Mysteries, Chemtrails, Aerosols :: Mysterious NZ New Zealand based Discussion Forums The strange & mysterious, archaeological anomalies, modern oddities... Current affairs, health & medical issues, Aerosol Spraying in NZ... ...and general interest: ARCHIVES
I wasn't going to join this discussion (you'll see why; I don't have anything substantial to say) but since secondfield has asked for my opinion (twice), I will answer his request.
This video appears more than once on YouTube, and this one has a translation from the original German to English, and a transcription; thanks to CowboyBebop2012. Here it is...
Quote:
[...] suddenly a meteorological radar registers the presence of a cloud -- but it's not clear how did this happen? The answer seems to be that this was the result of a military experiment. What are these mysterious trails and what is their purpose? We will try to find out...
The military planes of the German Federal Army are manipulating our climate; this is what the weather researchers are presuming and their suspicions are confirmed.
Sinister clouds, up to 350 km long, appear all of a sudden on the radar, but only on the meteorological radars. The first time it happened was in the summer of 2005. and then in March of 2006. The german army has admitted having war exercises towards the borders with the Netherlands.
For Karsten Brandt, meteorologist, this is the answer to the enigma:
KARSTEN BRANDT -- THE FEDERAL ARMY IS MANIPULATING THE METEOROLOGICAL MAPS
We can state with a 97% certainty that we have on our hands chemical trails (chemtrails) comprised by fine dust containing polymers and metals, used to disrupt radar signals.
This is their main purpose, but I was surprised that this artificial cloud was so wide-spread. The radar images are stunning considering the needed tons of dispersed elements -- although, the federal army claims that only small amounts of material were propagated. The military heads claim that the substances used are not harmful.
- The registers report emissions of chemtrails at low altitudes... --
In the United States of America there are protest after protest for many years now, against these military operations and now people are mobilising in Germany as well. Per example JOHANNES REMMEL of the Greens.
It's obvious that enormous regions are being polluted with clandestine actions, but all of this has to be made public. The government must provide explanations to the unsuspecting population.
Yet the story continues: in the following three weeks the instruments register other activities of suspicious aircrafts, similar to the previously mentioned, above other areas of Germany. Meanwhile the satellite imagery is clearly counterfeited by the military.
From our observations we can conclude that they fly over the regions of Westfalia, Bielefeld, the Ruhr zone to Saxony and Hamburg, forming a really dense layer of artificial cloud-cover.
WEATHER MANIPULATION IS PROHIBITED
After the first discovery Karsten Brandt has filed a legal charge against unknowns for weather manipulation, based on his careful verifications and data gathered by radar through which he documented every anomalous cloud formation.
In the video there is a sequence of images over a map of northern Germany as background, and the voice over says "... clouds, up to 350 km long, appear all of a sudden on the radar, but only on the meteorological radars." Those images do not look like radar images to me. The 'echoes' are moving too far between images (scans). See the video 00:28 to 00:31 sec. Weather surveillance radar scans are 10 to 15 minutes apart and a sequence of radar images at that interval shows a smaller displacement of echoes between subsequent images unless the echoes are moving very fast. Weather surveillance radars are designed to detect liquid water in the atmosphere; rain or liquid water coated (like wet hail) precipitation of some kind.
This is a small point of information about the origin of images. It turns out that these are probably composite satellite-radar images. See the video at 00:40 sec. The image caption is "Deutsche Wetterdienst/ METEOSAT 8 + RADAR/ 19/07/2005 13:45 UTC". Satellite images (from that type of satellite) are 30 minutes or one hour apart, so that explains the large displacement of echoes between images.
I'm not familiar with this type of imagery, but here is a note about them on the World Meteorological Organisation site.
http://www.wmo.ch/pages/prog/sat/CGMS/Directoryofapplications/en/ap3-11.htm
This seems to be a capability of the METEOSAT 8 satellite (geostationary over Europe) to detect precipitation, and together with coincident radar images result in a better product than using only radar or only that satellite product. So these 'blobs' are precipitation or something that appears to both sensors (satellite and radar) indistinguishable from precipitation.
I don't think Karsten Brandt works for Deutsche Wetterdienst (German Weather Service). He is not introduced as being so; he is just introduced as "Karsten Brandt, meteorologist". The office we see in the video does not look like what I imagine the offices of the Weather Service of a large modern European country would look like. Anoher think that makes me think that this is not a German Weather Service office is the "Deutsche Wetterdienst" caption in that image. I am fairly sure that if that was a German Weather Service office there would not be a panel like that on an image for display in an operational situation. Operational images at MetService don't genrally have "MetService" anywhere in them until they are put out onto orue web site. I think it is an image provided as a service to Karsten Brandt's business. I had a look at the Deutsche Wetterdienst web site and couldn't find any live data, but it appeared that it could be obtained through a service agreement of some kind.
There is a Karsten Brandt who has a web site and is a publisher and meteorologist.
http://www.karstenbrandt.de/
If you Google "Karsten Brandt" and go to the "translate this page" link of the top item, you can read all about him in English. I couldn't find any reference to this story on that site, so it is possible that is not the same Karsten Brandt; and the photo of the person doesn't quite match the Karsten Brandt in the video.
"The German army has admitted having war exercises towards the borders with the Netherlands." They probably dropped some chaff. Chaff is supposed to disrupt the radar tracking of targets. It's is possible that this stuff stays suspended fot a long time, and after several hours gets dispersed by the wind into the long stripes and can be detected by satellite/radar imaging systems. The stuff is probably a very efficient radar reflector (it's supposed to be), and still fairly good even when dispersed to low concentrations. It looks like rain echoes on weather surveillance radar in some circumstances.
Here are some references to chaff in weather surveillance radar images:-
Some notes about interpretation of the BoM radar imagery in Australia. Chaff is mentioned in the notes about Katherine/Tindal where it is said to give weak echoes and dissipate in 15 to 20 minutes. (Ok, so the BoM and I disagree about strength of echoes and dissipation time. Who knows for sure?)
http://www.bom.gov.au/weather/radar/info/NT.info.shtml
The link between the (possibly) chaff echoes and the formation of "artificial cloud-cover" is not clear. The commentary gently segues from a discussion of army exercises, to "emissions of chemtrails at low altitudes", to a brief interview with the politician, to "suspicious aircrafts", to "satellite imagery is clearly counterfeited by the military", and finally to, "artificial clouds" ... all with nothing much to connect them. I think it's a stretch to state that "satellite imagery is clearly counterfeited by the military" and imply that this is a deliberate activity. Someone in the comments verified that the language translation was accurate.
The connection (chaff to cloud) is far from clear. I would have to read Mr Brandt's "careful verifications and data gathered by radar through which he documented every anomalous cloud formation". He probably has some examples of chaff in the radar imagery, but does that (release of chaff in an exercise) lead to suspicious formation of cloud? There is not enough information in the video to tell.
Has anyone followed the leads and got any further than I did?
The report raises more questions than it answers.
After all that, I wish Karsten well with the "legal charge against unknowns for weather manipulation". He would first have to establish that "weather" was deliberately "manipulated". I look forward to the judgment. ... at the length truth will out. (Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, 1600)
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 977
Location: north-east victoria
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:01 pm Post Subject:
hi, Hector,
looks to me like you have made a very good point!
looks like the persons mounting that dramatically choreographed attack on the luftwaffe , are indeed faking it , from their toenails to their eyeballs , and more
my take on it , having realised that it is probably a very sophisticated disinfo enterprise , and having been thoroughly taken in myself (as has happened a few times in this journey), is that there will come a time when this video and/or others like it, will be blown out of the water , and honestly , old man , i'd rather admit fault to you than to some slick ad agency
while you're on deck, welcome back, and can you help me, i'm looking for some reliable text on the mechanics of precipitation??
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:17 am Post Subject: Correction
The 4th paragraph after the quoted block in my post above has some errors. Here is a corrected version.
I don't think Karsten Brandt works for Deutsche Wetterdienst (German Weather Service). He is not introduced as being so; he is just introduced as "Karsten Brandt, meteorologist". The office we see in the video does not look like what I imagine the offices of the Weather Service of a large modern European country would look like. Another thing that makes me think that this is not a German Weather Service office is the "Deutsche Wetterdienst" caption in that image. I am fairly sure that if that was a German Weather Service office there would not be a panel like that on an image for display in an operational situation. Operational images at MetService don't have "MetService" anywhere in them until they are put out onto the web site. I think it is an image provided as a service to Karsten Brandt's business. I had a look at the Deutsche Wetterdienst web site and couldn't find any live data, but it appeared that it could be obtained through a service agreement of some kind.
(Note to self: Proof read twice immediately before posting. Preview the post, and proof read again.)
I'm not saying it's a hoax or anything of the sort; don't read that into what I said.
What I found is this: The images are of a specialised type but in common use under the area covered by METEOSAT 8. I can't find any other references to the Karsten Brandt in the video, or any trace of his research or findings.
Media reports are difficult. You/anyone (that is, not a journalist) with a story is not in control of it when it gets back to the news room / editing suite / whatever. You don't know how the editor/producer (another party again) will want to spin it. One media report is a slapshot of a moment in a longer continuum, and is therefore almost immediately out of context. The material of the report may also be taken out of its context.
This story may be well about something real and got what looks (to me) like a bit of a bad spin. Why are we shown the flying sequences for so long, and so many? One clip of a few seconds would have been OK. I wanted to see more of how he got from what he noticed in the imagery to weather manipulation.
Weaving in mentions of "clandestine", "chemtrails", getting the politician involved referring to the controversy in USA, and all that, just spins the report a certain way. Doing that hooks into the existing worldwide controversy; twanging the wires. That may have been done intentionally to unfairly discredit Herr Brandt; I don't know, and I'm not suggesting that either. I'm trying to look past the smoke and mirrors to the nub of the story.
I look forward to what returns from smashdracs' contacts in Germany. I have relatives in England who also have contacts in Germany and, taking a leaf, I have asked for an inquiry to someone "on the ground".
Im not so sure about the chaff explanation though. I really dont think it would remain suspended for hours and spread to 350km. Well, not enough anyway to allow met weather radar returns to register precipative cloudbanks up to that distance.
From what I understand about chaff, it is released as an anti missile (surface to air, or air to air) countermeasure. This is to disrupt the heat (infrared), or RF (radio frequency) seeking guidance system of the missile when it locks onto its target.
Flares are also commonly deployed measure against heat seekers too.
When the chaff is released it is usually done abruptly and possibly automatically upon detection of a hostile missile. Not sure how much is released in volumetric terms. Chaff is quite coarse, strips of tin foil and such.
Now if the chaff was paticulate and composed (partly) of a conductive material, say barium or aluminium, it may spread out and garner radar returns over many hours and distance.
But chaff ain't like that.
Just a thought about that stuff off the top of my head... no meticulous research put in.
Yes, looking forward to what our friends on the continent can say about that....
Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 83
Location: wellington
Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 5:55 pm Post Subject:
Quote:
I really dont think it would remain suspended for hours and spread to 350km. Well, not enough anyway to allow met weather radar returns to register precipative cloudbanks up to that distance.
Chaff is frequently released by military aircraft in the desert area west of the Great Salt Lake (GSL). The chaff is seen on the radar display usually as narrow bands of high reflectivity that travel with the winds after emanating from a point source. Sometimes these chaff echoes can stretch for hundreds of miles. The bands are also very shallow and are usually seen on only one tilt of the radar, though this depends on the range from the radar and the amount of diffusion time. As chaff drifts closer to the radar site, it may be seen on several tilts making it more difficult to distinguish from actual weather.
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 977
Location: north-east victoria
Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 7:15 pm Post Subject:
apparently there was some consternation , a few years ago in Australia, when people rang the BOM , asking what the long, thin , straight line echoes were, and apparently, the answer was, they turned the gain down
i've become conditioned to thinking that the echoes are rain and rain only
lately, i've seen echoes that can only have come from low cloud
that large, lozenge-shaped area on your german video, that was presented as chem-pollution, i accepted at face value at first, then realised, did not correspond to chem activity as i have seen it , and now wish that someone in germany can throw some light on it
the question is , "what does weather radar pick up?"
anybody out there?.............wavelengths...........periodicities..........long lunches.........
Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 1002
Location: Wellington NZ
Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 10:12 pm Post Subject:
I have started my investigation into this and my ex girlfriend Sonja has graciously helped me out with translations and web searches of German News and Meteorological websites relating to the story.
Several hours of searching and reading have returned the following…
The news story posted at the start of the thread is genuine, the TV station and Show presenting the article are real, the bottom line is it isn’t fake.
The TV station that aired the article is called RTL and the website is www.rtl.de
The show that made and presented the article is called Guten Abend Deutschland.
Guten Abend Deutschland is nationwide but the different regions of Germany broadcast news articles specific to the region that they are aired in. The You Tube article posted above was aired in and specific to Nordrhein Westfalen.
Karsten Brandt is a meteorologist and CEO of www.donnerwetter.de which is a popular weather forecasting website and organization in Germany/Deutschland.
Investigation has shown that the event documented above had the attention of the German and Dutch Weather Services.
Jörg Asmus - meteorologist from the German Weather Service has stated that this was indeed an anomaly and the radar and satellite images conflict in their data on the day of the event, he states that there are 16 weather radar sites in Germany and they could not have all gone faulty at the same time.
There is a full interview with him in German at this link... http://donnerwetter.de/intern/presse/spiegel.mv?action=show&id=6197
The journalist who presented this article is Joachim Bublath
Photo here: http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a329/smashdracs/joeachim.jpg
Who is a household name throughout Germany and has been working for ZDF for over 2 decades and is responsible for Scientific Journalism.
In the article he presented in the above You Tube link it is stated that additives (sulphur) are being added to aviation fuel as part of an operation to counteract global warming.
ZDF are one of the 2 mainstream public TV channels in Germany
www.zdf.de
Another article presented on ZDF called the weather makers is available at the following link…http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/4/0,1872,2037188,00.html
The above article states that weather manipulation technologies are being deployed by 15 different companies in 25 different countries around the world. They have purpose built aircraft for this purpose.
Der Spiegel a mainstream magazine in Germany published the following article
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/0,1518,445727,00.html
showing radar images of supposed weather manipulation activities over German airspace, experts of Karlsruher Instituts für Meteorologie und Klimaforschung (institute for meteorology and climate research in Karlsruhe) Ulrich Blahak (http://www.imk.unikarlsruhe.de/283.php) and Klaus Beheng (http://www.imk.uni-karlsruhe.de/201.php) agree with Jörg Asmus (mentioned above) and believe phantom clouds have been caused by military experiments
I have had the benefit of a German native to translate everything linked above for me, unfortunately we can’t translate all of the articles in full for everyone here to read and comprehend but the links are there and I stand by the brief overviews of the links presented here now as translated.
If you know somebody who speaks German who can translate for you what has been linked above you will see that this is now across the German mainstream media, and scientists and meteorologists (including the big guys) are all in agreement that weather manipulation is happening right now. There is a lawsuit that has been filed against it in Germany by Meteorologists.
No straight answer has been forthcoming from the German Air force, in fact all their answers have been evasive and present more questions than answers…
I will be further researching this, hopefully though this is of help to everyone.
Bottom line is that the news article posted at the beginning of the thread is 100% genuine according to my research.
Well done Smash, Ive been watching this post keenly, seems like the era of straight debunking is coming to a close....
For anyone that cares to give a hoot, weather manipulation has been a top priority for the military industrial complex for quite some time now.
Re the chaff returns and radar. It seems quite obvious the NOAA and BoM are at loggerheads over this one. For radar returns of high density over HUNDEREDS of miles, (plus several hours) to be caused by chaff would possibly require HUGE volumes of the stuff, albeit aluminium is more reflective than water. Im not discounting this... the brief NOAA paper seems rather vauge and abrupt.
1996 and 1997 is supposedly when the weather manipulation technology was deployed en masse in the US.
Remember, witnesess in Germany physically SAW what they term 'artificial clouds'.
The perodicity of doppler radar is generally 1000hz. 1000 pulses a second using a carrier frequency in the microwave range (3-10cm wavelength). Each of these pulses is one microsecond (millionth!) of a second long. There is a long gap between transmitted pulses so the returns may be heard by the reciever. Once the chaff disperses, being of large (relatively) size, the signal intensity of the return should diminsh quickly (ala BoM). Thus over a large area I find it quite difficult to believe the return would be intense over a long period of time. Perhaps if it gets sucked into a low pressure system it may linger for a while longer. Anyway, chaff aint the issue (I wish it were), artifical clouds are.
The long, thin, straight lines echoes as a result of 'the gain (reciever) being turned down' sounds highly suspicious. Remember Steve, when the aussie met service had a picture of woomera (?) met office's radome and a bloody great contrail across the sky next to it on their front page?. Terrific marketing guy's. Sus.
Thank you, zaphod, for that reference. That ties in quite well with what follows which I had drafted before you posted. And welcome to the forum... no one has acknowledged you yet! How rude!
This post was written as a response to secondfield's above where
secondfield wrote:
Cool, Thanks Hector,
I looked up the upper air sounding for De Bilt (near Amersfoort, Netherlands, which is northwest of Germany), at one of the times that we know Karsten Brandt identified. See the video and my discussion of satellite+radar images above.
This data can be found at the Wyoming University site http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html
Here is part of the sounding at 12Z 19 Jul 2005
The whole sounding is at
http://weather.uwyo.edu/cgi-bin/sounding?region=europe&TYPE=TEXT%3ALIST&YEAR=2005&MONTH=07&FROM=1912&TO=1912&STNM=06260
Notice the wind at 200 hPa, 11980m (FL387): from the northwest at 47 knots. The wind is strongest at 268hPa, 10073m (FL327): from the northwest at 85 knots. So in 1907 metres (and progressing down the sounding, the wind speed increased by 38 knots (70km/h). Particles released above FL387 (not an unreasonable altitude for jet fighters to be operating) at this time, falling at 0.1 metres/sec (see validation of this later) it would take 5 hours to be sheared over a distance of 350 km.
What is chaff?
According to wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countermeasure, "Radar decoys: (Main article: Chaff - radar countermeasure)
To counter radar-guided missiles, chaff is used. These are copper nickel-coated glass fibers or silver-coated nylon fibers having lengths equal to half of the anticipated radar wavelength."
In the main article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaff_%28radar_countermeasure%29, "Chaff, originally called Window by the British, and Düppel by the World War II era German Luftwaffe, is a radar countermeasure in which aircraft or other targets spread a cloud of small, thin pieces of aluminium, metallised glass fibre or plastic, which either appears as a cluster of secondary targets on radar screens or swamps the screen with multiple returns."
"A weather radar employs scattering of radio-frequency waves (5.6 GHz/5 cm for C-band) to measure precipitation and other particles in the atmosphere. The intensity of the atmospheric echoes is converted to the so-called radar reflectivity Z using the equations for Rayleigh scattering. The Rayleigh equations are valid when the wavelength of the radar is much larger than the diameter of the scatterers."
http://www.knmi.nl/publications/fulltexts/synergetic_use_radar_and_satellite.pdf
So for weather radar to detect this stuff it must be about or smaller in length than half the radar wavelength of 5 cm. Since chaff is composed of "fibres" the diameter must be pretty small. A large cloud droplet (100 micrometers, 0.1 mm) falls at 0.27 metres/sec (see http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~aos100dv/Notes/100507.txt). A bit smaller than 0.1 millimetres is reasonable for the diameter of a fibre. This means that 0.1 metre/sec is a feasible fall rate for chaff.
(That is the validation of a fall rate of 0.1 m/s for chaff.)
Based on all that, it's not unreasonable that chaff, released at or above FL387 over or near northwest Germany on 19 July 2007, would be sheared by the wind to a stripe 350 km long.
secondfield wrote:
But chaff ain't like that.
Apparently, as zaphod also discovered, chaff is like that.
Incidentally, the www.knmi.nl (above) article mentions chaff, amongst several other phenomena, as a source of spurious echoes.
The article mentions "anomalous propagation" which occurs when, at the lowest elevation in the scan programme, the radar beam is refracted down towards the ground. In the radar data processing in doppler scan mode, where the speed of movement (towards or away from the radar) of echoes are measured, these (usually) stationary echoes can be removed because the speed is zero. However, in non-doppler mode, the echoes from the anomalous propagation is more difficult to remove. You need to use other remote sensing (satellite) or other data to decide if the echoes are precipitation or not. These commonly occur early in the morning when the near-surface temperature inversion is strongest, and if you wait a few hours until the inversion is broken up by the onset of convection, the anomalous propagation ceases.
You can also get echoes off ships on radars that are close to the coast and major ports.
You can also get sea clutter. You can usually sea this on the Wellington radar north and south of Cook Strait depending on the wind direction, and the Auckland radar at the entrance to Kaipara Harbour in westerlies.
I haven't see this yet, but a wind power turbine can reflect a thunderstorm echo off its blades and make it appear to be located where there is no cloud at all. In this situation the pitch of the blades is behaving like a mirror. The real echo is not affected; there is just this second spurious echo.
A long, thin, straight line echo around sunrise or sunset and directed towards the east (in the morning) or the west (in the evening) is caused by the radar pointing directly at the sun. The sun is a microwave source, the radar 'detects' echoes at all ranges at that azimuth and elevation. That's why it appears in the imagery as a radial line echo. This is also a spurious radar echo.
See also https://www.mysteriousnewzealand.co.nz/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3417#3417 (which was my very first post here, incidentally).
I will have a look at the material smashdracs referred to in the next several days.
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 977
Location: north-east victoria
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:16 pm Post Subject:
I think this saga has the potential for an article on the front page of the site.......so much good info, and not a little real drama
good on you, zaphod, and welcome
fascinating to discover the relationship between radar wavelenths , and chaff size, and composition
even more interesting to note the weather-modification angle, now coming into sharper focus..........those responsible might be in for some fairly heavy criminal charges
What a rude bunch we must be. I feel all guilty now.
Well if it was fighter aircraft, it possibly was chaff. Wouldn't be much though. The airforce could have easily stated that in the first place. Witnesses saw 'artifical' cloud.
Or perhaps the chaff utilised was tuned for mm wavelength guided missiles? that would make it a lot smaller and less reflective at met radar wavelengths. Anyway, splitting hairs here... Smash's investigation has shifted the gear up in this whole 'chemtrail' thread.
Remember if a war breaks out not to use your microwave oven too much. The 'smart' bombs and RF seeking missiles home in on radar signals. The US was extensively embarrassed by the destruction of the chinese (?) embassy in Belgrade when some smart ass put a microwave oven on the roof operating with the door jammed open. A conventionally laden cruise plowed into it. I guess met service radars would have to be turned off too in the event of a US backed war.
Nice theory Hector. You still vehemently deny there is the high possibility of artifical weather modification technology is being deployed on our planet?
Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 1002
Location: Wellington NZ
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 1:31 pm Post Subject:
The thing that stands out to me about this right now is just how much exposure there is in Germany about it.
I didnt link it above but there was an organisation (I cant remember the exact name but can find out tommorow) that had something to do with air and space travel who stated that there is a high possibility of illegal weather manipulation being conducted over German airspace...
I need to get the exact details of the lawsuit that has been filed against the "weather manipulators"
Well if it was fighter aircraft, it possibly was chaff. Wouldn't be much though. The airforce could have easily stated that in the first place. Witnesses saw 'artifical' cloud.
The air force may well have said as much and were not directly reported as saying so. It probably doesn't take much. We have already seen several references to chaff being detected by weather surveillance radar.
What's the problem with "artificial"? When you look out at Wellington's landscape, you see very little that is not artificial. There are pinus radiata plantations, hills covered in gorse and broom, fire breaks, pasture, power pylons and transmission wires, roads, railways, and soon, wind turbines (there is already one above Brooklyn). Clearing the bush for pasture or clear-felling of pine forest seriously changes the flow/flood characteristics of streams and rivers; they become artificial, and the consequent floods are therefore also artificial. Most of the large rivers have artificial flows due to hydro and irrigation dams. The sky is probably the least "artificial" part of our environment.
secondfield seems to want to link this up with contrails/chemtrails. (He mentioned "aluminium and barium" earlier when neither had been mentioned in the video, and only aluminium had been mentioned in this topic as a component of chaff.) No one has ever said that contrails were not artificial, or that the spreading of persistent contrails did not have an artificial origin. Yes, contrail induced cirrus does have an impact on the climate, and no one denies it.
secondfield wrote:
Nice theory Hector. You still vehemently deny there is the high possibility of artifical weather modification technology is being deployed on our planet?
I'm not advancing any "theory". I was asked for my opinion; I gave it. Please give a link to the post where I "vehemently deny" that "artifical[sic] weather modification technology is being deployed". I have done exactly the opposite; see See https://www.mysteriousnewzealand.co.nz/forums/viewtopic.php?p=5052#5052 where I listed several artificial weather modification technologies (one of which doesn't work, but demonstrates intent) in use in New Zealand, and no doubt elsewhere.
(Pause for breath, and a decent interval...)
Completely off topic: I do wish you all a safe and merry Christmas and a happy New Year.
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 977
Location: north-east victoria
Posted: Tue Dec 25, 2007 10:21 am Post Subject:
it could be the moon, but check the pan of the camera and the altitudes of the orb and the sun, ..........it should be more like a half than a full moon, i think
Based on all that, it's not unreasonable that chaff, released at or above FL387 over or near northwest Germany on 19 July 2007, would be sheared by the wind to a stripe 350 km long.
The date should be 19 July 2005.
smashdracs wrote:
Karsten Brandt is a meteorologist and CEO of www.donnerwetter.de which is a popular weather forecasting website and organization in Germany/Deutschland.
Investigation has shown that the event documented above had the attention of the German and Dutch Weather Services.
Jörg Asmus - meteorologist from the German Weather Service has stated that this was indeed an anomaly and the radar and satellite images conflict in their data on the day of the event, he states that there are 16 weather radar sites in Germany and they could not have all gone faulty at the same time.
There is a full interview with him in German at this link... http://donnerwetter.de/intern/presse/spiegel.mv?action=show&id=6197
Ah, that Karsten Brandt! I translated (using http://babelfish.altavista.com/tr ) 20 statements his company issued about the "phantom cloud", including the 2 referred in the quote, and others referred to below. When read in its entirety, it's a fascinating story.
The nub of it is this:
Radar echoes were noticed in the meteorological radar images over Netherlands and western Germany that did not correspond with observed precipitation (or cloud in satellite images) at the time. Based on the radar images (at face value), rain was forecast for northwest Germany. No rain, or corresponding cloud was observed.
Later, the usual suspects for spurious radar echoes, including chaff were examined and eliminated as explanations. However, chaff remained the most likely reason for the forms of the echoes recorded. Jörg Asmus (mentioned in the quote above) was the principal author of an article in the German Met. Soc. magazine, online at http://www.dmg-ev.de/gesellschaft/publikationen/pdf/dmg-mitteilungen/2005_3_4.pdf
Donnerwetter.de (Karsten Brandt's company) placed announcement with the public prosecutor's office in Bonn against unknown persons. In addition the German federal environmental committee, as well as the committee on petitions were informed. (Rough translation from http://donnerwetter.de/intern/presse/spiegel.mv?action=show&id=5908 )
Green delegate Ralf Briese addressed a small inquiry to the federal state government of Lower Saxony.
The military said that they were not responsible, but did say that chaff was released in an excercise in the area on the day in question.
Donnerwetter.de and Karsten Brandt were the subject of criticism by Joerg Kachelmann for driving the public mad with the continual accusations of illegal weather experiments based around the "spirit clouds", and what he judged to be a incompetent investigation published in the Met.Soc. magazine. See http://onnachrichten.t-online.de/c/73/85/01/7385016.html (though the article seems to be no longer there).
The very reasonable objection to the "phantom cloud" is that forecasters were misled into forecasting rain when none was actually going to occur. Further, that automated forecasting systems would also forecast rain. A damage results to the public from wrong decisions due to wrong weather forecasts. In the forecast room, radar data then becomes less trusted.
Jörg Asmus did not say, "... there are 16 weather radar sites in Germany and they could not have all gone faulty at the same time." This is what he said, mentioning the 16 radars, in response from a question from SPIEGEL:
Quote:
SPIEGEL: The press spoke of 'spirit cloud'. The Meteoroligist Karsten Brandt meant: 'it does not happen here with right things'. Soon do ufos emerge to the Waterkant?
Asmus: We have 16 large precipitation radar stations, which scan the horizon for snow or water drop in Germany. Why announces the something, what does not give it, we do not know. Only we, an airplane thought in emergency kerosene had discharged. But the false echo was to be seen ten hours long, would many faster have evaporated to kerosene. Radar echoes by atmospheric disturbances during such a period are also rather improbable. Further idea: Bird swarms. But also the colleagues of the bird monitoring radar in the Netherlands eliminated this suspicion.
(That was translated by altavista BabelFish from the record of the interview. Accuracy not guaranteed but the meaning is clear.)
The above article states that weather manipulation technologies are being deployed by 15 different companies in 25 different countries around the world. They have purpose built aircraft for this purpose.
That article is about cloud seeding which is a well known method of weather modification mainly used for hail suppression. Here is the last paragraph, also translated by altavista BabelFish.
Quote:
The purposeful weather influence is used meanwhile for 40 years. However in the USA 15 enterprises supply by airplane inoculation rain on order. For the "cloud inoculating" particularly equipped airplanes are available for the employment in 25 countries of the earth. Also the hail which was afraid in the agriculture can be prevented by inoculating clouds. In the Landkreis Rosenheim, one of the gewittertraechtigsten areas of Germany, the hail damage decreased/went back strongly, since inoculate-in-corrodes to be flown. The weather fliers try to fill the cloud with as much artificial ice germs that them stop raining, instead of letting the hail grow further.
The caption to the photo of the cloud seeder is "The sixties were the golden age of the Wettermacher. In the USA researchers "inoculated" sturmwolken with silver iodide." - translation by the BabelFish.
"sturmwolken" is "storm cloud" - translation by me.
smashdracs wrote:
Der Spiegel a mainstream magazine in Germany published the following article
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/0,1518,445727,00.html
showing radar images of supposed weather manipulation activities over German airspace, experts of Karlsruher Instituts für Meteorologie und Klimaforschung (institute for meteorology and climate research in Karlsruhe) Ulrich Blahak
( http://www.imk.uni-karlsruhe.de/283.php ) and Klaus Beheng ( http://www.imk.uni-karlsruhe.de/201.php ) agree with Jörg Asmus (mentioned above) and believe phantom clouds have been caused by military experiments.
Not correct. The article does not mention "supposed weather manipulation activities". Here is the opening paragraph (by the BabelFish again):
Quote:
Was from spirit clouds and unknown flying objects the speech, when weather services discovered echoes in the past year not existing clouds over Northern Germany on their radar display screens. Now scientists believe the mystery to have cracked.
In fact this article (dated 31 October 2006) describes a more thorough investigation which revealed that the "spirit cloud" was indeed the result of chaff from a military exercise.
Here is the concluding paragraph (by the BabelFish):
Quote:
The excitement around the "spirit cloud" can anyway hardly reconstruct Blahak - the phenomenon of the chaff clouds is not by any means new. "Comes with military exercises quite forwards", said the researcher. Also in the meteorology one uses chaff to measure about in order air movements in clouds. To the proof the scientists point in their specialized essay radar images of earlier "spirit clouds" from June 2003 and December 2001. The chaff cloud from 19 July 2005 was not even unusually large according to Blahak. "Was in the upper range of the usual one".
That was published on 21 March 2006 amongst all the DonnerWetter.de furore at that time, and so the writer is unaware of the DER SPEIGEL article which solved the mystery.
smashdracs wrote:
... you will see ... scientists and meteorologists (including the big guys) are all in agreement that weather manipulation is happening right now. ...
Having read the bulk of the (BabelFish translated) material published, that is just not true. Actually is was all over 14 months ago on 31 October 2006 when Die Spiegel published the "cracked" article. Forecasters misread the radar data and forecast showers (or rain) when they perhaps should not have. The radar images were misinterpreted. Egg on the forecasters' faces; it was chaff.
I never doubted that the story was real. The important point of the story was "What did the radar actually detect?" The postscript to the story is that there now will be lower confidence in weather radar data. Forecasters will now be aware that chaff can contaminate radar signals and resulting images. The public's confidence in weather forecasts is a little tarnished. A little the wiser everyone is.
So, German Armed Forces not busted!
No weather modification/manipulation experiments/operations, either.
And what can this possibly mean?
secondfield to smashdracs wrote:
... seems like the era of straight debunking is coming to a close....
Perhaps the era of circular debunking has arrived?
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 977
Location: north-east victoria
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 8:42 pm Post Subject:
Hector, you are wonderful!
are you quite sure you don't have a team of intellectual SWAT killers behind you, all dressed in black, with allegorical balaclavas, all descending on our flawed scholarship like the Assyrrian wolf on the fold?
how do you find these astonishing debunking facts?
it really is a lot , from one lionhearted person........yourself!
All I can go by is empirical observation. After a few years of seeing these heavy trail days and then no rain gets you concerned. 14th November to 14th December (or thereabouts, a month anyway) we had no rain in welly's.
There were very heavy concentrations of persistant trails on every sunday. Now there's none and its been raining.
Cripes, the hail on boxing day just tore everything to shreds out this way (hutt Valley). Most unusual weather. Dunno if that was forecast or forewarned.
During the period of no rain, rain was forecast several times but did not eventuate. Maybe the met service were seeing 'chaff' on their weather radar that had floated over from germany and stretched out to 5000Km? Gee, jet fighters drop alot of chaff.
Well I guess we have to sort the wheat from the 'chaff' then. :roll:
Secondfield ... re unusual weather ... I'm not so sure - fruit growers fear the hail and the damages/losses. It has happened now and then during summers over the years - not such a biggie I think. I remember this time last year the Brit tourists were disgusted with the cold wet weather and heading home early in droves. However, I do agree with what you think about dry spells following heavy trail laying.
There have been persistent trails in our sky here (Pelorus Valley) today ... thick and wide ... a lot of sylph like formations ... the persistent trails spread and developed into large patches of thin haze quite quickly ... sylph formations quickly devloping - quickly dissipating. (Sorry no images - left camera at rellies on xmas day - doh!)
Weather here today has been sunny with a light NW breeze. Rain was predicted for last night but we didn't get any. Forecast for next two days is for periods of rain - cold southerlies.
