Jack White Posted January 7, 2008 Author Share Posted January 7, 2008 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. The "high cirrus clouds" were the result of the spreading of the chemtrails. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 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. The "high cirrus clouds" were the result of the spreading of the chemtrails. Jack Jack, That is HIGHLY debatable in either of the images, so much so I would say you are very wrong. Although I have had meteorological training, and am a trained met observer, I would discount my own opinion and ask that you show the images to a meteorologist and seek their opinion. I am sure there are many around your area. If they agree with you and disagree with me, please post their reply here. You might want to read this, or Google "clouds cirrus". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Drago Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 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. The "high cirrus clouds" were the result of the spreading of the chemtrails. Jack Jack, That is HIGHLY debatable in either of the images, so much so I would say you are very wrong. Although I have had meteorological training, and am a trained met observer, I would discount my own opinion and ask that you show the images to a meteorologist and seek their opinion. I am sure there are many around your area. If they agree with you and disagree with me, please post their reply here. You might want to read this, or Google "clouds cirrus". While I have no way whatsoever to determine the origin of the aformentioned "high cirrus clouds," I can report from repeated personal observations that con/chemtrails had indeed spread to resemble in all superficially visible aspects the formations under scrutiny. I'm talking about what I can describe in my limited meteorological vocabulary as massive "cloud" formations unambiguously originating as con/chemtrails. By "massive" I mean to indicate an estimated width one hundred times (100 X) greather than that of the source con/chemtrail. Further, I have observed the con/chemtrails produce a billowing (again, most certainly an imprecise, non-scientific term) effect as the wide clouds form. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 (edited) Is it possible that contrails might have a seeding effect on the atmosphere in certain conditions, in the same way that dropping a grain of salt into a super-cooled container of water will cause it to freeze solid? Just speculation on my part. What I would question is whether this is the result of "Operation Parasol", a government programme so super secret that Jack is able to post about it quite freely on this forum. Can I ask for sources relating to this programme? The only one I could find related to the Canadian Red Cross. What more information do you have about this programme Jack? I did manage to dig out Dr Teller's white paper on the subject of global warming and the use of aerosols in the atmosphere to mitigate it. GLOBAL WARMING AND ICE AGES: I. Prospects For Physics-Based Modulation Of Global Change*. Edit to add: If it is indeed possible to use jet aircraft to mitigate the effects of global warming, can we expect the British Government to reduce airport tax? Maybe they should be encouraging people to fly rather than discouraging them? Perhaps an incentive scheme whereby the Government pay a percentage of the ticket price? Edited January 7, 2008 by Dave Greer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 Charles, I was a little vague in my post; hopefully these annotations to Jack's images will illustrate what I am saying. In both images, the contrails are clear; the high-level cloud (either cirrus or cirrostratus) is distinct from the contrails. In one image, you see some cloud which I think is possibly the remnants of a previous contrail. Dispersing contrails will tend to form a straight line and be more easily recognisable from naturally occurring cirrus / cirrostratus. It is normally dependent on the wind at altitude. This is an image that shows conditions where the contrails do spread out to form cirrus-like cloud, but you can clearly see that they are dispersing contrails. Compare the preceding to cirrus cloud: and cirrostratus: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Drago Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 This is an image that shows conditions where the contrails do spread out to form cirrus-like cloud, but you can clearly see that they are dispersing contrails. Evan, Which is precisely my point. Again I feel obliged to cite the severe limitations under which I opine on this issue: I'm no metereologist. But I continue to be struck by the relative rapidity of the spread of con/chemtrial into cirrus as well as its volume, and to the best of my ability to recall, I cannot think of a precedent for this phenomenon noted prior to (for lack of a more poetically just date) September 10, 2001. And no, I imply not the slightest linkage. I do ask: What has changed about the atmosphere, the fuel, and/or the engines that would prompt the formations as noted? Or to put it plainly: Why didn't this happen when I was a kid? Have atmospheric chemists (other than Ken "Heil Be Around" Rahn) addressed the science of con/chemtrails? Are you familiar with chemtrail theory related to HAARP applications? Anti-missile applications? Nonsense? Interesting? Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 The only thing I can think of is the altitude at which aircraft operate. Early post-WWII, jets were operating higher and higher... but this was the domain of military aircraft. Most civil aircraft were propeller driven, operating about 25 000 feet. These days, civil jets are everywhere, routinely operating at 35-40 thousand feet. That's just a guess, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 True. And they keep getting higher as jet engine designs improve allowing civil aviation up higher and more airspace is needed to ease congestion. It is not uncommon for a new civilian airliner to cruise above 40,000 feet. Conversely, the jet I fly on, the E-8C, rarely flies above 30,000 feet due to the extra weight we carry with the radar and the older jet engines we have on an ancient airframe. In my 900 hours of flight I remember going to 35,000 feet only twice and that was on the way home with low fuel. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to get up that high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Drago Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 (edited) The only thing I can think of is the altitude at which aircraft operate. Early post-WWII, jets were operating higher and higher... but this was the domain of military aircraft. Most civil aircraft were propeller driven, operating about 25 000 feet.These days, civil jets are everywhere, routinely operating at 35-40 thousand feet. That's just a guess, though. I too am relying on guess genes (sorry) throughout this thread. For the record, I am comparing relatively recent (within, say, the past 5-7 years) con/chemtrail observations to what was regularly observed immediately prior to that period. In other words, the chemtrail phenomenon as I think about it was first noticed in the 21st century. In so stating, I have indeed viewed still photos and motion pictures of WWII-vintage contrails emanating from high-altitude bomber formations. What these views do NOT reveal, however, are the durations and ultimate spread patterns of the relatively (compared to what is described below) thick white lines. Prior to the chemtrail business, the only contrails with which I was familiar were of the relatively short, thin, and quickly dissipating variety. Charles Edited January 10, 2008 by Charles Drago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 10, 2008 Author Share Posted January 10, 2008 (edited) Today was a great day for chemtrails over Fort Worth. While out to lunch I counted more than a dozen SETS OF THREE PARALLEL CHEMTRAILS all over the sky in various locations and orientations. All were in sets of three. They stretched from horizon to horizon. COINCIDENTALLY AT THE SAME TIME, another plane, apparently at the same altitude, WAS LEAVING A CONDENSATION CONTRAIL only several hundred feet long before evaporating rapidly leaving no trace. It was a perfect opportunity to photograph a feet-long contrail in near proximity to three giant chemtrails...but I had no camera with me. The provocateurs would have been at a loss for words on this. Too bad. Jack Edited January 10, 2008 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 So different planes that are likely at different altitudes leave different types of contrails. So what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Drago Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 So different planes that are likely at different altitudes leave different types of contrails. So what? Precisely. This fact speaks not a syllable to the aspects of the con/chemtrail phenomenon that continue to baffle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 I honestly see no problem with contrails in the same sky persisting different lengths of time. I see it all the time. Contrail persistence is highly dependent on temperature and moisture content of the air. Both can and do vary with altitude and the difference can sometimes be seen in just a thousand feet. The type of plane and engines can also have an effect. There is no reason to think that two different planes that are at unknown altitudes (likely not the same) should have the same type of contrail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 10, 2008 Author Share Posted January 10, 2008 So different planes that are likely at different altitudes leave different types of contrails. So what? The planes all appeared to be at the same altitude. The groups of three were laid by three planes flying in formation together in the same direction. The contrail plane was flying alone. The chemtrails persisted, and expanded into cirrus clouds. The contrail dissipated within ten seconds. I know what I saw. Lewis does not. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Oh. I'm sorry. Jack apparently can do something no one else in the world can. He can tell the altitude of a plane from the ground with nothing more than his eyes. Jack, I've asked before and I'm asking again. Would you say that persisent contrails do not exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now