German TV exposes chemtrails

[Seamus OBlimey]

My tongue is bigger than yours, so n'yah n'yah n'yah!

You should use it more. I like it.

[Fat Lady Singing]

My tongue is bigger than yours, so n'yah n'yah n'yah!

You should use it more. I like it.

So does my husband! (Insert rimshot here). Thank you, I'll be here all week.

Seriously, though, I think, um, thanks.

[justdrew]

I don't doubt that _some_ of what people are seeing regarding near perfect grid patters are part of some sort of top secret drills/tests. They're probably using an inactive simulant in the spraying at those times. This would be part of our 'defensive research' testing out how dispersion works and so on and so for. No doubt very top secret (in part because the testing is also aimed at developing the best ways to get good dispersal in the event they someday want to lay down some chemical/biological agent over a large area).
One thing to look for in such cases would be ground sample collection activities. Oddly, I've never heard reports of anything that sounds like men-in-black/uniform/bio-hazard dress driving around collecting samples. There could possibly be up to a few hundred such training drills/experiments conducted over the last decade, but not more.

Most of the rest is just normal activities. It is normal for cloud formation to be kicked off by the particulates in jet exhaust. The upper atmosphere is showing some changes and the cloud formation is often more aggressive than it used to be. but if you watch, some days the jets leave little or no contrails, others there will be big long ones that cascade into extensive cloud formation. this is more or less normal.

It's normal for jets following established air-corridors to not follow each other perfectly (they want to avoid vorticity from the leading planes), they don't want to be directly behind one another, and so offset a bit to the right or left, resulting in many parallel lines.

I think a lot of this chemtrails stuff was purpose designed by US military psi-ops to provide cover for some of these airborne dispersal experiments and/or training drills.

[Seamus OBlimey]

I'll be here all week.

That would be good news if it wasn't thursday.

[massen]

Thought people might be amused / interested in this comment on today's BBC magazine article about possible tech for reflecting solar rays to combat global warming.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7533600.stm

Is this news? Governments all around the world have already been permitting reflective chaff to be sprayed into the atmosphere for over ten years now. They were presumably informed that the spraying of heavy metals into the atmosphere, although creating a significant health risk, would great an "albedo" (whiteness) around the globe, reflecting a sufficient percentage of the sun's rays back into outer space to reduce "global warming". This operation (involving hundreds of small, silver, unmarked tanker-aircraft) can be witnessed by anyone in the UK (even those in far-out Wales and Scotland) should they care to look at their increasingly spray-obscured skies from time to time. In my experience it is clearly visible twice a week on average.
Timothy Johnson, Esher, UK

Or maybe the article itself is an early prelude to disclosure? Personally I don't see much in this - I've certainly seen the effect but I've always enjoyed watching the skies and this doesn't look like anything particularly new. If it is different then I think atmospheric conditions / jet tech / more frequent flights can explain a lot.

[Et in Arcadia ego]

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?recor ... 5&page=433

In this chapter a number of "geoengineering" options are considered. These are options that would involve large-scale engineering of our environment in order to combat or counteract the effects of changes in atmospheric chemistry. Most of these options have to do with the possibility of compensating for a rise in global temperature, caused by an increase in greenhouse gases, by reflecting or scattering back a fraction of the incoming sunlight. Other geoengineering possibilities include reforesting the United States to increase the storage of carbon in vegetation, stimulating an increase in oceanic biomass as a means of increasing the storage and natural sequestering of carbon in the ocean, decreasing CO2 by direct absorption, and decreasing atmospheric halocarbons by direct destruction. It is important to recognize that we are at present involved in a large project of inadvertent "geoengineering" by altering atmospheric chemistry, and it does not seem inappropriate to inquire if there are countermeasures that might be implemented to address the adverse impacts.

Our current inadvertent project in "geoengineering" involves great uncertainty and great risk. Engineered countermeasures need to be evaluated but should not be implemented without broad understanding of the direct effects and the potential side effects, the ethical issues, and the risks. Some do have the merit of being within the range of current short-term experience, and others could be "turned off" if unintended effects occur.

Most of these ideas have been proposed before, and the relevant references are cited in the text. The panel here provides sketches of possible systems and rough estimates of the costs of implementing them.

The analyses in this chapter should be thought of as explorations of plausibility in the sense of providing preliminary answers to two questions and encouraging scrutiny of a third:

This chapter has several mitigation proposals detailed down to the last iota. The entire publication in its time was an authoritative reference. The only reason its no longer considreed to be such is because the runaway reactions of the Planet that are outpacing the IPCC's predictions even as short as 6 months ago.

"Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming:Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base" was published in 1992. This publication was submitted to Congress more than 10 years before GWB denied any possibility or reason to look into warming scenarios, including 'spraying', which in actuallity meant passing aluminum particulates through aircraft turbines, which was suggested by Teller, but in reality, he stole the idea from Ramanathan, who suggested it more than 25 years ago. Another suggestion was to burn airplane fule 'richer', creating soot(chemtrails), and the timing of JP8's arrival as a fuel source is no small coincidence.

Speaking of IPCC, here's the link to the IPCC Special Report on Aviation and the Global Atmosphere:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/aviation/index.htm

Figure 3-16: Persistent contrail coverage (in % area cover) for the 1992 aviation fleet, assuming linear dependence on fuel consumption and overall efficiency of propulsion h of 0.3. The global mean cover is 0.1% (from Sausen et al., 1998).

There's a 2050 projection above I'm out of time to track down, but its in either chapter 3 or 6 I believe.

Sharing this stuff over and over and taking flak for it is a pretty thankless task. I hope this offers an insight into why I keep trying to kill the windmill with a toothbrush. Truth is, this subject crops up every six months or so, and dilutes the integrity of discussions on this forum. Just having google index the word 'chemtrail' drops this forum's ratings.

This is an important place where important things are discussed. The witchcraft needs to be gutted from the Science when it comes to 'chemtrails'.

Sorry, guys.

[Et in Arcadia ego]

They were presumably informed that the spraying of heavy metals into the atmosphere, although creating a significant health risk, would great an "albedo" (whiteness) around the globe, reflecting a sufficient percentage of the sun's rays back into outer space to reduce "global warming".

"Albedo" is the index of the Earth's reflectivity. The North Pole, for example, has(or had) the highest albedo rating on the Planet. A perfect example of a runaway process is when the snow melts, Albedo is reduced, which means more heat. More heat means more melting.

This is how it works, and the exact mechanism by which Warming accelerates; the feedback loop(one of them, anyways).

More proper terminology is 'Radiative Forcing". When you come across this term, what it means very specifically is Man's effect on the planet's Albedo and nothing else.

[brainpanhandler]

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1605&page=433

In this chapter a number of "geoengineering" options are considered. These are options that would involve large-scale engineering of our environment in order to combat or counteract the effects of changes in atmospheric chemistry. Most of these options have to do with the possibility of compensating for a rise in global temperature, caused by an increase in greenhouse gases, by reflecting or scattering back a fraction of the incoming sunlight. Other geoengineering possibilities include reforesting the United States to increase the storage of carbon in vegetation, stimulating an increase in oceanic biomass as a means of increasing the storage and natural sequestering of carbon in the ocean, decreasing CO2 by direct absorption, and decreasing atmospheric halocarbons by direct destruction. It is important to recognize that we are at present involved in a large project of inadvertent "geoengineering" by altering atmospheric chemistry, and it does not seem inappropriate to inquire if there are countermeasures that might be implemented to address the adverse impacts.

Our current inadvertent project in "geoengineering" involves great uncertainty and great risk. Engineered countermeasures need to be evaluated but should not be implemented without broad understanding of the direct effects and the potential side effects, the ethical issues, and the risks. Some do have the merit of being within the range of current short-term experience, and others could be "turned off" if unintended effects occur.

Most of these ideas have been proposed before, and the relevant references are cited in the text. The panel here provides sketches of possible systems and rough estimates of the costs of implementing them.

The analyses in this chapter should be thought of as explorations of plausibility in the sense of providing preliminary answers to two questions and encouraging scrutiny of a third:

This chapter has several mitigation proposals detailed down to the last iota. The entire publication in its time was an authoritative reference. The only reason its no longer considreed to be such is because the runaway reactions of the Planet that are outpacing the IPCC's predictions even as short as 6 months ago.

"Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming:Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base" was published in 1992. This publication was submitted to Congress more than 10 years before GWB denied any possibility or reason to look into warming scenarios, including 'spraying', which in actuallity meant passing aluminum particulates through aircraft turbines, which was suggested by Teller, but in reality, he stole the idea from Ramanathan, who suggested it more than 25 years ago. Another suggestion was to burn airplane fule 'richer', creating soot(chemtrails), and the timing of JP8's arrival as a fuel source is no small coincidence.

Speaking of IPCC, here's the link to the IPCC Special Report on Aviation and the Global Atmosphere:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/aviation/index.htm

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/avi ... vf3-16.jpg

Figure 3-16: Persistent contrail coverage (in % area cover) for the 1992 aviation fleet, assuming linear dependence on fuel consumption and overall efficiency of propulsion h of 0.3. The global mean cover is 0.1% (from Sausen et al., 1998).

There's a 2050 projection above I'm out of time to track down, but its in either chapter 3 or 6 I believe.

Sharing this stuff over and over and taking flak for it is a pretty thankless task. I hope this offers an insight into why I keep trying to kill the windmill with a toothbrush. Truth is, this subject crops up every six months or so, and dilutes the integrity of discussions on this forum. Just having google index the word 'chemtrail' drops this forum's ratings.

This is an important place where important things are discussed. The witchcraft needs to be gutted from teh Science when it comes to 'chemtrails'.

Sorry, guys.

Thanks for the guidance et.

Just having google index the word '...' drops this forum's ratings.

Can we just use another word?

More proper terminology is 'Radiative Forcing". When you come across this term, what it means very specifically is Man's effect on the planet's Albedo and nothing else.

What would someone try to convince me that 'radiative forcing' means that it does not?

[2012 Countdown]

What if, when we look in the sky and notice things have changed, we're seeing the effect, rather than the cause? What if "chemtrails"/"persistent contrails" are not the problem, so much as the atmospheric medium they're suspended in?

Hi Jeff: I don't know if what I saw could be classified as a "problem" or not, really. Perhaps the worst that could be said of the grid is that it was unsightly.

What I saw was a hundred times more clear, neat, and obvious than any of the pictures posted on this thread -- that's what I meant when I described it as "blatant." No disrespect intended toward the people posting pictures, but the pictures are, to my eyes, open to interpretation. What I saw absolutely was not. The clarity and perfection of the grid was astonishing. I don't know if that's a function of actually being there to see it as it formed, or the inadequacy of cameras to capture such events, or whether it's because the event in the sky I and my husband witnessed was qualitatively different from what's pictured in this thread.

Again, I saw the jets creating the grid, so it was definitely a process going on, rather than any kind of product I saw traces of later.

Honestly, if it is some kind of government program to forestall or reverse global warming, I'm not going to feel too bad about it, secret or not, as long as whatever is in the air that happens to fall to the ground isn't more dangerous to the population than global warming itself. I'm sure that would have some RI members aghast... and I'm a little surprised, myself, to see those words coming from my keyboard. I guess I'd prefer to think we're doing *something* about global warming -- that is, something more than continually contributing to it.

I'm going to back you up again here, as I too can certainly say the exact same thing with certainty. One cannot stress the precise parallel lines, equal distances apart, and the exact 90 degree angles of lines running perpendicularly, also at equal distances apart. Furthermore, this all happening within a 1/2 to 1 hour period. This happened at differing times of day over a 2 week period, then no further activity.

Again, I haven't a clue as to what was going on, but I only chime in again to stress it seemed obviously deliberate, planned, and programatic/scheduled.

[Et in Arcadia ego]

Just having google index the word '...' drops this forum's ratings.

Can we just use another word?

Of course. The recognized terminology in the science community for the initial formation is Persistent Contrail. The visible, but dissipated formation that comes after is called Cirrus Uncinus. Its very distinct for its 'Mare's Tail' effect:



I've taken some of the scariest 'chemtrail' pics I've seen anywhere else online, but at the end of the day, I don't believe I'm looking at a death powder. I'll try and dig up a few of my greatest hits and freak you the hell out later tonight after I get off work.

[Joe Hillshoist]

What if, when we look in the sky and notice things have changed, we're seeing the effect, rather than the cause? What if "chemtrails"/"persistent contrails" are not the problem, so much as the atmospheric medium they're suspended in?

This is what I've been trying(admittedly a little hot-headedly) to suggest to people for years.

gongfu, you are correct, discussion for discussion's sake is indeed a good thing and nothing I'd ever wish to stamp out, but there's a dynamic at work here where once a person believes their being 'poisoned', they really fly off into the deep end and all the sudden the world is 1,000 shades blacker.

Its black enough, dude. My darkest days literally were when I was a 'chemmie'. Peace of mind was literally impossible and I hesitated to draw breath outside for fear of what I was consuming.

This is a serious issue and one of the worst things about my time involved in the thing. It scares people, and it makes you look at the wonders of nature, like a sunset, as a direct threat designed to fuck you up. Apart from the pollution thats where the real poison is. The world is a great place with some fucked up people ruining it, and some oblivious people helping, and thats bad enough. Thinking the beauty of a sunset is something that will kill you is bad for the soul.

There are some people I wish I'd never exposed to that idea.

My wife once even got right up me about it. Told me off well and truly, over a specific person who started to look at the sky in fear constantly, and couldn't enjoy sunrise and set anymore. She was right too, fear is no good for anything.

One final point, too, even tho Arcadia and I are saying what we are, we are not saying this means nothing.

IMO Whats happening is worse than any govt sponsered spray program.

Its funny that although Arcadia and I had never met before we'd come to the same conclusions, I know a couple of other online people who have come to the same place.

And just cos he's wrong about this (tho cheers man):

Joe's a smart guy; smart as they come.

He certainly isn't wrong about the whole chemtrail thing.

But you have to come to your own conclusions about that. Truth is debunkers helped mire me in more, cos I'm a stubborn prick and don't like admitting I am wrong. So I don't want to do that to anyone here.

[mentalgongfu2]

Et said:

Go spread three years of your life eating this meme and find your own 'bored-to-fucking-tears-with=the-bullshit' smiley.

I am a Pro.

Or was one.

But please, dismiss nothing out of hand; there are ,millions of colorful energy sinks to allow to suck one's face off staring into.

A toilet will even do that.

Is a toilet a part of the Clemtrail Conspirarcy?
___

Do yourselves a favor and move on.

___

That's it for me in this talk.

Enjoy, guys. I'd rather hang with my kid or talk about other stuff. Its just hard to let go of something that took such a substantial bite out of 3 years of my life.

I hope the same doesn't happen for any of you, is all.

___

If they're stunned into motionless over a stupid persistent contrail, they should try reading one of Jeff's CLIMATE CHANGE ABOUT TO REAM ALL OUR FUCKING ASSES DRY DESPITE THE SILLY PLANES AND THEIR JP-* FUEL EVERYONE THINKS IS SOME KILL DYE OR WHATSIT.

Chemtrails are idiotspeak. I say this fully with the stamp of being one(chemmie) in the past, a PRO idiot.

___


Learn something about the shit you fret and itch over, guys.

Seriously.

Ciao,
D

___

JP8 fuel was implemented in commercial flights in the early 90's:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP-8

JP8 has extra chemical components(NOT KILL KILL, DIE DIE stuff) that permit flight in a higher stratospheric altitude where persistent contrails are more likely to form. Its been some time, but the actual layer where they form is less than 15 miles high, if I recall correctly.

___

This is a waste of time.

Go chase the Phantom, guys! You have my blessing.

___

gongfu, you are correct, discussion for discussion's sake is indeed a good thing and nothing I'd ever wish to stamp out, but there's a dynamic at work here where once a person believes their being 'poisoned', they really fly off into the deep end and all the sudden the world is 1,000 shades blacker.

Its black enough, dude. My darkest days literally were when I was a 'chemmie'. Peace of mind was literally impossible and I hesitated to draw breath outside for fear of what I was consuming.

As Joe said, I am convinced when a person sees a persistent contrail they are observing a localized supersaturation state.

I defer you to the IPCC's Aviation and the Global Climate, as I've done over and over here and elsewhere the last 4 years.

I don't seek to discourage you from learning as much about this as you can, but I do strongly believe we are observing a reaction, not an action.

We've fucked the Climate, man. We all know this. 'Chemtrail's are just one of many symptoms. There's literature all over the net(VALID, sourced, and verified by peer research scientists, not backyard Orgonites with their Cloud Go Buh Bye Towers.

The stuff's out there; go and grab it. Have a good look in the NAP; there's paper after paper on it. If you search for chemtrails and my name here, you'll find many links that might prove a valuable read for you.

Did you know that astronomers have predicted that by 2050 we won't be able to use ground-based telescopes anymore? This is because what you call a chemtrail fans out into artificial cirrus. This is a cumulative process that only aggravates itself as the years go by. I've posted image maps of current artificial cloud cover and 2050 projections by the IPCC.

You'll likely be shocked by what you see.

Cirrus Uncinus(the scientific name for artificial cirrus) acts as a barrier for keeping infrared heat dissipating off the Earth's surface. In other words, it accelerates warming.

___

I'm asking:

So you believe a different kind of jet fuel and atmospheric changes are responsible for persistent contrails / chemtrails, and we won't be able to use ground based telescopes by 2050, but we shouldn't waste our time concerning ourself with this phenomena because it is an energy sink and full of disinfo?

and do you discount the reports from honest witnesses who see what they consider unusual aerial activity associated with the clouding effect that you too say you have observed and studied?

[exojuridik]

Don DeLillo's novel White Noise came out in 1984 and presaged much of the psychic unease we feel about the sky. Throughout the story the narrator comments on the incredible impossibly beautiful sunsets. this comes after being exposed the after-effects of a manmade chemical disaster and after consuming a fly-saucer like pill given to his wife by a mysterious pharmocological researcher. It was a good read. Personally, I can't look at the sky without seeing incredibily surreal patterns and effects. I never remembered it looking so strange growing up. I don't know if that's just me or if something really has changed - the story of my life circa 2008.

[nathan28]

Real, observable phenomenon: Persistent jet contrails. Contrails fanning out into cirrus clouds.

Speculation: that it's an effect not a cause and caused by global climate change.
Possible support: global climate change is real and observable, and clouds and the atmosphere are part of climate
Problem with theory: I'm not a climatologist or fuel engineer

Alternative speculation: the contrails linger because... They are full of toxic chemicals and Morgellon's and the Shadow Government put tehm there!!1!!1!
Support: a bunch of sites on the internet almost always by people who are not chemists, not climatologists, not doctors, but make specific fact claims in all those categories and back them with photographs of the contrails, and some photographs of what people claim are "threads" that literally fell from the sky, and more pictures of "strange sparkles" that show up when you turn the contrast all the way up on Photoshop
Problem with theory: No one can explain *why* the NWO/Shadow Gov't/Aliens are sparying us with microdoses of moderately toxic compounds. it appears to be based on the work of a hoaxer trying to draw attention to climage change.

[Fat Lady Singing]

Real, observable phenomenon: Persistent jet contrails. Contrails fanning out into cirrus clouds.

Speculation: that it's an effect not a cause and caused by global climate change.
Possible support: global climate change is real and observable, and clouds and the atmosphere are part of climate
Problem with theory: I'm not a climatologist or fuel engineer

Alternative speculation: the contrails linger because... They are full of toxic chemicals and Morgellon's and the Shadow Government put tehm there!!1!!1!
Support: a bunch of sites on the internet almost always by people who are not chemists, not climatologists, not doctors, but make specific fact claims in all those categories and back them with photographs of the contrails and some photographs of what people claim are "threads" that literally fell from the sky, and more pictures of "strange sparkles" that show up when you turn the contrast all the way up on Photoshop
Problem with theory: No one can explain *why* the NWO/Shadow Gov't/Aliens are sparying us with microdoses of moderately toxic compounds. it appears to be based on the work of a hoaxer trying to draw attention to climage change.

I like the way you've organized this set of arguments. I'd like to add another, if I may.

Speculation: That it's a not-so-secret government program to 1) delay global warming; 2) use clouds as communication conduits; whether the effects are dangerous to the populations below remains to be seen.

Possible support: Research and reporting from Bob Fitrakis, which claims an insider source; research from others on this thread showing that such programs have been speculated about for some time (if not enacted); articles from credible media sources (Independent UK, others) discussing "smoke and mirrors" approach to solving problem of global warming; verifiable history of the government conducting spraying programs (I'm thinking about when the gov't sprayed what they thought was safe bacteria over San Fransisco, after which the incidence of influenza increased -- I think I read about it in the "Red Rain" thread here); credible eyewitness testimony regarding activities in the skies; some very clear photos.

Problem with postulation: 1) I'm not a climatologist or fuel engineer (me either!); 2) the testimony of unnamed government sources doesn't really constitute proof, although it is intriguing; 3) there are many reasons lines might appear in the sky, most of which have nothing to do with any posited government program; 4) just because something similar happened in the past does not mean that it is likely to have happened since; 5) many photos are open to interpretation depending upon viewer.

Conclusion: It is not unreasonable to speculate that sometimes lines in the sky may be part of a government program, and it would be a shame to insult people who are working toward uncovering such a program, but for the moment, lines in the sky can't be definitely pinned down as anything more than lines in the sky, nor can a definite connection be made to any ill effects suffered by populations below lines in the sky.