| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
slower
Minor Poster
Joined: 08 Jan 2008
Posts: 48
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:23 pm Post subject: The Dark Beam in Sky, ive got it |
 |
|
i shot his yesterday its in HD, utube best wmv but its degraded, much better on 42in screen in HD, the reason the entire footage is on is to show how it starts off weak, builds up to a strong beam then slowly fades, about 4-6mins, i was basically blind with glare, so please exscuse the movements off target.
this is the 4th one ive seen only once with witness, the best one went across the bay as far as i could see, it was extreamly strong, a plane flew into it , started spraying, then veered off, the beam dissapeared and about 1-2mins later a large dark 4 propped aircraft very low come out of a cloud turned inland in the direction of bases near here, the last i looked i could only find 1 other video so i gather these are pretty rare. i will re-edit soon but 4 now i just wanted to get it up there, oridginal footage is m2ts file.
.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGLD0_6je78 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Slower
I've seen the dark or shadow line too, just once.
It's path was filled by an aircraft that replaced it with fug.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is a contrail partly in shadow. There are dark clouds in same area. Occam's razor and all that
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ishaar
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Jun 2006
Posts: 232
Location: uk
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
for a very clear 'black line' have a look at the end of this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfnz5XRm6CM
IMO the dark line is a shadow of the trail made possible by an unatural atmospheric particle density, a product of the 'chemtrails'. In the video if you look at the black line at the horizon it shadows the curves of the trail as it is distorted by the wind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
I saw another example of the dark line yesterday.
As lower clouds were blown quite quickly along underneath a higher layer of thin looking smoggy type stuff, I noticed an aircraft leaving the usual trail directly underneath a dark line that had split the upper smog in two.
I thought it might be some kind of shadow or optical illusion but the dark line above the plane extended miles out in front of it so it wasn't an illusion caused by the trail the aircraft was leaving.
There was quite a few trails in the sky yesterday over north east Essex.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ishaar
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Jun 2006
Posts: 232
Location: uk
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I thought it might be some kind of shadow or optical illusion but the dark line above the plane extended miles out in front of it so it wasn't an illusion caused by the trail the aircraft was leaving. |
Yep, I've seen similar, but if the aircraft are flown along the same trajectories, either remote controlled or otherwise, that could be a plane laying a trail over a previous trail, the line being the shadow of a previous trail. All conjecture though and i must say the sharpness of the lines do make them look rather like a beam of sorts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
OK I'll keep an 'eye' out for one...
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ishaar wrote: | | Yep, I've ..................a beam of sorts. |
That was a very thought provoking few words;
| Quote: | | but if the aircraft are flown along the same trajectories, either remote controlled or otherwise |
I hadn't actually considered that we might be being chemtrailed by drones. However, if you read my recent post about putting up the pergola, you may have noted that over the space of 90 minutes I counted 18 high altitude commercial jets all leaving persistent trails.
If you consider the miniscule patch of sky that covers compared to the rest of the planet - either;
1) Commercial jets are spraying without the pilot's knowledge.
2) Commercial jets are spraying with the pilot's knowledge.
or
3) There are literally thousands of fully fuelled bogus airliners painted in commercial colours in addition to those in service spraying amongst the regular air traffic. These would be flown remotely or with human pilots on-board.
Obviously, the latter would show on Boeing's order books from the past decade and all need somewhere to land, be fuelled, be serviced, spraying equipment being evident.
Are there any other possibilities you can come up with?
There is one other hugely important question;
Are all persistent aircraft trails therefore the result of 'spraying'?
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
paul wright
Moderator
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 2650
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ishaar
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Jun 2006
Posts: 232
Location: uk
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I hadn't actually considered that we might be being chemtrailed by drones. However, if you read my recent post about putting up the pergola, you may have noted that over the space of 90 minutes I counted 18 high altitude commercial jets all leaving persistent trails. |
Yes that was interesting, you say you saw them clearly enough to make out they were commercial jets, what logo's were they displaying? Did you see any logo's at all? Or were they just painted in the colours one associates with commercial jets?
| Quote: | | Are all persistent aircraft trails therefore the result of 'spraying'? |
IMO yes, and it would take more than the standard line, 'there are more trails because there are more planes' to change that opinion. That answere doesn't even address the question which is not 'why are there more trails?' but rather why do we now have trails that last hours rather than minutes, what has changed? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
paul wright
Moderator
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 2650
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Probably the worst thing you can do is observe and submit.
You have to challenge
The way to the chemtrails, other than a chembuster, is via the phone masts
That is your local dial-in to the system
Bust them, and even if the technology's nonsense, shamanistically it must work
_________________
http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
ishaar -
| Quote: | Yes that was interesting, you say you saw them clearly enough to make out they were commercial jets, what logo's were they displaying? Did you see any logo's at all? Or were they just painted in the colours one associates with commercial jets?
IMO yes, and it would take more than the standard line, 'there are more trails because there are more planes' to change that opinion. That answere doesn't even address the question which is not 'why are there more trails?' but rather why do we now have trails that last hours rather than minutes, what has changed? |
The markings were clearly British Airways, Delta, Air France, Virgin, Kuwait, Air India and several I didn’t recognise. However, the question of the sheer quantity of aircraft you ignored completely – if you believe these aircraft are bogus – there would be thousands of them, yes thousands. How is this in any way plausible, Boeing etc would know of the colossal number of non-commercial owned planes, plus how could such a number of infiltrators ever hope not to be questioned by air-traffic control as they would never land at an airport??
Without question though, the biggest drawback in this whole debate is if you believe every persistent trail is a ‘chemtrail’ – then every piece of independent research, every weather plane that has gone up and done tests and analysed data that contradicts what we are 'officially' told must have been silenced. Every jet engine manufacturer would conduct a vast number of tests at all kinds of altitudes and under all kinds of conditions - they would unquestionably know about persistent contrails.
To accept that only those who are ‘in’ on this, ever do any type of atmospheric research is preposterous. Even those with computer models will be able to prove that persistent aircraft trails are impossible.
I also don’t understand your comment to my question;
| Quote: | | Are all persistent aircraft trails therefore the result of 'spraying'? |
You said;
'IMO yes, and it would take more than the standard line, 'there are more trails because there are more planes' to change that opinion.'
Your answer does nothing to answer the question at all – the question clearly asks if every lingering trail is the result of spraying? – not the quantity. You actually answer your own point though about the quantity when you say there are more planes. Simply type ‘increased air traffic’ into any search engine and the answer as to why there are more trails is self-evident.
I have seen no substantive comparitive research that says trails last longer now than say, 20 years ago. On what is that comment based exactly?
My questions were clear in my previous post – but you have skirted around the issue of how this is implemented in terms of the aircraft and pilots – do you say there are thousands of sham aircraft mixed in, or commercial planes are part of it too?
Finally, I will point out that I am not a vehement disbeliever in chemtrails, but there is so much that has to be answered before I will blindly accept that they definitely exist. I have watched countless aircraft 'spraying' - the numbers are globally vast if it happens elsewhere to the postage stamp sized section of sky above my house. How do you explain the sheer quantity, is there a percentage of legitimate real long lasting contrails and using that as a cover, chemtrails are sprayed hoping we cannot differentiate?
To even contemplate that persisent contrails cannot happen given that the meteorological and jet engine communities would simply have challenged the concept by now, is the ultimate in gullibility.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ishaar
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Jun 2006
Posts: 232
Location: uk
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The markings were clearly British Airways, Delta, Air France, Virgin, Kuwait, Air India and several I didn’t recognise. However, the question of the sheer quantity of aircraft you ignored completely – if you believe these aircraft are bogus – there would be thousands of them, yes thousands. How is this in any way plausible, Boeing etc would know of the colossal number of non-commercial owned planes, plus how could such a number of infiltrators ever hope not to be questioned by air-traffic control as they would never land at an airport?? |
Yes but what do you think Boeing would do with that knowledge? If they are contracted by the military to provide aircraft for a classified project they would be silenced by the official secrets act. Regarding the logos you observed ... whilst that doesn't prove they are commercial in the same way that Arab clothes on the SAS doesn't prove they are Arabs, there has been much talk of commercial aircraft involved in these operations. As for air traffic control, they can be silenced in the same way any other body of workers are silenced, for instance the NY emergency services, police, fire department, medics are generally silent on 9 11.
| Quote: | | Without question though, the biggest drawback in this whole debate is if you believe every persistent trail is a ‘chemtrail’ – then every piece of independent research, every weather plane that has gone up and done tests and analysed data that contradicts what we are 'officially' told must have been silenced. Every jet engine manufacturer would conduct a vast number of tests at all kinds of altitudes and under all kinds of conditions - they would unquestionably know about persistent contrails. |
First lets drop this word 'believe', Maybe you have them (beliefs) I don't, I have opinions, one of those is that we, the public know very little of those things we are not supposed to know about. Advanced technology and classified op's with that technology being 2 of them. I have read that a normal contrail in 'exceptional' conditions can linger for much longer periods than the average 30 secs, even up to an hour, those conditions are called 'exceptional' because they are rare, not 4 or 5 days a week, that wouldn't be exceptional it would be the norm. So on the 'rare' occasion we have those conditions you may mistake a contrail for a chemical trail.
| Quote: | | To accept that only those who are ‘in’ on this, ever do any type of atmospheric research is preposterous. Even those with computer models will be able to prove that persistent aircraft trails are impossible. |
To accept that only those who are ‘in’ on this, ever do any type of structural engineering research is preposterous. Even those with computer models will be able to prove that skyscrapers falling down due to fire is impossible....get it?
| Quote: | | I have seen no substantive comparative research that says trails last longer now than say, 20 years ago. On what is that comment based exactly? |
My own observations mostly, growing up I was fascinated by planes, my father used to build them, I personally had around 80 models hanging from my bedroom ceiling, anyway, the point is I have been watching aircraft from the late sixties and never saw them doing to the skies what they do today, and I'm not talking quantity.
| Quote: | Finally, I will point out that I am not a vehement disbeliever in chemtrails, but there is so much that has to be answered before I will blindly accept that they definitely exist. I have watched countless aircraft 'spraying' - the numbers are globally vast if it happens elsewhere to the postage stamp sized section of sky above my house. How do you explain the sheer quantity, is there a percentage of legitimate real long lasting contrails and using that as a cover, chemtrails are sprayed hoping we cannot differentiate?
To even contemplate that persistent contrails cannot happen given that the meteorological and jet engine communities would simply have challenged the concept by now, is the ultimate in gullibility. |
I wouldn't recommend 'blindly accepting ' anything tele, 'is there a percentage of legitimate real long lasting contrails and using that as a cover, chemtrails are sprayed hoping we cannot differentiate?' That’s a strong possibility and wouldn't actually be that difficult to implement.
Regarding your comment on gullibility, with all due respect I think you are the gullible one here, it's really quite simple, there are things you are not supposed to know about and the people who do know these things are not supposed to tell you, that’s the nature of classified op's.
http://worldaffairsbrief.com/keytopics/Chemtrails.shtml
http://www.mysteriousnewzealand.co.nz/resources/chemtrails.html
worth a look. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Firstly, I have gone out of my way since day one of being a member here to state I never blindly accept anything – ever. I have been pillared many times for ‘fence sitting’ and this is a strong example of that very stance.
You say I am the gullible one here yet I follow no specific avenue regarding chemtrails, I can see both sides of the debate, do not subscribe to any particular aspect, so have no clue how I can be seen to be naïve or susceptible? I have no views as such, just pose questions that most do Travolta impressions around. If we could just attempt to get them answered, then these type of threads wouldn't be needed.
You cite the Official Secrets Act as if it is some kind of ethereal gag stopping the thousands of workers within the aircraft manufacturing industry and air traffic control from ever openly stating what they know.
I have signed the said document on three occasions and know lots of people who have spoken openly about things they shouldn’t who have signed it too. It is just a bit of paper and to say that all those individuals –especially those who know things that impact all of mankind are going to keep it zipped – is not exactly rational thinking. Your views are like believing getting married stops people from committing adultery – it doesn’t. The term ‘whistleblower’ wouldn’t exist if people kept their mouths shut.
Your plagiarising of my comment and turning it to a 9/11 type thing about structural engineers loses me. It appears that you have used this to sidestep my point about the myriad of independent research that has been done by all kinds of institutions who would be able to say persisent contrails are rubbish. Across the globe there will be a huge number of ordinary people who will have witnessed persistent contrails from very close quarters, you know this and it is very difficult to explain away.
You very clearly said you were of the opinion that every persistent contrail was the result of spraying,
| Quote: | | IMO yes, and it would take more…….. |
However, things have kinda swung around now and you have adopted a somewhat more relaxed way of seeing things – good to see you accepting the possibility that at least some persistent trails are legitimate. You also say you have read that the conditions for persistent trails are ‘rare’ – but supply no link?
I don’t know how old you are, but say you are using your own adolescent memories as the yardstick by which to gauge the changes in aircraft trails. I remember seeing the very first Dr Who as it was broadcast and that was much better than today’s version.
You still have completely avoided the subject of the countless aircraft this would take to implement. You therefore accept that in addition to the enormous number of commerical aircraft operating carrying passengers, there is a sub-fleet of additional bogus planes, vast in number, all being maintained, fuelled, serviced, piloted and everyone who knows keeps schtum. Please, at least offer up an opinion as to how this is even conceivable.
Incidentally, here is a definition of opinion;
‘a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.’
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
In the 60's how common was it to take a winter holiday in Lanzarote or The Gambia, or nip off in December for a stag-weekend in Prague? Such things are much more common these days and (regrettably?) encouraged by the budget airlines.
There is not only far more air traffic in the early 2000's, but I'd bet a tidy sum that it has risen disproportionately in winter. While one or two airport websites plot their growth in flights over the years I haven't yet found a breakdown by season, so this is speculation. But perhaps not unreasonable speculation?
Additionally, regional airports have blossomed over the last couple of decades. Trails will naturally be seen in areas where they were once rare simply through lack of local airliner traffic.
Finally a question for chemtrail believers. Why do "they" continue to spray over the open seas?
edited to add : from the Birmingham International Airport website:
In the early 1970's 1 million passengers per year were passing through the airport.
In 2006 this had risen to 9 million
"1967-1970 – The main runway was extended allowing turboprops and jets to use the airport"
Is it hardly surprising, then, that a person raised around (say) Birmingham in the '60's would have few - if any - memories of contrails from way back then? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ishaar
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Jun 2006
Posts: 232
Location: uk
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Firstly, I have gone out of my way since day one of being a member here to state I never blindly accept anything – ever. |
well they were your words not mine:
| Quote: | | but there is so much that has to be answered before I will blindly accept that they definitely exist. |
| Quote: | | You say I am the gullible one here yet I follow no specific avenue regarding chemtrails, I can see both sides of the debate, do not subscribe to any particular aspect, so have no clue how I can be seen to be naïve or susceptible? |
I mean gullible regarding your stance on the PTB's ability to keep a secret, I would imagine most of the people involved in chemtrail op's are unaware or have been mislead as to the true nature of the op's.
| Quote: | | Your plagiarising of my comment and turning it to a 9/11 type thing about structural engineers loses me. |
I used the 9 11 comparison to highlight a flaw in your logic, you seem to think because a lot of people know something action will follow, what we saw on 9 11 in the collapse of the 3 buildings was something all structural engineers know to be an impossible event, that’s a lot of people. Then there are all the NY emergency services living day by day with the knowledge their own government colluded to murder their colleagues and 3000 us citizens yet life, and the current agenda goes on.
| Quote: | | However, things have kinda swung around now and you have adopted a somewhat more relaxed way of seeing things – good to see you accepting the possibility that at least some persistent trails are legitimate. |
I accept it as a possibility that on 'rare' occasions normal trails can last longer than the average 30 secs or so. For what it's worth.
another definition of opinion from wikipedia:
| Quote: | | An opinion is a person's ideas and thoughts towards something |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ishaar eventually replied with;
| Quote: | | I would imagine most of the people involved in chemtrail op's are unaware or have been mislead as to the true nature of the op's. |
And the people who aren’t involved, yet are exposed every day? The pilots following dozens of daily 'rare' contrails never comment? All air traffic controllers outside the loop just ignore these hundreds of weekly planes that never land?
| Quote: | | I used the 9 11 comparison to highlight a flaw in your logic, you seem to think because a lot of people know something action will follow, what we saw on 9 11 in the collapse of the 3 buildings was something all structural engineers know to be an impossible event, that’s a lot of people. Then there are all the NY emergency services living day by day with the knowledge their own government colluded to murder their colleagues and 3000 us citizens yet life, and the current agenda goes on. |
The old selective quote ploy is now in full swing, for yet again, the quantity of aircraft is ignored – the real issues about how is it possible that thousands of bogus aircraft are out there mixing with regular passenger jets? Thousands bought, flown and serviced invisibly - no attempt whatsoever to have a go at that one. I accept it is a huge problem, so I will ease off and let you contemplate it until you feel ready to have a go.
As for comparing 9/11 to chemtrails;
Every day we can look out of the window and see contrails. Every day meteorologists can run tests in real time using real aircraft, aero engine makers can take you up and you could, finance permitting, witness persisent contrails having first inspected the aircraft for dodgy equipment. This is not opinion, these potential methods of ‘proof’ exist now, everwhere, every day.
I believe that you have seen the need to admit to the existence of persisent contrails - to deny the possibility makes the whole thing vastly complicated and unworkable as a conspiracy. However, no-one is being put under pressure to HAVE to demonstrate persistent contrails.
The twin towers and WTC7 have gone, so too any tangible evidence – we have conflicting opinion ad infinitum – one engineer says this, another says that. I have read no such conflicting expert opinion on contrails – can you supply any links regarding conflicting EXPERT opinion on contrails? In other words, qualified experts who say there are far too many persistent contrails as the rare conditions simply don't crop up that often;
| Quote: | | I accept it as a possibility that on 'rare' occasions normal trails can last longer than the average 30 secs or so. For what it's worth. |
What exactly are these rare occasions? I see persistent contrails day after day, seemingly identical days in terms of conditions – please elaborate what makes these days so unique? How do you know of these rare conditions, for you trust the meteoroligical community to supply that information but nothing else?
| Quote: | | An opinion is a person's ideas and thoughts towards something |
Excellent definition, and this differs from ‘belief’ in what way? If a belief isn’t a thought or idea (it can only ever be perceived in the brain), it is a …….?
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mr nice
Validated Poster
Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 103
Location: In a camper
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I hate to keep being a lazy link poster and I have already posted this in another thread but I think this is at least mainstream acknowledgement of the phenomenon in question.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaPqCMIuEk4
_________________
Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut, that held its ground.
David Icke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fish5133
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2568
Location: One breath from Glory
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
chemtrails will help stop global warming!
_________________
JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
