1163 replies to this topic

[Englishgent]

Little Fish, on 21 December 2011 - 12:43 AM, said:

...
that's what i said - a contrail (persistent or otherwise) would not form at 4,000 feet.
I told you that.

are you really not following what is being said?

I think Mid is following exactly what was said. As I read it, he refers to the video and states that the chemtrails at 4000ft are not what they are alleged to be but are in fact contrails at a much higher altitude.

[DieChecker]

How does one estimate a contrail at 4000 feet rather then 20000? By guessing the size of the plane? Perspective can be deceiving. Now, pictures, with something as scale, that would be evidence. But.... maybe these world altering chemtrail airplanes aren't flying around anymore? Or maybe just at night when nothing can be prooven for or against with pictures?

Let's see some pics of these airplanes.

[oly]

 IMG_0362.jpg   150.66K   27 downloads
trail circling over city airport, london

 x-300.jpeg   12.37K   26 downloads
pic in newspaper alongside geoengineering article

note rainbow in both pics

[The New Richard Nixon]

DieChecker, on 21 December 2011 - 01:12 AM, said:

I've seen contrails from landing planes at sea level. Not the persistant ones, but visible trails for a short time. Contrails are not just frozen ice crystals, some are moisture condensation due to heat and air disturbance. Otherwise we'd have to believe that ALL clouds we see are frozen ice crystals, which obviously is not the case.

Those are wing contrails I think.

[The New Richard Nixon]

oly, on 21 December 2011 - 09:43 AM, said:

IMG_0362.jpg
trail circling over city airport, london

x-300.jpeg
pic in newspaper alongside geoengineering article

note rainbow in both pics

The first one, there is no rainbow, look at edges of the sun, it's the same colour of blues on that same patch of cloud.

[Englishgent]

oly, on 21 December 2011 - 09:43 AM, said:

IMG_0362.jpg
trail circling over city airport, london

x-300.jpeg
pic in newspaper alongside geoengineering article

note rainbow in both pics

The first pic shows a common phenonema known as irredescence which is caused the same way as a rainbow. Water vapour in the cloud (or contrail) is spliiting light into it's spectrum due to the angle of the cloud to the sun.  Rather than rainfall doing the same to create a rainbow.
The second pic is called a halo. Again the 'rainbow' effect is caused by water vapour causing light to split into the spectrum.
Nothing unusual about either photograph.

edit, typo

Edited by Englishgent, 21 December 2011 - 11:35 AM.

[oly]

Erix, on 21 December 2011 - 11:25 AM, said:

The first one, there is no rainbow, look at edges of the sun, it's the same colour of blues on that same patch of cloud.

Sorry, there's a rainbow in the trail.
The second pic shows metallic dust making a rainbow around the sun.

[oly]

Englishgent, on 21 December 2011 - 11:27 AM, said:

The first pic shows a common phenonema known as irredescence which is caused the same way as a rainbow. Water vapour in the cloud (or contrail) is spliiting light into it's spectrum due to the angle of the cloud to the sun.  Rather than rainfall doing the same to create a rainbow.
The second pic is called a halo. Again the 'rainbow' effect is caused by water vapour causing light to split into the spectrum.
Nothing unusual about either photograph.

edit, typo

The low altitude of the trail, combined with the rainbow effect, nicely demonstrates the presence of metallic particles.
Remember that the second pic accompanied the article about geoengineering.

[Englishgent]

oly, on 21 December 2011 - 11:44 AM, said:

The low altitude of the trail, combined with the rainbow effect, nicely demonstrates the presence of metallic particles.
Remember that the second pic accompanied the article about geoengineering.

I am sorry Oly but you are wrong. This does not demonstrate the presence of metallic particles. It is a  very common effect and if you would care to do a tiny bit of research into clouds you will see that most 'Halo' effects show some irridescence (or rainbow as you call it)  The irredescence in the contrail is also very common.   It is merely water vapour causing this effect.

[Englishgent]

oly, on 21 December 2011 - 11:44 AM, said:

The low altitude of the trail, combined with the rainbow effect, nicely demonstrates the presence of metallic particles.
Remember that the second pic accompanied the article about geoengineering.

Just because it accompanies an article about geoengineering does not mean to say it is correct. It isnt . It is quite natural I assure you

[Englishgent]

I will make it easy for you Oly.
The following links might help
The first one shows a number or halos most of which show your rainbow effect.
The second link shows irridescence. In fact if you bother to check pic number 14 on page one of eight  pages in that collection you will see what may be the remains of a contrail....with irridescence. The collection also contains some nice contrail pics, some with shadows, some with irridescence. You never know, it might give you fuel for your own argument although they are all natural

http://cloudapprecia...&t=cloud100&i=0

http://cloudapprecia...&t=cloud124&i=1

Edited by Englishgent, 21 December 2011 - 12:12 PM.

[oly]

Englishgent, on 21 December 2011 - 11:49 AM, said:

I am sorry Oly but you are wrong. This does not demonstrate the presence of metallic particles. It is a  very common effect and if you would care to do a tiny bit of research into clouds you will see that most 'Halo' effects show some irridescence (or rainbow as you call it)  The irredescence in the contrail is also very common.   It is merely water vapour causing this effect.

Yes I'm aware of various types of natural rainbow. I'm also aware of metallic dust causing rainbow effects.

[oly]

Englishgent, on 21 December 2011 - 12:10 PM, said:

I will make it easy for you Oly.
The following links might help
The first one shows a number or halos most of which show your rainbow effect.
The second link shows irridescence. In fact if you bother to check pic number 14 on page one of eight  pages in that collection you will see what may be the remains of a contrail....with irridescence. The collection also contains some nice contrail pics, some with shadows, some with irridescence. You never know, it might give you fuel for your own argument although they are all natural

http://cloudapprecia...&t=cloud100&i=0

http://cloudapprecia...&t=cloud124&i=1

Thank you. Yes the shadow effect indicates a very thin layer of "cloud" with a plane flying just above it very close. This effect is so common it would suggest deliberate altitude adjustment to cloud layer height. Increasing layer density. Sounds shifty eh?

[Englishgent]

oly, on 21 December 2011 - 12:14 PM, said:

Yes I'm aware of various types of natural rainbow. I'm also aware of metallic dust causing rainbow effects.

Do you have any photographs showing metalic dust as the cause for a rainbow effect?  The two you have shown so far are natural effects as I think you can easily see from the links I gave you.. I would imagine that should metallic particles reflect the sun in the atmosphere it wouldnt be a rainbow effect but more of a sparkling type of effect from the sun;s reflection. They would need to be fairly large sized particles too.

[Englishgent]

oly, on 21 December 2011 - 12:21 PM, said:

Thank you. Yes the shadow effect indicates a very thin layer of "cloud" with a plane flying just above it very close. This effect is so common it would suggest deliberate altitude adjustment to cloud layer height. Increasing layer density. Sounds shifty eh?

I doubt very much that aircraft are making deliberate altitude adjustments to get closer to clouds, if this is what you mean.
It just so happens that certain cloud types form at or near the operational altitude of most commercial flights.