Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Phantom Cloud over Germany (Chemtrail related?)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
Crayson Donating Member (463 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 06:49 AM
Original message
Phantom Cloud over Germany (Chemtrail related?)
Edited on Tue Feb-28-06 06:59 AM by Crayson
<http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/22/22139/1.html > (German language with picture)

July 19th last year there was a strange phenomenon on the German sky.

As you see in the picture if you follow the link the Doppler Radar shows a a huge cloud over Germany (400 by 100 kilometers dimensions). Published by the German Meteorological Society.
Funny thing being; it was a sunny day with no coulds visible to the eye.

According to weather experts of different weather institutes there is no natural explanation for this cloud.
Bird or air plane fuel can be dissmissed as possible explanations.

In the afternoon the cloud dissipated towards the east of Germany.
About the kind of chemical particels that like fell to the ground i that area can only be speculated.

Given the the high altitude it is suspected that particles of some kind have been sown into the atmosphere as a kind of experiment.
These particles did reflect the Doppler Radar rays making the cloud "visible".
To what end can only be speculated:
- Testing the behavior of particles in the atmosphere thinking in terms of biological or chemical warfare or chemical accidents?
- Testing substances to influence weather patterns?
- Confusing the Weather Radar on Purpose?

The weather institute filed a lawsuit (against unknown person) citing chemical pollution, exposure of people to chemicals and purposedly confusion of the public. This now forces state attourneys to investigate the matter, making all this very real and not a conspiracy theory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benburch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 07:04 AM
Response to Original message
1. If you will recall when the Space Shuttle broke up...
it was visible as such a cloud on doppler.

Possibly this was a bit of space junk coming home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crayson Donating Member (463 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 07:09 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Possible... but...

I agree on the 400 km length... since a piece of space junk would reenter on a "meteroid" like trajectory and burn up it could make a very long trail...

But not one of a broadth of 100km?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benburch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 07:14 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Upper-air winds would smear it.
The Shuttle debris cloud was quite wide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benburch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #3
16. Here is an image of the shuttle debris cloud.
Later it smeared out even wider.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tocqueville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 07:18 AM
Response to Original message
4. please translate correctly
"Fr den Meteorologen und Geschftsfhrer des Wetterdienstes Donnerwetter, Karsten Brandt, gibt es fr diese Phantomwolke keine natrliche Erklrung. Auch Vogelflug oder Kerosin aus einem Flugzeug scheidet als Ursache aus."

which means that Karsten Brandt thinks that there is no natural explanation, not the whole scientific community.

the reference to other scientific expertise sends to an article (pdf) written by a SINGLE person

http://www.dmg-ev.de/gesellschaft/publikationen/pdf/dmg...

where the cloud "disappears" but is translated into an UFO (!!!!). So much for the scientific method, besides the fact that it isn't even serious journalism...

then I'd like to know why the high altitude makes AUTOMATICALLY the cloud into something that has be sown. Besides there are plenty of particles reflected by a Doppler Radar. The most common are water vapor.

THe lawsuit has nothing to do with whitewashing a conspiracy theory. It can lead to exactly the contrary : it's forbidden to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. That's why the investigation can lead to that what was shouted was "cloud", thus "purposedly confusion of the public"

which it sounds to me to be...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 07:25 AM
Response to Original message
5. Chemtrails?
Hell, why not aliens?

Chemtrail aliens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crayson Donating Member (463 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 07:40 AM
Response to Original message
6. Yeah common bash me!

Sorry for my not so exact english translation...
English is not everybodies native language.

And I wasn't the one who wrote UFO in the thread (although I DO know that the U just means unidentified Alien, else it would probably be called AFO as most people interpret it)



I'm just giving you some facts here.
-There WAS a very strange phenomenon on the German sky this summer and it was most like not natural.
-And there IS a lawsuit going on about environmental pollution in relation to that phenomenon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 07:43 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Hey Crayson
Edited on Tue Feb-28-06 07:45 AM by seemslikeadream
Welcome to DU

Don't let one person's rudeness get to ya, we're not all like that here. :hi:

on edit this thread will probably get locked can't talk about chemtrail in GD, maybe in the 9/11 forum
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 07:54 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Nobody bashed you. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. I think all of DU questions the official story.
I mean, other than the right-wing kooks that are here "undercover".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tocqueville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. I don't bash you, I contest
English isn't my native language either

I checked your article and understand enough German to make sense of it. I just stated that only ONE person (at least quoted in the article) says that there isn't any "natural explanation", not an entire meteorologist community as it sounds in your post. The article you name then refers to another article (the pdf) where you can find ONE report (among other topics) about the cloud, but there the author emphasizes about the presence of an UFO in the cloud :

Unbekannte Flugobjekte im RADAR-Bild?
Jrg Asmus

In den RADAR-Bildern vom 19.7.2005 fiel dem
Schreiber dieses Artikels ein seltsames RADAR-Echo
ber dem Nordwesten Deutschlands entlang der Ems
auf, das berhaupt nicht zu dem dazugehrigen Satellitenbild
(Abb. 1) passte. Dieses RADAR-Echo war
mit deutlich abgesetzten Streifen von Nord-Nord-West
nach Sd-Sd-Ost ausgerichtet, whrend die brigen
RADAR-Echos zu den berwiegend konvektiven Wolkensystemen
im Satellitenbild passten. Da diese Echos
zunchst nicht indentifiziert werden konnten, wurden
sie als Unbekannte Fliegende Objekte bezeichnet
(nicht im Sinne von Fliegenden Untertassen!).

http://www.dmg-ev.de/gesellschaft/publikationen/pdf/dmg ...

So I find the presentation of the German article referring to "other scientists" very dubious and not very honest. I don't blame you for the article, but I contest its contents.

1) There was a strange cloud over Germany, but it can have natural causes. Let's explore them before we come to other conclusions.
2) There is a lawsuit according to you (link ?) but it seems that it goes the other way (for slander) if I make sense of your post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Desertrose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
11. German Parlimentarian "admits" chemtrails
Edited on Tue Feb-28-06 02:24 PM by Desertrose
Here is a very interesting statement from Social Democratic member of Parliament Monika Griefahn.


German Parlimentarian "admits" chemtrails

Former six-year board member of Greenpeace Germany, Monika Griefahn chaired the Committee for Culture and Media of the Federal German Parliament when she replied to a letter from two chemtrails dissenters in July 2004, stating, I am in basic agreement with your concerns. Instead of making a concerted and determined effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions throughout the world, experiments of various kinds are being carried out in the earths atmosphere in order to cure the symptoms.

After assuring her correspondents, I share your concern over the use of aluminium or barium compounds which have a considerable toxic potential, the parliamentarian went on to say, however, so far as I am aware the extent of their use is so far minimal.

There we have it. In the skies of Germany, so Social Democratic member of Parliament Monika Griefahn tells us, aluminium and barium compounds are being spread just as tens of thousands of concerned citizens have observed, documented and bitterly deplored.



Link here.



html edit
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tocqueville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Monika Griefahn has very little credibility on that matter
Greenpeace told the press immediately that they don't share her view

http://www.chemtrails-info.de/chemtrails/greenpeace-erk...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Desertrose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 01:56 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. So because Greenpeace disagrees, does that make her statement false?
Edited on Wed Mar-01-06 01:57 AM by Desertrose
Since your linked site is in German it is unfortunately not much help.

Is her remark true? Sounds as though she is aware of some things going on- whether or not Greenpeace agrees with her is not the point here.

Perhaps Greenpeace, like many agencies funded by larger corps, does not want to rock its financial boat , by even being connected with anyone who talks about chemtrails. We have certainly seen here on DU how anyone who brings them up is ridiculed and labeled :tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tocqueville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Grreenpeace says that there is no proof of chemtrails
of course it doesn't make her AUTOMATICALLY wrong, but regarding her claimed background as "Greenpeace activist" it put things in a different light.

Where did she get that "secret knowledge" that nobody else has ? as a member of parliament ? not likely.

Besides your claim that Greenpeace is "corporate funded" quite preposterous. I don't defend Greenpeace at any price (sometimes they are really wrong), but to believe that they are silenced by money is not credible either.

The reason for Greenpeace "silence" is that they have no scientific proof of the phenomenon...

The chemtrail problem is very easily solved : pick up 50 samples of typical trails in different part of the world (easily done with a plane and atmospheric filters) and analyse the results...

then start talking...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Aug 20th 2017, 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC