Search results

So, below I have put lines on that photo. Notice how they intersect even below the floor level. I took this photo myself, holding my phone right in front of my face. But imagine if the photo had been taken from further away, with my head visible in front of my stomach. The intersection of...

Do you want to try the "line test" on this photo? (Honestly, the things I do for truth... ;) )

I suggest you enlist the help of a friend and take some photos yourself to help you understand. And furthermore, if "they" were using a prosthetic, why would they not attach it to a real stump? How would you attach it half a leg-width too far right? It makes no sense even from a conspiracy...

But the photo you posted clearly showed rather distant clouds, given the amount of atmospheric haze obscuring them. There is no way those clouds were at 6,500 feet. Also, different cloud types form at different altitudes. If you see a cirrus cloud, you know it's at a high altitude. I just took...

How on earth are you coming up with these heights? These aren't low clouds. Do you think they are low because they look relatively close to the horizon? I'm curious: what type of cloud do you think that is? And at what altitude do such clouds typically form?

This is where the logic breaks down and I just don't understand the "chemtrail" argument. If the humidity is high enough for a cloud to form in that specific small region of sky (whether a naturally formed cloud or one triggered by jet exhaust) then why is it "odd" that another contrail will...

Regarding aluminium in the air: here in the UK we see much more air traffic (and persistent trails that people like to say are "chemtrails") than California, so if what Dane says is true, shouldn't we be seeing even more "nano-aluminium" everywhere in the air? Well, there is an extensive...

How many airports did you call? A lot of people make the mistake of assuming that planes flying over them must be going to or from nearby airports. That is not the case at all. Many of the flights that leave trails over my house in southern England, not far from London, don't have anything to...

These are very good points. I've never seen any coherent or consistent theory about what "they" are meant to be spraying. Some claim it is metallic aluminium, others say it is aluminium oxide or more exotic Al compounds. Well, Al2O3 is just about as inert a substance as you could mention, and...

That photo was taken out of my front window: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/busy-sky-over-southern-uk-july-30-2014.4035/ No more planes than usual (I live under two busy flight paths), just especially good conditions for persistence. Your questions about the shadow are answered fully in the...

I have to rush now but, briefly, I have a masters degree in chemistry - not specifically soil science, so I may have to defer to you there, but I do understand about the difference between different forms of aluminium, and the effect of pH on aluminium ion uptake.

If Dane's theory were the case then we should be seeing an increase in aluminium in water, air and soil samples. No such increase has been seen. (Nor does he present any argument over how aluminium from the air can kill trees!) Aluminium is everywhere in the soil. The limiting factor in its...

The black streaks are just shadows, as discussed in the link Mick provided. And how on Earth can you say that because a contrail appears (from your vantage point) to be "just above the tree line" that means the plane is at a low level? Contrails are often visible virtually down to the horizon...

Is this plane climbing? You mentioned a height of 6,500ft. How did you determine this? If were talking passenger jets, they look pretty huge at 6,500ft. Not quite wave-to-the-pilot huge, but you can clearly identify the airline and plane type at that height.

The difference in colour isn't very obvious to me. The wider trail is a little more diffuse, that's all. What is labelled a "chemtrail" on this video is just a persistent contrail. There is no way of telling whether it is higher or lower than the non-persistent contrail. The air is usually...

Why shouldn't it? It just shows that the conditions at higher altitude don't support contrail formation as they do lower down. That's pretty common: the area of high humidity can be very shallow.

Feel free to copy it over. I've added screenshots of the flight tracks. Photo was taken from a few miles east of the point where the tracks cross. (Incidentally, after posting those tracks I thought I must have made a mistake, as the trails seemed to be crossing in the wrong direction. Then I...

Here's an example of how height can be misleading. I took this photo last month. The plane in shot is at 38,000ft. The older contrail it is crossing is at 37,000ft, i.e. BELOW this plane and its contrail. Yet to the naked eye, from the ground, it appears that the new contrail is in front of...

Here's an example of how height can be misleading. I took this photo last month. The plane in shot is at 38,000ft. The older contrail it is crossing is at 37,000ft, i.e. BELOW this plane and its contrail. Yet to the naked eye, from the ground, it appears that the new contrail is in front of...

Of course, the "underlying layer" in this case is the photo. Got it. I searched for any discussion online of this kind of corruption from this make of camera. Nothing. The closest thing I came up with was this green fringing caused by sensor overload (and in a different make of camera)...