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.

 

The United Nations Exposes Chemtrails: 100% PROOF We Are Being Poisoned

page: 13
44
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: gmoneystunt




I didn't say it was used in nefarious ways. I said they were hiding the dangers of it. I brought it up because it is a sprayed chemical.


Nothing was being hidden they just didn't have the research before that they do today. Sometimes things seem safe until further research is done, at which point you understand that what was thought to be safe really isn't.

Not knowing doesn't show proof of something being hidden from the public.




posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: SyxPak
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

From You, "So what exactly is it that doesn't make them persistent contrails?"

If I understand this right, a ConTrail forms when Hot exhaust meets the cold air, throw in some humidity and if the mix is right, a Contrail Forms, Correct?


Not really. A contrail forms when the water content of the exhaust condenses out and freezes in extremely cold air. The jet exhaust is hot and that result in a gap behind the engine until the water freezes and the contrail begins.


If that is true, Than a real ConTrail dissipates after a few moments of it's 'birth'. That's why You see a REAL CONTRAIL FADE AWAY while the jet flies along, as the HEAT from the engine IS LOST TO THE COLD AIR.


If that were true, then yes. But it isn't. In fact its completely wrong. The heat being lost, immediately, is what causes the contrail to form, not a reason for it to fade. The gap between the exhaust and the contrail shows how quickly this heat is lost.


So DO You mean to tell Me that he HEAT from a Jet engine to form that 'cloud' STAYS THERE ALL DAY LONG and GOES ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE SKY?!?


Absolutely not as, if it did, a contrail would never form at all.


C'Mon Man THAT is ABSOLUTELY INSANE!!! You can try to fill Me with all Your Schpeel all day and I am staying right where I am, with My beliefs.


Yes, it is completely insane. But the only person saying that's how contrails work is you.


So Right now I am agreeing that We disagree. Have a Good Day. Syx. Late.


Or you could learn how contrails REALLY work and be less baffled by it all.
edit on 23-3-2015 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Thanks, that was the point I was trying to make earlier in this thread here…

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and here…

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Maybe someone smarter than me could explain what all of this means. I've read through it a few times and get the general idea but I don't have a clue how to prove or disprove the info right now. I do notice that the radar time is nowhere close to the weather data time on some and only a few hours off on others. I have no idea how to interpret the Surface Weather Observation data without spending time figuring it out. So, is the premise correct? That "Operational Doppler Weather Radar CAN NOT DETECT CIRRUS CLOUDS let alone aircraft contrails." ? It seems logical otherwise all of the weather radar systems would be showing every persistent contrail on their screens. So what are those red lines?

I'm really enjoying this thread but it's a challenge for me to keep up. It seems the universe has it's own ideas about how I should be spending my "free" time this week(in other words I have very little).



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: OveRcuRrEnteD

If you're talking about the image on the right, that's chaff being shown on the radar



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Chadwickus
click the link next to "The Real Smoking Gun" at the bottom.
that was what I linked to but the url is the same for both pages. lots of examples of "chaff" huh?



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: OveRcuRrEnteD

The military performs highly realistic training, and uses a lot of chaff. It's cheap, so why not. The more realistic the training, the better they perform in real combat if they have to. Pilots have gone through actual combat, and come back saying that compared to Red Flag and other training, combat was easy.

Right near Casa Grande, where a lot of those are taken from is the Barry Goldwater Training Range. That's a Military Operating Area for Luke AFB, which does a lot of F-16 pilot training.

San Diego is home to six MOAs around it, belonging to the Navy and Marine Corps, including TwentyNine Palms, which is one of the biggest Marine training areas in the US.
edit on 3/23/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/23/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: OveRcuRrEnteD

Two people have answered your question.

No need for the attitude.

Why would chemtrails be miles wide?
Have you ever seen a mile wide chemtrial?


edit on 23/3/15 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58 what exactly is the chaff used for in these training exercises? It sure seems like ALOT of material over a pretty large area almost directly above populated areas.

Did you read the "about the author" page? Seems pretty legit to me but my biggest question is why did he stop documenting and updating the site?



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: OveRcuRrEnteD

Chaff is released in very small bundles. It's designed to look much bigger than it really is to radar, presenting a bigger target to a radar guided missile than the aircraft that released it.

It's used in training when a simulated missile is launched at an aircraft. Either a simulated SAM, or air to air missile. The pilots have to learn what to expect when they release it in combat, so they practice using it in non-combat situations.

Chaff bundles:
upload.wikimedia.org...



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Chadwickus
Sorry it came across to you that way. Maybe I was just being a smart-#.
After a few hours, yes I have seen "persistent contrails" miles wide covering the entire sky.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
Ahh, I see. So then, I wonder if there were actually training exercises happening on those specific days. Any clue where to find that info?



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: OveRcuRrEnteD

Training happens Monday through Friday, and occasionally on weekends. Luke AFB constantly has jets in the air, as it does both basic, and advanced pilot training for the US, Netherlands, and Iraq.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
I meant specific exercises involving chaff on the dates and in the area of the radar returns. And why wouldn't they perform this training to the southwest of LAFB away from populated areas?

edit on 3/23/2015 by OveRcuRrEnteD because: question added

edit on 3/23/2015 by OveRcuRrEnteD because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/23/2015 by OveRcuRrEnteD because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: waynos

Fair enough. As I have stated many many times, If I am wrong, I have no problem admitting it. I also have no problems with getting a straight/correct answer to something I was in Error of, and Thanking whoever did the straightening out. So I Was in Error. I appreciate having the correct information now. Syx. Late.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: OveRcuRrEnteD

Chaff is used in normal training, it's not just reserved for specific exercises. The Barry Goldwater range covers 1.7 million acres, and 57,000 cubic miles of airspace. Chaff floats, so even if you drop it over an unpopulated area, it can drift for miles. In 1997 the US military used 1.8 million bundles of chaff worldwide. Worldwide, over 500 tons of chaff is released in a year, counting all the militaries. Chaff released at 10,000 feet has been tracked in the air for over 10 hours.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD
Maybe someone smarter than me could explain what all of this means. I've read through it a few times and get the general idea but I don't have a clue how to prove or disprove the info right now. I do notice that the radar time is nowhere close to the weather data time on some and only a few hours off on others. I have no idea how to interpret the Surface Weather Observation data without spending time figuring it out. So, is the premise correct? That "Operational Doppler Weather Radar CAN NOT DETECT CIRRUS CLOUDS let alone aircraft contrails." ? It seems logical otherwise all of the weather radar systems would be showing every persistent contrail on their screens. So what are those red lines?

I'm really enjoying this thread but it's a challenge for me to keep up. It seems the universe has it's own ideas about how I should be spending my "free" time this week(in other words I have very little).


I am on the fence. I don't normally read this material too much as it is not thoroughly being researched but i am an environmental chemist who analyzes air data and I just DO NOT KNOW if it is true or not. I DO know two things.

One, the people who collect pollution data, like me, are not set up to collect samples and analyze this data at the moment. In my case, i have heard of people at some Uni's doing research saying it is Aluminum particles but i didn't think proper sample handling was taking place to be honest. Hard to say. At least until a good plan to collect the samples by trained scientists in a way where we can all agree it was "sampled" properly.

Two, no one seems to take it serious enough, outside of a forum like this, to invest in a research project properly. But the HAARP related information that you guys put up on this subject with radar pics from "events" caught my eye. So, I have sent some of these to a few meteorologist and they all basically think the radar images are because we have very sensitive equipment compared to 20 years ago.

I agree that it probably is WORTH exploring by a credible researcher. Until some major University or EPA section like an Air Pollution team look into it seriously, the conspiracy barn door will remain open and on the table. The lack of data does not make it a conspiracy but it leaves room for speculation...



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
Thanks for the info, I do appreciate it. In your opinion, do you think chaff is what caused the radar returns archived on that website? Do you agree with the author's theory about the radar returns in any way? If not, what do you think the errors are in his analysis?



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: OveRcuRrEnteD

They all match up with other radar returns known to show chaff, so I'd say yes, it's almost certainly chaff.

The problem with his theory is that the upper level data isn't necessarily from the areas that the pictures are for one. Balloons drift a long way while rising, especially on windy days. Upper level winds can be insane. I've seen winds in excess of 160 mph once you get up into the jetstream altitudes. Those balloons could have been launched near Phoenix, and taken upper level data near Amarillo.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman
Thanks for replying. I totally agree a good plan to collect samples "properly" is essential to ending the debate and that the topic usually isn't taken seriously enough by some. Unless that changes, any disagreement will always end in a stalemate.



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join