Why do "they" continue to block the sun in Washington state? You should get the irony in the title, page 2
login	Why do "they" continue to block the sun in Washington state? You should get the irony in the titlepage: 2
posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 07:01 PM	link Wow all the usual suspects, If I were wearing a tinfoil hat and just a little bit more paranoid I would say all the paid shills are showing up on this
thread and doing exactly what they are paid to do. However I know better than that, you are all not paid shills, that is nonsense. I do wish you would
actually read my post however, because I have stated that I do not think these are "chemtrails" nor am I unaware of the reality and cause of
sundogs, etc. I only posted this because it was shocking to see the sky completely covered within a few hours by just a handful of trails that I
watched spread out and do it. I guess you had to be here. I watched the jets lay them out, watched them spread in an, to me, unusual way, and slowly
but surely blot out the sun. Persistent contrails due to atmospheric conditions? Sure, why not, honestly the result was the same for me whether or not
this was on purpose, which I still think could have been the case due to the increase in airtraffic that was not 747's full of passengers but small
planes doing loops around the area which is NOT usual.	defcon5
posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 07:17 PM	link Originally posted by nitro67 I watched the jets lay them out, watched them spread in an, to me, unusual way, and slowly but surely blot out the sun. Contrails cannot block out the sun anymore than you holding your hand over your eyes means that others cannot see you. Its a matter of perspective.
Just because some trails make it overcast over your area doesn't mean that they are “blocking the sun” 5 or 10 miles down the road from you. Its
a silly concept, and the idea that its being done for “global cooling” is also false. If you block the suns heat from getting to the surface, you are also blocking the surface heat from escaping into space. Since these clouds don't
just disappear after dark, and because the length of day/night fluctuates by time of year, if they did this through the shorter days of the year they
would actually be increasing the overall planet temperature, not decreasing it. Since more contrails seem to appear in the winter, you must then
either believe that their purpose is to heat the planet up, or that they are in fact a unintentional result of the temperatures at that time of the
year.	nitro67
posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 07:45 PM	link reply to post by defcon5 More contrails seem to appear in the winter? Not where I live.Ive noticed the most activity in spring through summer. I have to believe this bbc
documentary about global dimming has been posted here, but it is very relevant to this discussion: Dimming is what I watched, not blocking out the sun.	defcon5
posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 07:47 PM	link According to Phage they increase between October and February. www.abovetopsecret.com...	nitro67
posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 07:51 PM	link reply to post by defcon5 LAME! Based on the number of threads started on ATS? STUPID and completely worthless...... P.S. Please watch the BBC documentary about global dimming!edit on 6-6-2013 by nitro67 because: (no reason given)	defcon5
posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 08:51 PM	link reply to post by nitro67 Not as lame as you might think... When you are trying to track trends on something for which there is zero scientific verifiable evidence, whether it be UFO's, big foot, or
chemtrails, you have to use public encounters. His graph shows that people most notice these during the winter months, with a sharp drop over the
holidays when they are too busy with family events to be skywatching. Now if you want to discuss contrails, well... We don't even need to track sightings there, we can predict in advance when the weather is favorable to
generate them. Contrail Formation Forecast	mrthumpy
posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 01:39 AM	link reply to post by nitro67 Please explain the reversal in the global dimming trend Xtrozero
posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 01:44 AM	link I do want to complain about a level of contrail pollution that is somewhat annoying in the north west. We hardly get a good clear day since contrails
tend to stick around forever and can fill the sky. Try and view stars at night when it should be a clear night but contrails litter the sky.	tsurfer2000h
posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 02:39 AM	link reply to post by nitro67 Dimming is what I watched, not blocking out the sun. And yet what is the title of this thread? Why do "they" continue to block the sun in Washington state? You should get the irony in the title Yes, ironic isn't it?	nitro67
posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 07:31 PM	link reply to post by mrthumpy Reversal? Says who? That documentary is very recent and very legit. Please give some sources. Oh and I love how no one comments on anything I actually
say here...that is great, if I did not know better I would say you bunch really are a bunch of paid shills....actually, tsurfer2000h, aloysius the
gaul, xtrozero, etc... all showed up on the last thread about this over a year ago by me....maybe you are all a bunch of bots floating around in the
quantum foam of the intelligence agencies quantum internet....but then again aren't we all?	Argyll
posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 07:56 PM	link reply to post by nitro67 They start out as "normal" contrails. They soon fan out. Like this: You really don't know anything at all about basic meteorology do you?	nitro67
posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 08:07 PM	link reply to post by Argyll Not much, but I do know that contrails are man-made cirrus clouds. I posted this because I was so shocked to see the sky with man made clouds...nope
no poison here...at least not deliberate poisoning, I do not know what else those jet engines release, but if they are any way like cars there
probably is a bunch of # in it as well....like I said this day there was abnormal air traffic and as a "consequence" abnormal cloud cover...that is
all... ANYONE WATCH THE BBC DOCUMENTARY ABOUT GLOBAL DIMMING? Opinions? edit on 7-6-2013 by nitro67 because: (no reason given)	stars15k
posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 08:13 PM	link reply to post by nitro67 It's hard to remark on what you say when both the title and posts written by you on this, your thread, say "block" and "blot" but you really meant
"dim." Then your allusions that because someone apparently disagrees with your (rather fluid) conclusion means they are shills doesn't get you
brownie points either. Your conclusions that the contrails you saw spreading as being out of the ordinary are wrong. The persistence and spread are the major reason
contrails are studied. It is a known factor, but the overall effect on the climate is still not firmly understood. The only real opportunity to
study it in real time and in real space was during the post 9/11/2001 air traffic shutdown. There are several studies done about the phenomenon. Here are a list of some with links: Air Traffic Shutdown Study But what you have been told so far by the people here is still correct. There is no proof or evidence that shows contrails are ever laid out
deliberately. They are a product of air travel alone. New planes, new fuels, different routes at different altitudes...all might someday reduce the
amount of contrails, but until they are developed, we are stuck with them. Due to your climate, you see more than I do. I'm interior, in NE Indiana.
But I still see them, I saw them when I was a little girl (I'm 52), I have successfully tracked all the planes over my head on more than one
occasion, I have watched contrails do all kinds of things, but I have never seen a contrail behave differently than what they are studied and known to
do. Sorry, but in this digital age, claims different than the known behavior really requires more than someone's word about their observations. You
say: which I still think could have been the case due to the increase in airtraffic that was not 747's full of passengers but small planes doing loops
around the area which is NOT usual. But you do not supply your pictures of this. What you supply are pictures of cirrus clouds and contrails, doing what they both do. And sun dogs. How are we supposed to answer?edit on 7-6-2013 by stars15k because: clarity	pennylemon
posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 08:29 PM	link reply to post by defcon5 You mention the larger aircraft and I was curious if this same thing be causes by smaller aircraft as well, say a 20 or 40 seater. These smaller
planes are the only size small enough to land at our local airport and they do fly at a much lower altitude.	defcon5
posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 08:50 PM	link reply to post by pennylemon By “same thing” do you mean creating contrails? Are you talking about commuter turboprop's? If that is what you are referring too, the answer is still yes. When you start talking about bypass ratio's of turboprop aircraft the subject becomes more complex as the blades are not internal to the engine.
If you want to read up on it, you can start here: adg.stanford.edu... When the bypass ratio is increased to 10-20 for very efficient low speed performance, the weight and wetted area of the fan shroud (inlet) become
large, and at some point it makes sense to eliminate it altogether. The fan then becomes a propeller and the engine is called a turboprop. Turboprop
engines provide efficient power from low speeds up to as high as M=0.8 with bypass ratios of 50-100.	pennylemon
posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 08:52 PM	link reply to post by defcon5 Thank you defcon, that is exactly what I was wondering on and thank you for the reading material. Penny	mrthumpy
posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 03:26 AM	link reply to post by nitro67 www.nature.com... adsabs.harvard.edu... Horizon is a good program and I enjoy watching it (looking forward to The Secret Life of Cats this week ) but I wouldn't cite it as scientific
evidence. Out if interest, where have you been going for your cloud and meteorology studies?edit on 8-6-2013 by mrthumpy because: Add another link and
comment	waynos
posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 05:32 AM	link reply to post by pennylemon One thing further to defcon's reply to you. You mentioned these smaller planes are the only ones that can land at the airport near you. This would
mean that although these types can and do create contrails, the planes landing and taking off from your local airport will not be the ones that have
created any contrails you see over your head. Contrails only form at cruising altitudes, typically over 27,000ft, so anything landing or taking off within 70 or so miles of you will be far too
low.	tsurfer2000h
posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 07:55 AM	link reply to post by nitro 67 Oh and I love how no one comments on anything I actually say here...that is great, if I did not know better I would say you bunch really are a bunch
of paid shills....actually, tsurfer2000h, aloysius the gaul, xtrozero, etc... all showed up on the last thread about this over a year ago by me Well if you said something that was worth commenting on it would be no problem. As far as being a paid shill, maybe it is comments such as these as to why nobody pays much attention to what you say. And as for your prior thread you were wrong there also. There I commented on what you said are you happy now? Are they still blocking the sun in Washington State?edit on 8-6-2013 by tsurfer2000h because: (no reason given)	waynos
posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 10:15 AM	link reply to post by pennylemon I meant to edit my post above but got sidetracked and now its too late. I should have also added that the trails you see above you will be from
traffic that is passing over on the upper air routes and so has no bearing on your local air traffic, for instance I live in Yorkshire, about 70 miles
from Manchester Airport, and traffic passing overhead from Europe to the USA, for instance, always leaves a trail that I can spot them by while
anything landing or taking off at Manchester does not. See my second post in this thread where I illustrated the point with some photos.
Why do "they" continue to block the sun in Washington state? You should get the irony in the title, page 2
login	Why do "they" continue to block the sun in Washington state? You should get the irony in the titlepage: 2
posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 07:01 PM	link Wow all the usual suspects, If I were wearing a tinfoil hat and just a little bit more paranoid I would say all the paid shills are showing up on this
thread and doing exactly what they are paid to do. However I know better than that, you are all not paid shills, that is nonsense. I do wish you would
actually read my post however, because I have stated that I do not think these are "chemtrails" nor am I unaware of the reality and cause of
sundogs, etc. I only posted this because it was shocking to see the sky completely covered within a few hours by just a handful of trails that I
watched spread out and do it. I guess you had to be here. I watched the jets lay them out, watched them spread in an, to me, unusual way, and slowly
but surely blot out the sun. Persistent contrails due to atmospheric conditions? Sure, why not, honestly the result was the same for me whether or not
this was on purpose, which I still think could have been the case due to the increase in airtraffic that was not 747's full of passengers but small
planes doing loops around the area which is NOT usual.	defcon5
posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 07:17 PM	link Originally posted by nitro67 I watched the jets lay them out, watched them spread in an, to me, unusual way, and slowly but surely blot out the sun. Contrails cannot block out the sun anymore than you holding your hand over your eyes means that others cannot see you. Its a matter of perspective.
Just because some trails make it overcast over your area doesn't mean that they are “blocking the sun” 5 or 10 miles down the road from you. Its
a silly concept, and the idea that its being done for “global cooling” is also false. If you block the suns heat from getting to the surface, you are also blocking the surface heat from escaping into space. Since these clouds don't
just disappear after dark, and because the length of day/night fluctuates by time of year, if they did this through the shorter days of the year they
would actually be increasing the overall planet temperature, not decreasing it. Since more contrails seem to appear in the winter, you must then
either believe that their purpose is to heat the planet up, or that they are in fact a unintentional result of the temperatures at that time of the
year.	nitro67
posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 07:45 PM	link reply to post by defcon5 More contrails seem to appear in the winter? Not where I live.Ive noticed the most activity in spring through summer. I have to believe this bbc
documentary about global dimming has been posted here, but it is very relevant to this discussion: Dimming is what I watched, not blocking out the sun.	defcon5
posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 07:47 PM	link According to Phage they increase between October and February. www.abovetopsecret.com...	nitro67
posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 07:51 PM	link reply to post by defcon5 LAME! Based on the number of threads started on ATS? STUPID and completely worthless...... P.S. Please watch the BBC documentary about global dimming!edit on 6-6-2013 by nitro67 because: (no reason given)	defcon5
posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 08:51 PM	link reply to post by nitro67 Not as lame as you might think... When you are trying to track trends on something for which there is zero scientific verifiable evidence, whether it be UFO's, big foot, or
chemtrails, you have to use public encounters. His graph shows that people most notice these during the winter months, with a sharp drop over the
holidays when they are too busy with family events to be skywatching. Now if you want to discuss contrails, well... We don't even need to track sightings there, we can predict in advance when the weather is favorable to
generate them. Contrail Formation Forecast	mrthumpy
posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 01:39 AM	link reply to post by nitro67 Please explain the reversal in the global dimming trend Xtrozero
posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 01:44 AM	link I do want to complain about a level of contrail pollution that is somewhat annoying in the north west. We hardly get a good clear day since contrails
tend to stick around forever and can fill the sky. Try and view stars at night when it should be a clear night but contrails litter the sky.	tsurfer2000h
posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 02:39 AM	link reply to post by nitro67 Dimming is what I watched, not blocking out the sun. And yet what is the title of this thread? Why do "they" continue to block the sun in Washington state? You should get the irony in the title Yes, ironic isn't it?	nitro67
posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 07:31 PM	link reply to post by mrthumpy Reversal? Says who? That documentary is very recent and very legit. Please give some sources. Oh and I love how no one comments on anything I actually
say here...that is great, if I did not know better I would say you bunch really are a bunch of paid shills....actually, tsurfer2000h, aloysius the
gaul, xtrozero, etc... all showed up on the last thread about this over a year ago by me....maybe you are all a bunch of bots floating around in the
quantum foam of the intelligence agencies quantum internet....but then again aren't we all?	Argyll
posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 07:56 PM	link reply to post by nitro67 They start out as "normal" contrails. They soon fan out. Like this: You really don't know anything at all about basic meteorology do you?	nitro67
posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 08:07 PM	link reply to post by Argyll Not much, but I do know that contrails are man-made cirrus clouds. I posted this because I was so shocked to see the sky with man made clouds...nope
no poison here...at least not deliberate poisoning, I do not know what else those jet engines release, but if they are any way like cars there
probably is a bunch of # in it as well....like I said this day there was abnormal air traffic and as a "consequence" abnormal cloud cover...that is
all... ANYO
NE WATCH THE BBC DOCUMENTARY ABOUT GLOBAL DIMMING? Opinions? edit on 7-6-2013 by nitro67 because: (no reason given)	stars15k
posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 08:13 PM	link reply to post by nitro67 It's hard to remark on what you say when both the title and posts written by you on this, your thread, say "block" and "blot" but you really meant
"dim." Then your allusions that because someone apparently disagrees with your (rather fluid) conclusion means they are shills doesn't get you
brownie points either. Your conclusions that the contrails you saw spreading as being out of the ordinary are wrong. The persistence and spread are the major reason
contrails are studied. It is a known factor, but the overall effect on the climate is still not firmly understood. The only real opportunity to
study it in real time and in real space was during the post 9/11/2001 air traffic shutdown. There are several studies done about the phenomenon. Here are a list of some with links: Air Traffic Shutdown Study But what you have been told so far by the people here is still correct. There is no proof or evidence that shows contrails are ever laid out
deliberately. They are a product of air travel alone. New planes, new fuels, different routes at different altitudes...all might someday reduce the
amount of contrails, but until they are developed, we are stuck with them. Due to your climate, you see more than I do. I'm interior, in NE Indiana.
But I still see them, I saw them when I was a little girl (I'm 52), I have successfully tracked all the planes over my head on more than one
occasion, I have watched contrails do all kinds of things, but I have never seen a contrail behave differently than what they are studied and known to
do. Sorry, but in this digital age, claims different than the known behavior really requires more than someone's word about their observations. You
say: which I still think could have been the case due to the increase in airtraffic that was not 747's full of passengers but small planes doing loops
around the area which is NOT usual. But you do not supply your pictures of this. What you supply are pictures of cirrus clouds and contrails, doing what they both do. And sun dogs. How are we supposed to answer?edit on 7-6-2013 by stars15k because: clarity	pennylemon
posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 08:29 PM	link reply to post by defcon5 You mention the larger aircraft and I was curious if this same thing be causes by smaller aircraft as well, say a 20 or 40 seater. These smaller
planes are the only size small enough to land at our local airport and they do fly at a much lower altitude.	defcon5
posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 08:50 PM	link reply to post by pennylemon By “same thing” do you mean creating contrails? Are you talking about commuter turboprop's? If that is what you are referring too, the answer is still yes. When you start talking about bypass ratio's of turboprop aircraft the subject becomes more complex as the blades are not internal to the engine.
If you want to read up on it, you can start here: adg.stanford.edu... When the bypass ratio is increased to 10-20 for very efficient low speed performance, the weight and wetted area of the fan shroud (inlet) become
large, and at some point it makes sense to eliminate it altogether. The fan then becomes a propeller and the engine is called a turboprop. Turboprop
engines provide efficient power from low speeds up to as high as M=0.8 with bypass ratios of 50-100.	pennylemon
posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 08:52 PM	link reply to post by defcon5 Thank you defcon, that is exactly what I was wondering on and thank you for the reading material. Penny	mrthumpy
posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 03:26 AM	link reply to post by nitro67 www.nature.com... adsabs.harvard.edu... Horizon is a good program and I enjoy watching it (looking forward to The Secret Life of Cats this week ) but I wouldn't cite it as scientific
evidence. Out if interest, where have you been going for your cloud and meteorology studies?edit on 8-6-2013 by mrthumpy because: Add another link and
comment	waynos
posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 05:32 AM	link reply to post by pennylemon One thing further to defcon's reply to you. You mentioned these smaller planes are the only ones that can land at the airport near you. This would
mean that although these types can and do create contrails, the planes landing and taking off from your local airport will not be the ones that have
created any contrails you see over your head. Contrails only form at cruising altitudes, typically over 27,000ft, so anything landing or taking off within 70 or so miles of you will be far too
low.	tsurfer2000h
posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 07:55 AM	link reply to post by nitro 67 Oh and I love how no one comments on anything I actually say here...that is great, if I did not know better I would say you bunch really are a bunch
of paid shills....actually, tsurfer2000h, aloysius the gaul, xtrozero, etc... all showed up on the last thread about this over a year ago by me Well if you said something that was worth commenting on it would be no problem. As far as being a paid shill, maybe it is comments such as these as to why nobody pays much attention to what you say. And as for your prior thread you were wrong there also. There I commented on what you said are you happy now? Are they still blocking the sun in Washington State?edit on 8-6-2013 by tsurfer2000h because: (no reason given)	waynos
posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 10:15 AM	link reply to post by pennylemon I meant to edit my post above but got sidetracked and now its too late. I should have also added that the trails you see above you will be from
traffic that is passing over on the upper air routes and so has no bearing on your local air traffic, for instance I live in Yorkshire, about 70 miles
from Manchester Airport, and traffic passing overhead from Europe to the USA, for instance, always leaves a trail that I can spot them by while
anything landing or taking off at Manchester does not. See my second post in this thread where I illustrated the point with some photos.