CHEMTRAILS..... Fact or Fiction?

From a round earther's perspective, alleged "chemtrails" simply don't exist, and are just a manifestation of yet another conspiracy theory.





What we see in the image (above) are correctly described as "contrails".  Contrails are lengthy condensation "trails" formed behind jet aircraft when their engine's condensate rapidly freezes into ice crystals.  When burned, fuel containing hydrogen is combined with oxygen in the air to form water vapour, among other byproducts.  Contrails form when water vapour in the exhaust from jet engines then freezes high in the troposphere where aircraft cruise. If the ambient air is dry, contrails will evaporate almost immediately. The ambient air must be close to saturation with water for a persistent condensation trail to form.



And this image (below) shows what chemtrails look like (and European Honey Buzzards):

 
 

Patrick Minnis Ph.D,  B.Eng,  M.Sc, a senior research scientist at NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, studied satellite images of contrail clouds of military craft during the three days airports were shut down in the US after the 9/11 attacks.  On a typical day, an estimated 13,000 planes criss-cross the nation's skies.

They create so many contrails that cross each other's paths that the satellite images are just a blur.  Minnis found that the cirrus clouds formed from these contrails lasted an average of six to eight hours and that six to eight contrails can grow to form a cloud cover the size of Massachusetts.

To understand the extent to which conspiracy theorists are prepared to go, check out these two images which were posted to two separate blogs:
 
 


 





The first image (obviously) is from a "chemtrail" conspiracy site, and the second image is from the UK Daily Mail (Australia) site.  I wonder how many flat earthers also believe that the US government is spraying its citizens with some sort of chemical cocktail in order to dumb them down?  I don't for a moment believe it is, but judging by some of the weird and wonderful responses from the flat earthers, I'm beginning to have a tiny modicum of doubt.   
 
 

From a round earther's perspective, alleged "chemtrails" simply don't exist, and are just a manifestation of yet another conspiracy theory.

And any other sane person.
Can we move on from this topic?
I mean, really, what's this doing in FE General?
What does this have to do with a flat Earth?

Why do you feel a need to feed the trolls of this site?
You're doing all of us a great disservice, especially when we just finished a multi-page thread on this exact same topic. (Which was also in the upper fora, and stayed there for whatever reason.)

All chemtrail nonsense should be promptly moved to CN.
That's what it is, after all.

Quote from: ausGeoff on June 20, 2014, 11:47:12 AM

From a round earther's perspective, alleged "chemtrails" simply don't exist, and are just a manifestation of yet another conspiracy theory.

And any other sane person.
Can we move on from this topic?
I mean, really, what's this doing in FE General?
What does this have to do with a flat Earth?

Why do you feel a need to feed the trolls of this site?
You're doing all of us a great disservice, especially when we just finished a multi-page thread on this exact same topic. (Which was also in the upper fora, and stayed there for whatever reason.)

All chemtrail nonsense should be promptly moved to CN.
That's what it is, after all.

Well, FE general is for conspiracy related topics. One could argue that the "RE conspiracy" is run by the same people that do chemtrails. How are chemtrails any more ridiculous than FET?

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on June 20, 2014, 12:15:10 PM

Quote from: ausGeoff on June 20, 2014, 11:47:12 AM

From a round earther's perspective, alleged "chemtrails" simply don't exist, and are just a manifestation of yet another conspiracy theory.

And any other sane person.
Can we move on from this topic?
I mean, really, what's this doing in FE General?
What does this have to do with a flat Earth?

Why do you feel a need to feed the trolls of this site?
You're doing all of us a great disservice, especially when we just finished a multi-page thread on this exact same topic. (Which was also in the upper fora, and stayed there for whatever reason.)

All chemtrail nonsense should be promptly moved to CN.
That's what it is, after all.

Well, FE general is for conspiracy related topics. One could argue that the "RE conspiracy" is run by the same people that do chemtrails. How are chemtrails any more ridiculous than FET?

Is all of this just an over-elaborate attempt to knock a straw man down?
Obviously those are contrails.
FE General is for FE related conspiracy topics. Not things like chemtrail conspiracies.

Quote from: Shmeggley on June 20, 2014, 12:25:44 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on June 20, 2014, 12:15:10 PM

Quote from: ausGeoff on June 20, 2014, 11:47:12 AM

From a round earther's perspective, alleged "chemtrails" simply don't exist, and are just a manifestation of yet another conspiracy theory.

And any other sane person.
Can we move on from this topic?
I mean, really, what's this doing in FE General?
What does this have to do with a flat Earth?

Why do you feel a need to feed the trolls of this site?
You're doing all of us a great disservice, especially when we just finished a multi-page thread on this exact same topic. (Which was also in the upper fora, and stayed there for whatever reason.)

All chemtrail nonsense should be promptly moved to CN.
That's what it is, after all.

Well, FE general is for conspiracy related topics. One could argue that the "RE conspiracy" is run by the same people that do chemtrails. How are chemtrails any more ridiculous than FET?

Is all of this just an over-elaborate attempt to knock a straw man down?
Obviously those are contrails.
FE General is for FE related conspiracy topics. Not things like chemtrail conspiracies.

Anyway, regardless of where the thread belongs, I think it's interesting that you think chemtrails are an absurdity not even worthy of discussion, yet a conspiracy that fakes Moon landings and ISS footage is not only debatable but plausible. Please correct me if I've got you confused with someone else. If not, why is one less likely than the other?

In my opinion, this topic is fine for FEG.  We do have an active thread with almost the exact same subject, but I don't see an issue with people making new threads to focus on different aspects of the topic being discussed.  Others may disagree with me, though. 

All chemtrail nonsense should be promptly moved to CN.
That's what it is, after all.

Hey, once you have opened the door to one barking mad conspiracy theory, you might as well go with them all.

Chemtrails are absolute bullshit - a theory perpetuated by paranoid scientific illiterates.  However they still have more chance of being real than the flat earth.

ausGeoff:

"Patrick Minnis Ph.D,  B.Eng,  M.Sc, a senior research scientist at NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, studied satellite images of contrail clouds of military craft during the three days airports were shut down in the US after the 9/11 attacks.  On a typical day, an estimated 13,000 planes criss-cross the nation's skies.

They create so many contrails that cross each other's paths that the satellite images are just a blur.  Minnis found that the cirrus clouds formed from these contrails lasted an average of six to eight hours and that six to eight contrails can grow to form a cloud cover the size of Massachusetts."

Can you explain the section I've made bold? Am I to understand that on an average day, satellite photography will not produce anything other than a blurry mess due to the contrails?

Hmmm. You know where I'm going with this, don't you?

Around air travel hubs in certain weather? Perhaps, yeah. This video aside from being an epic, (if slightly overproduced) visualisation shows you (as will the real sky, outside) that most of the world isn't covered by contrails.

/edit: That quote would also imply that the rest of the time satellite photos work fine.

Around air travel hubs in certain weather? Perhaps, yeah. This video aside from being an epic, (if slightly overproduced) visualisation shows you (as will the real sky, outside) that most of the world isn't covered by contrails.

/edit: That quote would also imply that the rest of the time satellite photos work fine.

You have interpreted (and made stuff up about) the NASA source to support your beliefs. I suggest you re-read it.

Is that a NASA source? I can't find that quote anywhere but chemtrail conspiracy sites and places debunking chemtrail conspiracies.
Is it in context?
Does he mean all satellite imagery?
Does "just a blur" mean measurably more blurred than without contrails or does it mean useless as you've assumed?

If you can find the quote in context, I'd like to read it. Even out of context I'm not sure what you think it implies other than 1. satellites and photography from them have been real for some time. 2. their quality has been degraded recently due to the chemtrail conspiracy.

And any other sane person.
Can we move on from this topic?
I mean, really, what's this doing in FE General?
What does this have to do with a flat Earth?

Hmmm... why so defensive?

I posted this topic under "Flat Earth General" which is described as being  For the discussion of any FE topics unrelated to Flat Earth Theory. CONSPIRACY topics belong here.

Just because you can't defend the "chemtrails" conspiracy doesn't mean others may not have an interest.  If you're not interested in the topic, please feel free to ignore it as it seems to upset you much.

They create so many contrails that cross each other's paths that the satellite images are just a blur.  Minnis found that the cirrus clouds formed from these contrails lasted an average of six to eight hours and that six to eight contrails can grow to form a cloud cover the size of Massachusetts."[/i]

Can you explain the section I've made bold? Am I to understand that on an average day, satellite photography will not produce anything other than a blurry mess due to the contrails?

Like any other "naturally" forming clouds, a mass of overlapping contrails will definitely obscure part of the earth's surface from imaging satellites.  Which is why images are captured continuously with each orbit of the satellites.  If one part of the earth's surface is obscured by clouds—of any kind—then on the next orbit, or the next, its image will be captured.  And, obviously, all clouds move and/or dissipate over time.

I've no idea where legion gets his quote from, and I bet he has no idea of the provenance either.  However here is an interview with Minnis debunking chemtrails where he states:

During the course of his research, Minnis and associates have discovered that airplane contrails — the non- poisonous variety — actually create cirrus clouds on days they wouldn't usually exist. Because of this, he calculates that cirrus-cloud cover over the United States is increasing by 1% each decade.

So, no he doesn't suggest that contrails cover the whole earth every day - that would be damn silly.

I've no idea where legion gets his quote from, and I bet he has no idea of the provenance either.  However here is an interview with Minnis debunking chemtrails where he states:

Quote

During the course of his research, Minnis and associates have discovered that airplane contrails — the non- poisonous variety — actually create cirrus clouds on days they wouldn't usually exist. Because of this, he calculates that cirrus-cloud cover over the United States is increasing by 1% each decade.

So, no he doesn't suggest that contrails cover the whole earth every day - that would be damn silly.

It wasn't my quote. It was ausGeoff's.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on June 22, 2014, 02:44:47 AM

I've no idea where legion gets his quote from, and I bet he has no idea of the provenance either.  However here is an interview with Minnis debunking chemtrails where he states:

Quote

During the course of his research, Minnis and associates have discovered that airplane contrails — the non- poisonous variety — actually create cirrus clouds on days they wouldn't usually exist. Because of this, he calculates that cirrus-cloud cover over the United States is increasing by 1% each decade.

So, no he doesn't suggest that contrails cover the whole earth every day - that would be damn silly.

It wasn't my quote. It was ausGeoff's.

You don't think in that quote they were talking about contrails created by the em teased number of military jets in the air during 9/11?

Quote from: legion on June 22, 2014, 09:19:54 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on June 22, 2014, 02:44:47 AM

I've no idea where legion gets his quote from, and I bet he has no idea of the provenance either.  However here is an interview with Minnis debunking chemtrails where he states:

Quote

During the course of his research, Minnis and associates have discovered that airplane contrails — the non- poisonous variety — actually create cirrus clouds on days they wouldn't usually exist. Because of this, he calculates that cirrus-cloud cover over the United States is increasing by 1% each decade.

So, no he doesn't suggest that contrails cover the whole earth every day - that would be damn silly.

It wasn't my quote. It was ausGeoff's.

You don't think in that quote they were talking about contrails created by the em teased number of military jets in the air during 9/11?

No.

"Patrick Minnis Ph.D,  B.Eng,  M.Sc, a senior research scientist at NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, studied satellite images of contrail clouds of military craft during the three days airports were shut down in the US after the 9/11 attacks. On a typical day, an estimated 13,000 planes criss-cross the nation's skies. [Not the three days where flights were grounded]

They create so many contrails that cross each other's paths that the satellite images are just a blur.  Minnis found that the cirrus clouds formed from these contrails lasted an average of six to eight hours and that six to eight contrails can grow to form a cloud cover the size of Massachusetts."

You obviously missed my clarification of this first time around legion:

"Like any other "naturally" forming clouds, a mass of overlapping contrails will definitely obscure part of the earth's surface from imaging satellites.  Which is why images are captured continuously with each orbit of the satellites.  If one part of the earth's surface is obscured by clouds—of any kind—then on the next orbit, or the next, its image will be captured.  And, obviously, all clouds move and/or dissipate over time".

You obviously missed my clarification of this first time around legion:

Like any other "naturally" forming clouds, a mass of overlapping contrails will definitely obscure part of the earth's surface from imaging satellites.  Which is why images are captured continuously with each orbit of the satellites.  If one part of the earth's surface is obscured by clouds—of any kind—then on the next orbit, or the next, its image will be captured.  And, obviously, all clouds move and/or dissipate over time.

Well, your original post with the NASA quote didn't mention any of that. Have you made it up?

The original quote doesn't even seem to be genuine, or if it is, it doesn't mean what you think it means. Can you find an original source for it? It only seems to be on chemtrail websites as far as I can see.

The original quote doesn't even seem to be genuine, or if it is, it doesn't mean what you think it means. Can you find an original source for it? It only seems to be on chemtrail websites as far as I can see.

Ask ausGeoff. I agree that some more context would be helpful.

Well, your original post with the NASA quote didn't mention any of that. Have you made it up?

Contrary to the habits of many flat earthers, as a scientific rationalist and round earther, I never make stuff up.  I don't need to because the empirical evidence of the sciences during the past 400 years or so supports my claims.

Can you tell me specifically—what parts of my comment you disagree with?

Like any other "naturally" forming clouds, a mass of overlapping contrails will definitely obscure part of the earth's surface from imaging satellites.  Which is why images are captured continuously with each orbit of the satellites.  If one part of the earth's surface is obscured by clouds—of any kind—then on the next orbit, or the next, its image will be captured.  And, obviously, all clouds move and/or dissipate over time.

This article may clear up a few things:

Langley Scientist Takes the Conspiracy out of Contrails

Quote from: Goddamnit, Clown on June 22, 2014, 11:14:50 AM

The original quote doesn't even seem to be genuine, or if it is, it doesn't mean what you think it means. Can you find an original source for it? It only seems to be on chemtrail websites as far as I can see.

Ask ausGeoff. I agree that some more context would be helpful.

I'm missing what the big controversy is over his comments. He's basically saying that his study into single contrails is inhibited by the large number of contrails around transportation hubs and naturally occurring cirrus clouds. In any event he's researching the potential negative effects of contrails, not chemtrails, making his remarks irrelevant to the discussion.

• Contrails often form near to or within extant cirrus
• Air traffic over CONUS is dense & contrails form in overlapping
clusters
• Quantifying individual contrail effects difficult because of
continuous air traffic, existing cirrus clouds, and poor
measurements of humidity fields
• 2001 air traffic shutdown removed many impediments for
contrail study

http://www.techtransfer.berkeley.edu/aviation05downloads/Minnis.pdf

This article may clear up a few things:

Langley Scientist Takes the Conspiracy out of Contrails

Oh, so you expect us to believe a NASA stooge? 

Oh, so you expect us to believe a NASA stooge?

Can you cite some references that prove Minnis is a "NASA stooge" or is this just an unsupported personal guess?  Guesses don't count in any scientific debate.  You should know that by now.


 

Quote from: markjo on June 23, 2014, 09:40:54 AM

Oh, so you expect us to believe a NASA stooge?

Can you cite some references that prove Minnis is a "NASA stooge" or is this just an unsupported personal guess?  Guesses don't count in any scientific debate.  You should know that by now.

....and you should know when someone is being sarcastic.

He even put a little eyes roll emiticon in case it wasn't clear...

Quote from: markjo on June 23, 2014, 09:40:54 AM

Oh, so you expect us to believe a NASA stooge?

Can you cite some references that prove Minnis is a "NASA stooge" or is this just an unsupported personal guess?  Guesses don't count in any scientific debate.  You should know that by now.

You may be right.  Langley is also the home of the CIA, so he's probably a deep cover agent spreading conspiracy disinformation.

Come now Geoff, you've been here long enough that you should know how these conspiracy theories work by now.

...you should know how these conspiracy theories work by now.

However they are needed to work?

Quote from: legion on June 22, 2014, 10:50:07 AM

Well, your original post with the NASA quote didn't mention any of that. Have you made it up?

Contrary to the habits of many flat earthers, as a scientific rationalist and round earther, I never make stuff up.  I don't need to because the empirical evidence of the sciences during the past 400 years or so supports my claims.

Can you tell me specifically—what parts of my comment you disagree with?

Like any other "naturally" forming clouds, a mass of overlapping contrails will definitely obscure part of the earth's surface from imaging satellites.  Which is why images are captured continuously with each orbit of the satellites.  If one part of the earth's surface is obscured by clouds—of any kind—then on the next orbit, or the next, its image will be captured.  And, obviously, all clouds move and/or dissipate over time.

Yes, of course.

1. "Like any other "naturally" forming clouds..." contrails/chemtrails are not natural.
2. "...a mass of overlapping contrails will definitely obscure part of the earth's surface from imaging satellites." How much of the earth? Enough to render all photos a blur?
3. "Which is why images are captured continuously with each orbit of the satellites.  If one part of the earth's surface is obscured by clouds—of any kind—then on the next orbit, or the next, its image will be captured." Why is there a need to have the surface of the earth photographed? I thought Minnis and co. were studying the atmosphere?
4. "And, obviously, all clouds move and/or dissipate over time." Apparently, they present a big problem for imaging satellites as planes are creating the trails day and night.

For the record, my understanding of chemtrails, or properly termed - Geoengineering, is that weather modification is the goal. Not poisoning the population.