctly the aluminum and barium levels are equivalent to normal background levels as well (at least within the sample population).

Didn't see much concerning pathogens, except; a salient point in addressing pathogens would be the statement that due to the extreme unpredictability of the dispersement whatever harm would be done the populace could also affect the conspirator(s).

I will try to keep an open mind on this subject due to the past occurrence of atmospheric experiments and the tendencies of past "less-than-scrupulous" military-governmental types to deal in WMD including aerosols (the Russian theatre attack comes to mind).

Also, it wouldn't surprise me if there wasn't some sort of urban pacification strategy which employed gas, but I am showing my paranoia. Likely the CT concerning "chemtrails" is only that, a theory. But, I also find the philosophy of questioning the weird contrail patterns to be a healthy form of paranoia; as it is only paranoia if it isn't true, and sooner or later it will be.

[Matthew Lewis]

All looks like normal air traffic to me. Or do airlines not follow navigational beacons where you are? Even the one with parallel travel still looks like they have more than the legal required separation. Check out the attached picture. Plenty of X's, crosses, and parallel lines. Especially when you consider the fact that the jetways depicted by lines can be 20 or more miles wide and legal separation is only a few miles laterally or 1,000 feet vertically. But what do I know? Its not like I have studied this for years and my livliehood depends on knowing how it all works. Oh wait, it is like that. (I controll aircraft in my job and I have to know how airspace works or people can die)

Edited January 6, 2008 by Matthew Lewis

[Matthew Lewis]

Another interesting thing to note is in each of those pictures with persistent contrails that Jack posted there are also high cirrus clouds. If the conditions are such that high cirrus clouds exist, then it is highly likely that contrails will be persitent at similar altitudes.

[Charles Drago]

I will try to keep an open mind on this subject due to the past occurrence of atmospheric experiments and the tendencies of past "less-than-scrupulous" military-governmental types to deal in WMD including aerosols (the Russian theatre attack comes to mind).

Also, it wouldn't surprise me if there wasn't some sort of urban pacification strategy which employed gas, but I am showing my paranoia. Likely the CT concerning "chemtrails" is only that, a theory. But, I also find the philosophy of questioning the weird contrail patterns to be a healthy form of paranoia; as it is only paranoia if it isn't true, and sooner or later it will be.

Bravo.

[Matthew Lewis]

Peter, Charles:

A good site from the UK from a researcher who studies contrails:

http://hazelrigg.es.lancs.ac.uk/amy/Home.htm

Another excellent site to read is:

http://contrailscience.com/

Be sure to read the sections on the history of 'chemtrails' and chemical analysis of same.

Those are two very good sites. Especially the first. I hadn't seen either before. Thanks!

[Evan Burton]

Also, it wouldn't surprise me if there wasn't some sort of urban pacification strategy which employed gas, but I am showing my paranoia. Likely the CT concerning "chemtrails" is only that, a theory. But, I also find the philosophy of questioning the weird contrail patterns to be a healthy form of paranoia; as it is only paranoia if it isn't true, and sooner or later it will be.

Oh, by all means question; just also listen to the replies.. as you are doing.

Yep, I would say that somewhere there are plans for urban pacification using airborne delivered gas (or more properly, aerosol) - makes sense if that is what you are going to do.

To me, a weakness in the current claims of "chemtrails" is there happening at high altitude on days where they can clearly be seen. Think of two different scenarios:

1. CHEMTRAILS TO INTRODUCE PATHOGEN / MIND CONTROL / ETC. If this were the case, it would be a covert operation. Why do it where it can clearly be seen? Wouldn't it be better done on cloudy days, where the dispersal could be hidden? The higher the altitude, the longer the various wind currents can affect the final touchdown zone of any aerosol dispersed. Why not use lower altitude? Because airliners are being used, and they have to follow normal paths and everything must seem normal? Is aerosol being dispersed from an airliner normal? The systems involved would be discovered eventually; there are far too many people who have access to the airframe and systems for engineering / airworthiness purposes for it to be kept a secret.

2. CHEMTRAILS FOR WEATHER CONTROL / REDUCING GLOBAL WARMING. If this were being done to stop global warming, wouldn't you want to advertise the fact? Counter negative publicity from Kyoto, etc?

[Peter McKenna]

Also, it wouldn't surprise me if there wasn't some sort of urban pacification strategy which employed gas, but I am showing my paranoia. Likely the CT concerning "chemtrails" is only that, a theory. But, I also find the philosophy of questioning the weird contrail patterns to be a healthy form of paranoia; as it is only paranoia if it isn't true, and sooner or later it will be.

Oh, by all means question; just also listen to the replies.. as you are doing.

Yep, I would say that somewhere there are plans for urban pacification using airborne delivered gas (or more properly, aerosol) - makes sense if that is what you are going to do.

To me, a weakness in the current claims of "chemtrails" is there happening at high altitude on days where they can clearly be seen. Think of two different scenarios:

1. CHEMTRAILS TO INTRODUCE PATHOGEN / MIND CONTROL / ETC. If this were the case, it would be a covert operation. Why do it where it can clearly be seen? Wouldn't it be better done on cloudy days, where the dispersal could be hidden? The higher the altitude, the longer the various wind currents can affect the final touchdown zone of any aerosol dispersed. Why not use lower altitude? Because airliners are being used, and they have to follow normal paths and everything must seem normal? Is aerosol being dispersed from an airliner normal? The systems involved would be discovered eventually; there are far too many people who have access to the airframe and systems for engineering / airworthiness purposes for it to be kept a secret.

Yes, if this were the case then Jack has it bass ackwards. Atomized aerosols need not be visible (in fact a covert aerosol dump would most likely be designed to be invisible), if pathogens or some kind of pablum were used. Jack's theory that "chemtrails" remain visible for hours and contrails disappear in seconds doesn't make any sense.

2. CHEMTRAILS FOR WEATHER CONTROL / REDUCING GLOBAL WARMING. If this were being done to stop global warming, wouldn't you want to advertise the fact? Counter negative publicity from Kyoto, etc?

I'm not familiar with the science of weather control. Sounds a little bit apocalyptic. I've heard of cloud seeding. Chemical changes that would affect global warming would likely have to be introduced above the stratosphere, wouldn't it?

[Matthew Lewis]

Other problems with releasing pathogens or chemicals at high altitude are aiming and dilution. Particles released at above 30,000 feet could take days or even weeks to reach the ground and by then would be halfway around the world. Those particles by the time they reach the ground would be in such small concentrations to be effectively useless. Plus the UV radiation on those particles would render many substances harmless by the time they reached the ground. If they really wanted to spray the population and do it accurately and actually have some effect, they would need to do it from less than 5,000 feet. Even then it would easier to put something in the water supply or food.

[Evan Burton]

Peter,

I don't know much more (probably less) than you do about weather control, but I have heard it mentioned in relation to 'chemtrails'.

Matt,

Yep. All of the aerosols I have heard of are released from low altitude. Operation RANCH HAND and Agent Orange is just one example:

[Kathleen Collins]

In Secaucus, NJ late December 2006, shortly before noon, I saw a large airplane doing skywriting -- or practicing it. We were about to pull out of the parking spot, when I asked my friend if she thought it weird. She was virtually non-committal, but I was able to watch for a couple of minutes. He was at relatively low altitude. He made two O's, a K and a C. I think he was practicing. It was odd, but I wanted to report it here, this large plane making virtual sharp circles. The skeptics will either ignore or attack my sighting. I don't care.

I also recommend Harvey and Lee by John Armstrong.

Kathy Collins

[Michael Hogan]

Your inability to admit that Armstrong's research contains anything of value demonstrates that your ego supersedes your reason.

And your last comment, like many of Jack's, misrepresents the facts (what a shock!). Here is what I said in post #35 of this thread: "I have never said there is NOTHING worthwhile in it. I'm sure there is, though off the top I can only think of one thing - his mention of Percival Brundage....

You call that a misrepresentation of the facts? Greg, thanks for proving my point on both counts.

[Evan Burton]

In Secaucus, NJ late December 2006, shortly before noon, I saw a large airplane doing skywriting -- or practicing it. We were about to pull out of the parking spot, when I asked my friend if she thought it weird. She was virtually non-committal, but I was able to watch for a couple of minutes. He was at relatively low altitude. He made two O's, a K and a C. I think he was practicing. It was odd, but I wanted to report it here, this large plane making virtual sharp circles. The skeptics will either ignore or attack my sighting. I don't care.

Kathy,

I don't know why you thought it was odd. Skywriting takes place in numerous countries. It spelt OOKC? I think you are right in think that they were practicing.

[Matthew Lewis]

I have only seen skywriting once while in Panama City FL. They were spelling out "Will you marry me?" I think it is becoming a much rarer event to see as it is expensive to hire somebody for the purpose and airspace is becoming more and more restricted. Interesting to see.

[Peter McKenna]

I have only seen skywriting once while in Panama City FL. They were spelling out "Will you marry me?" I think it is becoming a much rarer event to see as it is expensive to hire somebody for the purpose and airspace is becoming more and more restricted. Interesting to see.

Now that's terrorism.

[Evan Burton]

I watched them spell out "froggy" over Sydney about 2003 (IIRC). I wondered WOWTF was froggy. Turns out it was for that failed TelCo, froggy.com