It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Operation Indigo Skyfold

page: 9
24
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I haven't finished watching the video.

I will attempt to comment on it when I finish.




posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Spamming?

Is that the right choice of words, based on my posts so far?



it is in reference to posting a video that you don't know anything about and aren't asking any questions of - 1 post can be spam.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Did you read the post?

I asked for what's wrong. Because I can tell you'll have something to tell me.

And I made a request that my source not be smeared.

In other words, I'm telling you that I'm interested in listening rather than talking, at least to start.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots




Your response is a smear of Dane Wigington in my opinion.


Truth is far from being a smear...



Do you remember the fake snow debacle we had a while back...

www.geoengineeringwatch.org...

Something Mr. Wigington was behind, but we found out the truth...The snow was real.

So Dane Wigington needs no help when it comes to smearing his name, as he does that on his own.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

I've been a member here for ten years, once upon a time these claims about chemtrails and the videos were all new to me. They aren't now. You usually get no more than 2-3 minutes into a video before you see the same re-hashed claims that you've seen countless times before. You are far from the first person to arrive here asking us to watch an hour long video and an hour is a big chunk out of anyone's day. We don't need to sit and watch these videos all the way through, every single time they're posted, because nothing new or different is ever presented.

It's entirely reasonable that people may require you to ask specific questions, with a time reference for the point on the video you are asking about. Then we may place your question in context and endeavour to give you a reply.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: network dude

Thanks. That's very helpful.


What is it you believe those white trails in the sky are?

I'm still a little unclear on how common a contrail is, and I need to bone up on cirrus clouds, so I have work to do.



I see a few on scattered days during the week. Maybe 2-3 days a week this time of year. And amazingly enough, usually just before a weather front. If you watch the long term forecast, you can usually tell how accurate they are by looking for high cirrus and contrails a day or day and a half before the front arrives.

But all that would have to be verified as it's just my word. I can't figure out if my sky only has a few at a time, what their purpose might be? I have never seen the covered sky some show, but then we are not in an area with a lot of overhead traffic like other places.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

I started to watch and I stopped at .45. If you watch that up to that point, please use any science you can find anywhere to explain why what he says right there is valid. If you can do that, I will watch the rest of the video and let you know if there is anything else strange about it.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58


www.co2offsetresearch.org...

A different excerpt:


Contrails

Contrails are linear ice clouds formed in the wake of aircraft, which, when persistent, can result in the formation of cirrus cloud cover. Aircraft emissions trigger condensation of ambient water vapor into ice crystals in the atmosphere. Contrail formation and persistence depends on flight altitude and the temperature and humidity of the air through which a plane flies; thus contrail and cirrus formation is seasonally dependent.

Why use the word "cloud" to describe the result of an emission, which is exhaust, from an aircraft? To me, "cloud" denotes mother nature.

The trails aren't the same thing as the cloud, they just blend in with the cloud. Isn't that the case?



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

Persistent contrails expand, and become a cirrus cloud layer. There is no noticeable difference between a contrail and a cirrus cloud. If you were to see a natural cirrus layer, and then a layer that formed through a persistent contrail spreading out, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two. They both form the same way, spread the same way, etc.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

How does a cloud form?

Do you think they just appear out of no where because Mother Nature?



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Did you read the post?

I asked for what's wrong. Because I can tell you'll have something to tell me.

And I made a request that my source not be smeared.

In other words, I'm telling you that I'm interested in listening rather than talking, at least to start.



You don't get to post a 77 minute video and expect the ret of the world to examine it in minute details and tell you "what is wrong" - it is up to you to examine the video and raise some points out of it - some specific items you would perhaps like "checked" or more information about.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

How frequent is it that aircraft produce contrails?



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

I see dozens of them every day. Some days I see 15-20 before lunch time, other days 4-5. It depends on the conditions at altitude.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

I see what you're saying.

I think that the divide is between people who look at something and simply trust what their eyes and their intuition tell them, and people who look to scientific papers to prove to them what's going on.

This video is about the big picture. It includes the fact (in my opinion) that our system is corrupt, and that's why the scientific papers aren't there to cite.

If you don't do anything else, at least read the Description of the video, and ask yourself if there's anything in there that you might want to consider.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

And I never see them where I live..

My little corner of the world is obviously not worth their time chemtrailing!



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Chadwickus

I never saw them when I lived in Hawaii. The only time planes were even close to high enough was coming out of Kauai heading somewhere, and those were so rare I could count them on one hand. But that was entirely because flights simply didn't go over us to get anywhere.

Driving around the country, I've seen more than I can count, and every type you can care to name. Even a few great shadows. The ones at night are really cool to see.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 11:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

No.

Here's the statement again

Instead, the writers prefer the term ‘persistent contrails’ to describe the phenomenon since all contrails are chemtrails. ‘Persistent contrails’ distinguishes those that contain weather-altering additives from those that represent normal aircraft exhaust that dissipates after a few seconds or minutes.


It is a lie that normal contrails can only last for a few seconds or minutes. Normal contrails have formed, persisted, and spread since planes began flying high enough for them to do so.

This thread shows trails from 1969 www.abovetopsecret.com... and there's lots of good learnin' to be had there.

It is also a lie that the persistence of a trail indicates anything unusual about its composition. Persistence is mostly dictated by atmospheric conditions. I have seen evidence of this for myself, no science papers required.

Also this thing about all contrails being "chemtrails" is silly if you think about it. This attempt, and others, to legitimize the term undermines the significance desired by the believers.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 01:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: network dude

I see what you're saying.

I think that the divide is between people who look at something and simply trust what their eyes and their intuition tell them,


That's called "guessing"


and people who look to scientific papers to prove to them what's going on.


No, that's where you're wrong. It's not about being told. It's about observation, experience and understanding and deciding for oneself if that matches the scientific papers and is repeatable to confirm it. What we know about contrails falls into this category. Chemtrails do not. Indeed, careful repeated observation reveals that chemtrails are only spotted when the weather conditions are predisposed towards contrail persistence, which is kind of obvious really.


This video is about the big picture. It includes the fact (in my opinion) that our system is corrupt, and that's why the scientific papers aren't there to cite.


I think we all know that the system is corrupt, but what does that have to do with learning and observation? You seem to think that people just believe what they're told to believe and that the government controls science and knowledge. Not all scientists work for the government. This s a rather naive notion that many conspiracists seem to share.


If you don't do anything else, at least read the Description of the video, and ask yourself if there's anything in there that you might want to consider.


I did, there isn't. It's just made up crap, and transparently so. In direct opposition to the points you raised, it appears that it is chemtrails believers who are looking to be told what to think, and many seem to simply fall in with whatever the owners of the chemtrails sites tell them with no critical consideration at all. You'd think that the small matter of these sites *only* being concerned with this one subject should at least ring alarm bells about their objectivity.
edit on 9-7-2015 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 04:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah I've only ever seen them on rare occasions while working up north and we get either the North-South traffics between Perth Asia or the East-West ones coming from the UAE and Africa heading to Sydney.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 04:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
Does a natural cirrus cloud layer have chemicals in it?







 
24
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join