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.

 

I was in Palmdale and the Chem-trail pollution was off the charts

page: 17
17
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2017 @ 05:24 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

So your evidence of these planes flying over YOU is a video someone else posted?

So far you've offered nothing apart from "aaaaaaaaaaaaah chemtrails!"




posted on Jun, 11 2017 @ 05:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
So far, you have no proof of these two planes being commercial flights.

That's what you still need to show me, now.


Prove it, or admit you cannot prove it.


OK I'll just have to assume that you're just making this up and you haven't ever seen any flights over you.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 05:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
For decades, nobody knew there were any 'persistent' contrails.

Because no contrail was 'persistent', all those years, nobody thought they existed, so nobody had to call them 'persistent'.

I don't know who first termed contrails as "persistent contrails", or when the term was coined.

Maybe it was first coined 10-15 years ago, but not much earlier, though.


You insist that we've had these same trails in the sky all along. The contrails were not as "persistent', back then, but by 2006, or so, trails became very persistent, all at once. So they needed to find an accurate term, and thus, "persistent contrails' came into existence!!


Nothing wrong with them newfangled trails, folks, let's move along



1963 – Photo by Bob Shomler
link to source

Once you start to realize you don't know everything, it becomes harder to maintain a position of ignorance.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
For decades, nobody knew there were any 'persistent' contrails.

Because no contrail was 'persistent', all those years, nobody thought they existed, so nobody had to call them 'persistent'.


Here's a research paper published in 1972 that discusses persistent contrails. They called them "Persisting", but the point is that contrails that can persist are NOT something new. They have been around for many decades (as long as there has been high-altitude flight):

Measurements of the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persisting Contrail
NOTE: This links directly to a PDF file

Excerpt:

... If sufficient air carrier traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in ice budget in individual contrails...


Persistent contrails were a well-known atmospheric phenomenon throughout the beginning of the "jet-age" of the 1950s and 60s. Here is a book published in 1963 that makes mentions of the existence of contrails that persist and spread to create clouds. (Note: this is not my book nor my video, but I have verified this by finding a copy of this book at a local library.)




edit on 12/6/2017 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Turbonium caught out lying AGAIN. You have to wonder why chemtrail believers keep on lying about stuff that anyone can easily check for themselves. How do they think lying helps their cause?



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1




I could prove to you that I have lived in Richmond for over 30 years, but it'd be personal info, and that's off-limits. So unless you think I'm lying about where I live, you don't need proof of it.


No one has asked for proof of where you live.

Stop being so disingenuous.




Do you understand that these two planes would have been flying over me, or a few miles away, at most, if they were flying over Richmond? There is nothing to debate about the planes being over Richmond. If I was driving north along, say, No.2 Road, at the time, these planes WOULD DEFINITELY have flown directly over me. Without even moving, they'd be just a few miles away, at very most. See the point yet?


No.

I Assume you are just trolling, I mean lets look at this quoted below




For decades, nobody knew there were any 'persistent' contrails.



For Millennia nobody knew there were any persistent contrails, then the Wright Brothers flew for the first time and a decade or so later after engines were used to power aircraft contrails began to form and if the conditions were right they would persist.

So i guess you are right that for decades nobody knew.




Because no contrail was 'persistent', all those years, nobody thought they existed, so nobody had to call them 'persistent'.


no,

Like I said, persistent contrails were around all the years flight hasbe en available to man.

quite a few WW2 pics with many contrails.




I don't know who first termed contrails as "persistent contrails", or when the term was coined.


Might have been when a contrail persisted, someone witnessed it and described what they observed.

but its funny you say you don't know yet you imply you are arguing from a point of knowledge.




Maybe it was first coined 10-15 years ago, but not much earlier, though.


one must wonder why i and maybe assume you are trolling.

You just said 1 line above that you don't know.




You insist that we've had these same trails in the sky all along. The contrails were not as "persistent', back then, but by 2006, or so, trails became very persistent, all at once. So they needed to find an accurate term, and thus, "persistent contrails' came into existence!!



So you go from not knowing, to saying maybe 10-15 years ago and now you say it was termed in 2006.

Right





Another point - The certainty of a contrail forming is not 100%. These trails occur 100% of the time, which means they cannot possibly be contrails. No matter how you spin it.



These trails occur 100% of the time?

Care to show anything to attempt to back this up?



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
For decades, nobody knew there were any 'persistent' contrails.


wrong, the persistence and spreading of contrails was first recorded in the first decade that aircraft created them. Here is a link to a photostat of a report published in 1921, describing what we now know to be a persistent contrail;US Air Service report


Because no contrail was 'persistent', all those years, nobody thought they existed, so nobody had to call them 'persistent'.


And yet i have just shown you that they were. This being a newly observed phenomenon, and a rare one with the aircraft of the time, the term was still a while away from being coined.


I don't know who first termed contrails as "persistent contrails", or when the term was coined.

Maybe it was first coined 10-15 years ago, but not much earlier, though.


You are wrong again. I can't say exactly when the term was coined, but here is a reference to persistent trails in a contrail article that was published in 1956, sixty one years ago and forty five years before anyone first made themselves look like a moron by uttering 'chemtrail'.

Flight article



You insist that we've had these same trails in the sky all along. The contrails were not as "persistent', back then, but by 2006, or so, trails became very persistent, all at once. So they needed to find an accurate term, and thus, "persistent contrails' came into existence!!


But in this reply you can see that Yes, these trails are virtually as old as flight itself. Of course there are more persistent trails now than at any time, do you imagine that the global air transport industry just popped into existence fully formed overnight? That would be stupid. the prevalence of trails (all of them, not just persistent ones) accelerated from 1985 with the beginnings of widespread adoption of high flying airliners powered by high bypass ratio engines. These are now almost universal. There is no coincidence at all the this change led to panicked cries of 'chemtrails' from the ignorant just five years later. It is comical however that people are still falling for it today.



Nothing wrong with them newfangled trails, folks, let's move along
Use of the term 'newfangled' shows how obsolete your understanding is. Keep fearing the clouds fella.
edit on 12-6-2017 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
Another point -

The certainty of a contrail forming is not 100%.

These trails occur 100% of the time, which means they cannot possibly be contrails.


No matter how you spin it.


There is nothing to spin. The claim you make is transparently false



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1

So your evidence of these planes flying over YOU is a video someone else posted?

So far you've offered nothing apart from "aaaaaaaaaaaaah chemtrails!"


My point is these planes fly over Richmond, and YVR, which I've told you, many times.

You can't twist it around to avoid the issue at hand, it won't work.

Planes fly over Richmond, over YVR, and that's the point, so deal with it, honestly..



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1

So your evidence of these planes flying over YOU is a video someone else posted?

So far you've offered nothing apart from "aaaaaaaaaaaaah chemtrails!"


My point is these planes fly over Richmond, and YVR, which I've told you, many times.

You can't twist it around to avoid the issue at hand, it won't work.

Planes fly over Richmond, over YVR, and that's the point, so deal with it, honestly..


You seem to be the one with the problem.

On topic: Have you got any actual evidence of these mythical chemtrails? No? Didn't think so.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 08:51 PM
link   
YOU cited the video with two planes, being YOUR evidence, so that's what YOU need to prove...

YOU claimed the planes were miles away from Vancouver, and YOU claimed to have found two specific commercial flights which matched up perfectly.

So YOU want to pretend like it never existed, because YOU cannot actually support it...


Deal with the reality.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
YOU cited the video with two planes, being YOUR evidence, so that's what YOU need to prove...

YOU claimed the planes were miles away from Vancouver, and YOU claimed to have found two specific commercial flights which matched up perfectly.

So YOU want to pretend like it never existed, because YOU cannot actually support it...


Deal with the reality.


Actually, I didn't. Get off your high horse for once.

Where's your evidence of chemtrails? You must have some if you think they're real. Or are you one of these blind followers who worship the chemtrails pushers and anything they say?



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 11:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1

So your evidence of these planes flying over YOU is a video someone else posted?

So far you've offered nothing apart from "aaaaaaaaaaaaah chemtrails!"


My point is these planes fly over Richmond, and YVR, which I've told you, many times.

You can't twist it around to avoid the issue at hand, it won't work.

Planes fly over Richmond, over YVR, and that's the point, so deal with it, honestly..


You seem to be the one with the problem.

On topic: Have you got any actual evidence of these mythical chemtrails? No? Didn't think so.


The original claim is that these mythical contrails exist, with no actual evidence.



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 01:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: turbonium1
YOU cited the video with two planes, being YOUR evidence, so that's what YOU need to prove...

YOU claimed the planes were miles away from Vancouver, and YOU claimed to have found two specific commercial flights which matched up perfectly.

So YOU want to pretend like it never existed, because YOU cannot actually support it...


Deal with the reality.


Actually, I didn't. Get off your high horse for once.

Where's your evidence of chemtrails? You must have some if you think they're real. Or are you one of these blind followers who worship the chemtrails pushers and anything they say?


The blind followers have no doubt, no questions, about their government, its agencies. Only those who doubt their government, it's agencies, deserve to be scorned, as liars, as fools, as nut-jobs...

This bizarre-land holds their government as 'god', honorable, to all citizens.

The contrail claim is pure nonsense.

Normal atmospheric conditions CANNOT FORM A CONTRAIL.

This is a scientific fact. Nobody can dispute it.

Of course, you won't dispute it.

No, you try to change it.

Somehow, there are current jet engines which produce contrails, all the time, in any atmospheric conditions!!

I'm sure...



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 02:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: turbonium1
YOU cited the video with two planes, being YOUR evidence, so that's what YOU need to prove...

YOU claimed the planes were miles away from Vancouver, and YOU claimed to have found two specific commercial flights which matched up perfectly.

So YOU want to pretend like it never existed, because YOU cannot actually support it...


Deal with the reality.


Actually, I didn't. Get off your high horse for once.

Where's your evidence of chemtrails? You must have some if you think they're real. Or are you one of these blind followers who worship the chemtrails pushers and anything they say?


Massive levels of aluminum, barium, etc. in soil samples, and rainwater samples.

It's excused away as industrial pollution, and so on.

Everything can be excused, even if it is absurd. As long as it can't be refuted entirely, it is 'possible'.


So I've asked you to prove those two planes are normal commercial flights.

I want to know if these planes are normal, or if they are not.


What about it, then?



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 04:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1

So your evidence of these planes flying over YOU is a video someone else posted?

So far you've offered nothing apart from "aaaaaaaaaaaaah chemtrails!"


My point is these planes fly over Richmond, and YVR, which I've told you, many times.

You can't twist it around to avoid the issue at hand, it won't work.

Planes fly over Richmond, over YVR, and that's the point, so deal with it, honestly..


You seem to be the one with the problem.

On topic: Have you got any actual evidence of these mythical chemtrails? No? Didn't think so.


The original claim is that these mythical contrails exist, with no actual evidence.


Um, read the thread title. You jumped into a thread saying chemtrails exist. Prove it.

As for proving contrails exist? That's already been posted and directed to you.

So, where's your evidence that chemtrails exist?

3 replies yet you didn't show any evidence. Colour me not surprised.
edit on 1762017 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 05:37 AM
link   
This is a conspiracy that has always made me laugh. Atmospheric conditions conducive to contrail formation aside, anyone who's ever looked at a high altitude airways map would agree.


Above: Southern Michigan

Airspace around the high desert is a convergence point of traffic in all directions associated with 8 major international airports. Most notably LAX, Las Vegas, and San Diego.

If they needed to control our minds or behavior they'd use antidepressants, food additives, and theta band frequencies from orbit.

This seems a bit superflous.
edit on 17-6-2017 by DefaultNamesake83 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 06:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1

So your evidence of these planes flying over YOU is a video someone else posted?

So far you've offered nothing apart from "aaaaaaaaaaaaah chemtrails!"


My point is these planes fly over Richmond, and YVR, which I've told you, many times.

You can't twist it around to avoid the issue at hand, it won't work.

Planes fly over Richmond, over YVR, and that's the point, so deal with it, honestly..


You seem to be the one with the problem.

On topic: Have you got any actual evidence of these mythical chemtrails? No? Didn't think so.


The original claim is that these mythical contrails exist, with no actual evidence.


Um, read the thread title. You jumped into a thread saying chemtrails exist. Prove it.

As for proving contrails exist? That's already been posted and directed to you.

So, where's your evidence that chemtrails exist?

3 replies yet you didn't show any evidence. Colour me not surprised.


You've ignored the 'evidence' you first brought up, after it blew up in your face, so look in the mirror.


Your case was based on that video, of two planes flying over Richmond.

Why avoid it? You brought it up, not me. Get some nads and address the problem, for once.



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 06:42 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

There hasn't been any evidence from you posted.

I already addressed the problem. People who ignore science think contrails are chemtrails.

Now, care to show evidence of chemtrails?



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 02:16 AM
link   
I've asked you many times to support your evidence, from the video showing two planes flying over Richmond. Since you won't even acknowledge it exists, here's a refresher for you...


originally posted by: tommyjo

Here is a video from a Chemtrail believer in Vancouver during 2014. He very kindly provides a map and info of the filming location/times, etc. He even indicates on the map of Vancouver where he believes that the aircraft are flying and leaving trails.


This is a very common error by chemtrail believers in that they totally misjudge distance.

The two flights are still available on flight tracking software playback. I used Planefinder.

Planefinder link

26 February 2014, Vancouver BC 2:30 pm.

14:30 Vancouver time = 22:30 GMT -8 GMT for that Winter period.

The two airliners that he is filming. They are in fact approximately 12 miles away from his filming location. Filming location denoted with yellow star.



The two airliners are using the upper air routes and way points to the south of Vancouver.



For Skyvector use the following link. Type in CVYR in the Flight Plan box on the upper left to centre the map on Vancouver. Ensure that the "World-Hi" is selected from the tab on the upper right.

Sky Vector Link

Delta 275 Boeing 777 is flying from Detroit to Taipei, Taiwan via Tokyo, Japan.
Delta 295 Boeing 747 is flying from Atlanta to Shanghai, China via Tokyo, Japan.





I've asked you to show me the actual flight data of these two flights, and I've yet to see it.

I've also asked you about when each plane departed, and I've yet to see it.

When you said the planes were about 12 miles away from him, you would've assumed the planes were some distance away from the city. Obviously, you did not realize the planes were flying over Richmond, likely directly over YVR itself!

This is supposed to be your own evidence. You went to the trouble of looking for any commercial flights from 2014, on that day, at that time. You came up with two flights that supposedly matched up perfectly. You claim the flights were found on 'Planefinder', using flight tracker software playback. You also referred to Skytracker.

You must have spent a fair amount of time and effort in this.

That's why I asked you for the actual data of these two flights, which will either prove, or disprove, your argument.

Why are you unable to show the actual data, to support your claim?

If you do not have the actual data, why are you claiming to know the actual location of the flights? To know that, you must have the actual data. It seems like you don't have the actual data, so you are simply trying to confirm your argument with a couple of lines that seem to fit.

I asked you where the lines came from. You said the lines were generated from the Flt. app. So the app must have the actual data for the two planes, to generate their flight paths, right?

Does the app include the actual data points, from these two flights, or simply create lines on a map, without sharing any of the actual data? If the app doesn't even show us the actual data, nobody knows if the flight paths they generate are accurate, or not.


That's what shows exactly where the two commercial flights were, throughout their flights.


It's about time to find that data, right?

edit on 18-6-2017 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join