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.

 

Chemtrails over the South West of the UK

page: 11
15
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2016 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: riley




How they used to look was very sporadic lines in nature, sometimes transparent which would disappear within an hour or two.
That is patently false.
You didn't actually see what I posted, did you?

edit on 5/7/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 7 2016 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: riley

It is never ever done on cloudy days.. or days where there is even a hint of cloud. That is something else I find strange.



I beg to differ. It usually HAPPENS on cloudy days. If you look at a number of photos of the phenomenon, where there's enough of the rest of the sky showing to give you a decent view, you'll generally see cirrus and either cirro-cumulus or alto-cumulus in the same photo.

That's because that cloud pattern is indicative of an atmospheric condition that's almost sure to generate persistent contrails.


In the examples I have witnessed they have all been on very sunny cloudless days.



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Yes you are selectively posting. You also seem to ignore many points which you have made a habit of.. and accusing people of being liars is one of those habits.

I am going by memory of what contrails used to look like. They were not always invisible as you earlier claimed.. if they were there would be no cause to even label them as we wouldn't even know of them.



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 07:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: riley
[

You DO know this is actually a conspiracy site yes? I am trying to discuss this subject. I find it strange that you would try shame people speculating on conspiracy theories in a place that is designed to do exactly that. If someone speaks about conspiracy theories that does not automatically mean they are ignoring credible scientific evidence.



Are you saying that knowledge, facts and experience should not be put forward if they show a theory to be erroneous? Does denying ignorance not involve showing where an idea or concept has been founded in a false belief? After all what is the value of any such theory?

Would it not be better if someone could put forward an idea that cannot be dismissed by every day run of the mill normality? Wouldn't that be worth concentrating on, rather than some inane ramblings founded entirely in ignorance?

If a few idiots had never thought that contrails cannot persist for more than a few seconds 20 years ago there wouldn't even BE a chemtrail conspiracy theory.

I've been reading this thread with amusement at the desperation some believers are displaying. We've had the definition of a chemtrail watered down so far as to be utterly meaningless (water is a chemical, etc). We've heard that other things are done with aircraft such as cloud seeding, fire-fighting etc and we've been told that aircraft have been used for experiments in the past.

The fact that chemtrail theorists can only point to other, unrelated activities, NONE of which produce thick trails hundreds of miles long in the sky, to try and justify their belief, does as good a job of demonstrating that chemtrails aren't real as any debunker armed with real life science can. They clearly have NOTHING to put forward but a vague suspicion founded on a big internet lie and a general mistrust of authority (which in itself is a good thing, when applied critically). A century of aviation has shown us repeatedly that long thick spreading and persistent contrails require nothing but an aeroplane flying through cold and humid air. To be incredulous of this simple fact does nobody any favours.

The ones saying that "most of them are contrails" are even more dim, because even the basic premise of chemtrail theory is being dismissed with such an admission, yet the ardent fantasist is STILL desperately trying to find a reason to continue to believe in a theory that was created entirely around a premise they claim to know is false. That's entirely another level of madness.

At least you know where the ones who believe "contrails can't persist" are coming from, despite being completely wrong. The ones who know they can and still think they are looking at chemtrails must just be astronomically gullible people, or too lazy to think about it at all.



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: riley

You also seem to ignore many points which you have made a habit of.. and accusing people of being liars is one of those habits.
Whom have I so accused?


I am going by memory of what contrails used to look like.
Whose memory?



They were not always invisible as you earlier claimed.. if they were there would be no cause to even label them as we wouldn't even know of them.
Who said contrails are invisible?

You have made two claims about things I have said. Please show where I have said them. Or maybe you should try to actually read and understand what is being said.

edit on 5/7/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: riley
a reply to: Phage

Yes you are selectively posting. You also seem to ignore many points which you have made a habit of.. and accusing people of being liars is one of those habits.

I am going by memory of what contrails used to look like. They were not always invisible as you earlier claimed.. if they were there would be no cause to even label them as we wouldn't even know of them.



He never said contrails were invisible. He said Water vapour is invisible. If you're going to try and argue your point, you may need to make more effort to read the question properly.

Phage also posted several links to demonstrate that persistence and spreading of contrails has been occurring for almost a century, or are you older then that?



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: riley

originally posted by: payt69

..and yet again. I know what water vapor looks like.


Well it's invisible. Maybe it helps if you read this to help you understand things a bit better:

en.wikipedia.org...


Wow.. not only do you insult by ignoring me actually saying I know what water vapor looks like.. yet you quote from Wikipedia of all places who has a history of posting ignorant BS often to the point of posting blatant lies? All the while talking about denying ignorance?



If you are going to patronize and try educate people so they can think correctly like you do.. at least have the courtesy of using a source that is not full of ignorance and is at least even slightly scientifically credible.

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone with a bias. It is not scientifically credible and frankly being expected to accept it as such is insulting.

edit. No that is not a request for you to go googling finding something that is credible you've already shown where you get your science from..


So where do you get your science from? What to you is a credible source?

If you find something wrong in the wikipedia article, feel free to point it out. Does the wikipedia article contradict current scientific consensus anywhere?

You've said a couple of times that you know what water vapor looks like. So what does it look like?



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: waynos

originally posted by: riley
a reply to: Phage

Yes you are selectively posting. You also seem to ignore many points which you have made a habit of.. and accusing people of being liars is one of those habits.

I am going by memory of what contrails used to look like. They were not always invisible as you earlier claimed.. if they were there would be no cause to even label them as we wouldn't even know of them.



He never said contrails were invisible. He said Water vapour is invisible. If you're going to try and argue your point, you may need to make more effort to read the question properly.

Phage also posted several links to demonstrate that persistence and spreading of contrails has been occurring for almost a century, or are you older then that?


Frankly I am surprised that the Wright brother's planes created contrails but okay then.

Contrails are meant to be the result of water vapor/ice particles and a plane's exhaust. Arguing that they're invisible doesn't make much sense unless Phase just wants to argue an irrelevant point and/or troll.
edit on 7-5-2016 by riley because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: riley

Water vapor IS invisible. Contrails are ice crystals created with water vapor. There's a difference.



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: riley

Frankly I am surprised that the Wright brother's planes created contrails but okay then.
They didn't. They didn't fly high enough.


Arguing that they're invisible doesn't make much sense unless Phase just wants to argue an irrelevant point and/or troll.
You said that you know what water vapor looks like. Water vapor is invisible. Visible contrails (a contraction of condensation trails) are not composed of water vapor (because water vapor is invisible), they are composed of ice crystals. The point is quite relevant since it is an indication of what your level of understanding about what contrails actually are.


edit on 5/7/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: riley

Frankly I am surprised that the Wright brother's planes created contrails but okay then.
They didn't. They didn't fly high enough.


Precisely which is why the hundred years ago claim is ridiculous. Thankyou for yet another correction though!


Again I know what contrails are.. I have said this several times and have spent alot of my life observing aircraft. It has been a hobby. I didn't realize I was supposed to include "a mixture of water. ice and exhaust" every time I said I know what bloody contrails are because I shouldn't need to.

Me just saying I know what contrails are should have been enough.. yet you kept persisting insisting I didn't.

That is trolling. Troll someone else.
edit on 7-5-2016 by riley because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: riley




Precisely which is why the hundred years ago claim is ridiculous.
Who made that claim?


Me just saying I know what contrails are should have been enough.. yet you kept persisting insisting I didn't.
No. I asked you what water vapor looks like.

You seem to have an affinity for strawman arguments.


edit on 5/7/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: riley

The Wright brothers flew in 1903.

A hundred years ago is 1916...the middle of world war 1

The first documented report of contrails was in in 1918

contrailscience.com...

So 98 years ago to be exact.


edit on 7/5/16 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: riley

They weren't flying the Wright Brothers planes 100 years ago, they were already flying biplanes capable of reaching high enough to leave contrails, which is why they were seen in 1918.



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: riley

The Wright brothers flew in 1903.

A hundred years ago is 1916...the middle of world war 1


Yeah I'll grant that as being possible.. it sucks realizing how old I am.



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: riley




Precisely which is why the hundred years ago claim is ridiculous.
Who made that claim?


Me just saying I know what contrails are should have been enough.. yet you kept persisting insisting I didn't.
No. I asked you what water vapor looks like.

You seem to have an affinity for strawman arguments.


..and you seem to have an affinity for ad hominem attacks.

Again. troll someone else.



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: riley
No.
I have made no personal attacks. I have, however, pointed out your use of a logical fallacy.



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 08:25 PM
link   
2 facts make this a real possibility in my mind.

1) the US gov't has had hearings on the subject, which shows they feel on some level it could work. So what is to say a private co is not already doing it ?


Purpose On Thursday, November 5, 2009, the House Committee on Science & Technology will hold a hearing entitled ‘‘ Geoengineering: Assessing the Implications of Large-Scale Climate Intervention .’’

Geoengineering can be described as the delib- erate large-scale modification of the earth’s climate systems for the purposes of counteracting climate change. Geoengineering is a controversial issue because of the high degree of uncertainty over potential environmental, economic and societal im- pacts, and the assertion that research and deployment of geoengineering diverts at- tention and resources from efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The purpose of this hearing is to provide an introduction to the concept of geoengineering, includ- ing the science and engineering underlying various proposals, potential environ- mental risks and benefits, associated domestic and international governance issues, research and development needs, and economic rationales both supporting and op- posing the research and deployment of geoengineering activities.


patents have been filed on the tech to do it

so if they have talked about doing it, patented technology to do it, and all it involves ins flying a jet, why is it so hard to believe they are doing it ?

they admit right in the hearings its dangerous and unpredictable

maybe that's why they haven't told us ?



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: syrinx high priest

A patent filling doesn't mean anything. There are patent filings for just about anything you can name, some that would make you laugh until you cry. All that means is someone has an idea and way to make it work.



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 08:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: syrinx high priest

A patent filling doesn't mean anything. There are patent filings for just about anything you can name, some that would make you laugh until you cry. All that means is someone has an idea and way to make it work.



that's actually my whole point. I never said it proves anything, just that is is possible.




top topics



 
15
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join