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.
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: underwerks
Exactly. And mine tailings and other ground based sources. Those need to be eliminated before jumping to they're spraying us.
Yes ground base sources of pollution are a problem. But I see no reason why you have to address ground base sources of pollution before discussing chemtrails.
originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: dfnj2015
Yes ground base sources of pollution are a problem. But I see no reason why you have to address ground base sources of pollution before discussing chemtrails.
Well when chemtrailers claim there is more aluminum and barium in the soil and say its from planes spraying the chemtrails, one must bring forth logic and reason and ask could this increase come from a source closer to home, say ground based pollution?
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: dfnj2015
So if you lived near a coal powerplant, and took background radiation levels, and saw they were elevated, you'd immediately blame the nuclear powerplant 80 miles away?
If you want to claim something is the source of increased levels of something, in this case aluminum, you have to eliminate every other potential source before you can prove that it's caused by aircraft. If you want to just yell about how they're spraying something then have fun with that. If you want to PROVE they are, you have to eliminate other potential sources.
originally posted by: freedom7
So I wake up this morning. Beautiful day here in Ontario, Canada ( a rarity with all the rainy/cloudy days here lately).
Clear blue skies, sun shining.. I look overhead and I kid you not there is a plane ( clearly not a commercial airliner either) literally just covering the sky in a long chemtrail. Now for those of us who know this is not a conspiracy we can see the obvious, feel the effects of the obvious, watch people act out of sorts etc...
My question is for those who genuinely do not believe in chemtrails. I don't say this to antagonize you. I legitimately am curious when you see sights like I just saw this morning.
A. You see the plane is clearly not a commercial airliner.
B. You are watching a long streak of chemtrails being visibly sprayed in front of your eyes with an otherewise clear blue sky to make the contrast that much more evident.
How can you explain this away?
What is the alternative explanation for why this is happening?
The one point those who don't believe in chemtrails do seem to have is that they argue the conspiracy would have to be so enormous and the very people in on it would suffer symptoms too since they are polluting their own skies..
Other then that though, the physical evidence is very overwhelming. I'm just curious to hear explanations..
Cheers ATS
A. You see the plane is clearly not a commercial airliner.
B. You are watching a long streak of chemtrails being visibly sprayed in front of your eyes with an otherewise clear blue sky to make the contrast that much more evident.
How can you explain this away?
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: dfnj2015
Can you try to understand what is being said instead of jumping up conclusions and putting words in people's mouth?
You keep claiming that its possible they're spraying something. If you want to prove that you have to prove that it's coming from there. My comments ARE related to chemtrails. You can't talk about chemtrails without proving they exist first.
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: dfnj2015
What proof do you have they aren't? There are many scientific studies showing how contrails form, soundings from different areas that show conditions are right for contrails to form, and all kinds of other data to show they're contrails.
Besides somehow knowing they're not, or patents or misunderstood studies, what scientific data do you have to show they aren't?
The measurements include contrail observations for identified aircraft flying at ambient temperature and humidity conditions measured with high precision in-situ instruments, measurements of the temperature and humidity increases in an aircraft exhaust plume, and an observation of contrail formation behind two different four-engine jet aircraft with different engines flying wing by wing. The observations show that an altitude range exists in which the aircraft with high efficiency causes contrails while the other aircraft with lower efficiency causes none. Aircraft with more efficient propulsion cause contrails more frequently. The climatic impact depends on the relative importance of increased contrail frequency and reduced carbon dioxide emissions for increased efficiency, and on other parameters, and has not yet been quantified.