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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Why are we seeing so many green meteors? Is it Barium?

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 03:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Violater1

Green meteors are not at all uncommon.

You look up bolide meteors on YouTube, and I would guess that at least a third of the videos you will see, will be of meteors lit up green or off green.


I saw this.


I searched "Bolide Meteors" on youtube. After 7 pages of 20 videos per page, I counted 8 green bolide meteors videos. And 5 of those were repeats of the same one. 1/3 is an extreme exaggeration. Perhaps slowing down on your drinking will prevent further errors.




posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 04:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Violater1
So why so many apple green sightings? Let's take a look at a NASA.


I think you are going to find it tough to explain green colored meteors on 48 kg of copper oxide and barium released in 1984.

Also, while I've seen a few green bolides, they weren't apple green.

You'll also note that the descriptions of ion tracer releases don't correlate to the appearance of meteors - your own cite for example. They do look cool, if you happen to notice them. They don't streak across the sky leaving a trail and spitting sparks. They hang there for quite some time and then sort of spread and dim. Over hours. And they're not very luminous at the best of times, but some of them are rather striking, if dim. A bolide, on the other hand, can cast shadows and one of the ones I saw was enough to wipe your night vision for a few minutes.



Now for a different perspective we have this.
From an unverified source, this info was given to Rense.com. www.rense.com...
"secretive project is the United States Navy's, RFMP, Radio Frequency Mission Planner, military program. The RFMP is the system name given to a group of computer programs and one of the supporting, subprograms within the RFMP system is called the VTRPE computer program. VTRPE is an acronym that stands for Variable Terrain Radio Parabolic Equation, It is a computer Radio Frequency propagation program that deals with radio waves and enables the RFMP system to visually see the battlefield terrain in 3 dimensions (3-D) on a television screen. The VTRPE computer program only worked accurately over water and along coastal areas but not over land masses because the system's radar waves required an atmospheric condition known as "ducting", over land, to operate accurately.


This is a combo of "bees smell fear" and horse dung. And it's Rense. So, what are these EEEEEVILLL acronyms, and what do they really relate to?

RFMP is a neat tool originated by Lott, Brant and Paluszek in 1994. It takes local features into account, estimated channel usage and the like, and assigns user frequencies on a battle space so that you will have the best chance at clear communications. There's a LOT of research on ways to do this, you see symposiums on it nearly every year. I do anyway.

Oddly, RFMP actually DOES incorporate a routine known as VTRPE. VTRPE is a dated but still useful propagation modeler. It's very math heavy, lots of calculus. And it was originally in Fortran, on cards. The documentation for it still reflects that, sort of like SPICE, which is from the same era. VTRPE can take land features into account, like what sorts of soil you have, and whether part of the area is water, and it can take atmospheric features into account, like ionospheric activity and ducting. It does not require ducting. It can DEAL with it. But it's not like you have to enter ducting parameter stacks into it to get a result.

VTRPE generally works better on radar and microwaves than it does for LF and HF. So for those bands RFMP uses other evaluation models.



The government and military solved the "ducting" problem by releasing an aerosol, a mixture of barium salts into the atmosphere over America. They made an atmospheric RF duct with a base of barium aerosol from aircraft. The chemical and electrical characterics(sic) of the mixture will cause water moisture to stay in clouds...


They're expecting you to not know enough about ducting to buy this. Can you make a radio duct by releasing metal ions...maybe. I know you can make a mirror that way. But it's uncontrolled. That is, you generally want to create a mirror that has a particular plasma temperature, either in the ions or the electrons. That gives you a mirror that will reflect a particular narrow frequency band cleanly. If the temperature spread is all over the place, the surface is uneven, and/or the density and pattern are changing, then you just get a reflective mish-mash that doesn't do you any good. The problem would be worse trying to form a duct that way, because you would want the duct's physical location to be somewhat stable. Dumping metal ions requires rockets, and worse, once released, it disperses and moves down field lines, and there goes the duct.

What they're deceiving you about here is that ionic ducting takes place in the ionosphere. Not in the troposphere. All these neat ion effects only happen in a near vacuum on the edge of space, and in general on the daylight side where you have the sun to pump the ionization.

There is a lot of RF propagation that's dictated by tropospheric conditions. But it's the sort of thing that is typically caused by mass weather effects or the nature of the atmosphere. Like humidity, ground temperature vs air temperature, atmospheric pressure gradients and the fact that the atmosphere gets thinner as you go higher. These things are not subject to modification. These things are why you have rapidly varying radio frequency propagation changes with weather fronts, fog and the like.

You can get ducting in the troposphere, it's generally associated with temperature inversions, and in some locales it's seasonal instead of sporadic, which is why VTRPE deals with semi-stationary ducting. But most tropo ducting is sporadic.

If you tried to get it by dumping barium in the troposphere, you won't get ionization, so it's not going to do you any good. And this wind thing is going to be an issue maintaining any sort of structure. Tropo ducts are formed by huge masses of air at different temperatures. So you get a big sustained boundary. A line drawn in the air doesn't have the same permanence.



The Activist Post states this," For about 20 years now, the people running the New Manhattan Project have been saturating our atmosphere and forcing us to ingest the witches’ brew coming out of the back of their airplanes.


Activist Post is a stronghold of bull#, especially about technical matters.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 04:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
...neither provides 3-D visualization of a battlefield.



Later versions of RFMP and its successors have some nice visualization tools showing you how various bands are going to propagate around the battle space, and where the traffic saturation is going to be.

Sort of like Radio Google Earth.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 04:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Violater1
VTRP is more than a computer model for radar systems.
Why then discussion on “terrain models” out on the Arizona desert? www.researchgate.net...'s_Guide_for_the_VTRPE_Variable_Terrain_Radio_Parabolic_Equation_Computer_Model
About the 4th paragraph down, Amalia E. Barrios adds this: follow her link to
www.researchgate.net...
Now, please explain the details of the U.S. Navy's RFMP ?
Phage? crickets...................more crickets..............................more crickets.


Explained here

www.metabunk.org...



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 05:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Violater1
VTRP is more than a computer model for radar systems.
Why then discussion on “terrain models” out on the Arizona desert? www.researchgate.net...'s_Guide_for_the_VTRPE_Variable_Terrain_Radio_Parabolic_Equation_Computer_Model
About the 4th paragraph down, Amalia E. Barrios adds this: follow her link to
www.researchgate.net...
Now, please explain the details of the U.S. Navy's RFMP ?
Phage? crickets...................more crickets..............................more crickets.


Actually, it's not. It IS a computer model for how VHF to microwave signals propagate over terrain. That's all it is. It's a pretty good one, not the only one, but it's what you had for running on mainframes back in the 90s. Like we still use SPICE, you still use VTRPE. It's not really great for HF though, so you use other modelers for that, one of which you cited there.

There are actually a lot of different parabolic equation modelers that are used to predict wave propagation over terrain, some are good for various radio frequency bands, others for sound.

It's not some massive plot, unless you include 'where is this signal going to end up' a plot.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Violater1
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.




Seriously dude, thats f*cking lame excuse.This is a discussion board, if you have evidence post it. Dont play games.

I



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014

It's always the same excuse when people can't back up what they say with evidence.

I've certainly been called worse lol.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Violater1

The reason we see more internet videos of green meteors and fireballs in the past several years is due to the relatively recent ubiquity of video cameras -- web cams, security cameras, and people with mobile phone video cameras in their pockets at all times has become much more commonplace than in the past.

So many more bolide/fireball meteors are being caught on camera and those photos and video are being spread instantly across the interwebs. Combine that with the fact that green bolide/fireball meteors are not uncommon, and the result is an increase in the number of green bolide videos that the average person might see.


edit on 2016-11-3 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Phage
...neither provides 3-D visualization of a battlefield.



Later versions of RFMP and its successors have some nice visualization tools showing you how various bands are going to propagate around the battle space, and where the traffic saturation is going to be.

Sort of like Radio Google Earth.


Seriously, its awesome how you guys are so knowledgeable.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: 3danimator2014

It's always the same excuse when people can't back up what they say with evidence.

I've certainly been called worse lol.


Oh sure, i guess we all have at some point in this subforum. At least we can thank YOU for providing facts



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014

I didn't do anything lol. I just asked for evidence and got the usual rubbish and no evidence.

I miss the old days where people would at least fabricate something so we could get to the bottom of it. Today they can't even be bothered to make fake evidence.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: 3danimator2014

I didn't do anything lol. I just asked for evidence and got the usual rubbish and no evidence.

I miss the old days where people would at least fabricate something so we could get to the bottom of it. Today they can't even be bothered to make fake evidence.


Ah yes, the "good old days" of this sub forum. Id love to know where all the people who used to post chemtrail related threads are posting these days..

I know you didnt do anything but you gave info which was made up of facts. Not something you should really be thanked for, except when its related to chemtrails since the other camp certainly wont do the same.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014

Hopefully they found out the truth and that they've been lied to for money, website clicks and YouTube views.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: 3danimator2014

Hopefully they found out the truth and that they've been lied to for money, website clicks and YouTube views.


I wish i could believe that, but my own "friend" who believes in this crap and refuses to listen or click on any links i send her tell me otherwise



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014

I've never understood the refusal to read potential evidence that is opposite of ones claims. As much as I think the "chemtrail" thing is a hoax, I'll still click on links and review presented evidence. To not do it would be as bad as believing something with no evidence.
edit on 3112016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: 3danimator2014

I've never understood the refusal to read potential evidence that is opposite of ones claims. As much as I think the "chemtrail" thing is a hoax, I'll still click on links and review presented evidence. To not do it would be as bad as believing something with no evidence.


I know. And that's what pissed me off. Not what she believes, not that shes silly enough to buy into Alex Jones et al, but that she point blank refused to even aknowledge the VAST amount of info i gave here. Basically, everything i had learned form years of posting and reading this sub forum . I didnt condescend, i was nice to her (used to sleep with her...ahem) and i showed lots of pics, explained why geoengineeringwatch is a fraudulent site and all i got back was silence. When i pressed her for a reply, she says "she doesnt know". I just know she never even bothered to click on one link i provided, but that the skies and plane trails dont look like they used to. I explained to her in detail why they dont.

In one ear (if that) and out the other.

So frustrating.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014

Sounds like the blinkers are so tight it's made her blind.

I used to know one person, irl, who thinks chemtrails are real. The funniest thing he ever presented as evidence was the photoshopped ballast tanks. After showing him the real image and showing him the papers of what they were (which he refused to read), he turned around and said the photoshop was on the opposite side (they really are chemtrail chemical tanks and it got photoshopped to look like ballast tanks) and the paper was irrelevant.

Some people are so entrenched in their beliefs that no amount of evidence would ever change their minds. I've said it before, chemtrails have turned into a religion. Belief based on no evidence. Or simply put, faith.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: 3danimator2014

Sounds like the blinkers are so tight it's made her blind.

I used to know one person, irl, who thinks chemtrails are real. The funniest thing he ever presented as evidence was the photoshopped ballast tanks. After showing him the real image and showing him the papers of what they were (which he refused to read), he turned around and said the photoshop was on the opposite side (they really are chemtrail chemical tanks and it got photoshopped to look like ballast tanks) and the paper was irrelevant.

Some people are so entrenched in their beliefs that no amount of evidence would ever change their minds. I've said it before, chemtrails have turned into a religion. Belief based on no evidence. Or simply put, faith.


I agree...but i want to know WHY some people are like this. Why would you wantthere to be a global conspiracy like this? And if you really did believe that you and your loved ones were being poisoned like this, then why would you not read up everything you could about it, thereby coming to the realisation that its all a hoax.

When my wife found out 10 years ago she had suddenly become Type 1 diabetic, she read every single thing she could about it. So she would know whats true, what isnt etc. Heck, she knew more than most of the doctors she visited.

You would think my friend, who thinks her little girl is breathing in poison sprayed from airplanes would do the same. I never understood how someone can believe in chemtrails and has kids or loved ones but then do nothing, even if all they can do it read up about it truthfully.

Its very difficult not to cal people like this idiots, and i know i shouldnt. But i now consider this girl an idiot



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014

I honestly can't answer you as I'm I the same boat with the same question.

It's just a baffling, nonsensical conspiracy based on fear. That's my take anyway.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: 3danimator2014

I honestly can't answer you as I'm I the same boat with the same question.

It's just a baffling, nonsensical conspiracy based on fear. That's my take anyway.



Tis a mystery. Anyway, good chat, cheers




top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join