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 / EM

page: 16
0
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong

I would assume that it was white dust from some neighboring state, but where do they have white dust? and why does it happen everytime it rains, even when it isn't windy... always the same color also?
thanks in advance for your enlightening response...


Difficult to say without looking at the synoptics at the time.

Here in the UK we sometimes get Saharan sand fall with our rain.... Raindrops actually form around particles of dust or other small nuclei (that's the basis of cloud seeding).




posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
Irridescent clouds are actually more common than a lot of people realise - but you do normally need to know where and when to look for them.

They are more common than people realize? How is that? If people dont notice them often than they are not very common. Its hard to find anything decent on the subject accept some German website.


Of course, most are unconnected with contrails in any shape or form and have been reported for hundreds of years..... I guess they entered the chemtrail mythos because most believers in chemtrails aren't used to looking at the sky, and are oddly reticent when it comes to seeking meteorological explanations for what they see.

This is my favourite picture, taken in September '04:-


So why is it that I have not noticed them until the last 6-7 years? I am always looking to the sky. I am sure they have been around in the past, but they sure are becoming more common.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   
I have always been a "sky watcher" but just started to notice these rainbow effects during the last 2-3 years...

I understand the reason for them, but still think the "off" color from normal rainbows, comes from pollution...

afterall, these spectrums are nothing magical... the colors should be the same for rainbows, and clouds since they are both the light spectrum of water...

so what is with the yellowish/brownish tint to the colors?
(at least the ones i see have a tint)

pollution, or maybe the angle of perception perhaps?



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 01:53 PM
link   
no, your absolutely right laz, it is pollution. it's just not any intentionally sprayed pollution as some here seem to think.

on a side note, i keep meaning to tell you....i love your avatar! that was probably one of the best books ive ever read (and i'm not a big heinlen fan).


[edit on 20-1-2006 by snafu7700]



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan

Originally posted by Essan
Irridescent clouds are actually more common than a lot of people realise - but you do normally need to know where and when to look for them.

They are more common than people realize? How is that? If people dont notice them often than they are not very common. Its hard to find anything decent on the subject accept some German website.


Of course, most are unconnected with contrails in any shape or form and have been reported for hundreds of years..... I guess they entered the chemtrail mythos because most believers in chemtrails aren't used to looking at the sky, and are oddly reticent when it comes to seeking meteorological explanations for what they see.

This is my favourite picture, taken in September '04:-



So why is it that I have not noticed them until the last 6-7 years? I am always looking to the sky. I am sure they have been around in the past, but they sure are becoming more common.


Same here



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 01:32 AM
link   
Browse this collection of historic cloud photos


www.photolib.noaa.gov...

www.photolib.noaa.gov...

www.photolib.noaa.gov...



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Howard why do you keep posting cloud pictures? This thread is about chem-trails


You seem to be under the impression that we can't tell the dif between a cloud and a group of planes flying in a criss-cross pattern covering the skys with 'something' other than contrails.


Well it's your time lost I guess. Wanna get back on topic?



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

(it's funny, the same group of ppl show up eveytime in chemie threads eh? I'm surprised not so off the street aint showed up yet. If ya'll don't like it go elswhere)


even more amazing than chemtrails, i'd say.

the sky was DISGUSTING in toronto, today. it looked like soup, up there.
i saw one plane with four trails behind it. two started very close to the wings, and two didn't that were in line with the fuselage started much further back behind the plane. that alone says, 'not a contrail'.

the same people show up to 'repeatedly debunk' reality for us. all the usual suspects.

chemtrails are real, they are not ordinary contrails. that is a big fat hoodwink.

it has been shown in other threads that the military has the tools and the motivation to modify the weather(and hell, while they're spraying, why not throw in some SOMA to keep people from thinking for themselves or caring about anything).

i refuse to argue with obfuscators about it, anymore. it's pointless. howard's endless staircase again. just look up, people. the difference between chemtrails and contrails, is that chemtrails GROW. (obfuscators will ask 'how do NORMAL clouds form? i will answer, 'if it was that easy to make clouds, they would have been doing it long time ago.)



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 03:40 AM
link   



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan

They are more common than people realize? How is that? If people dont notice them often than they are not very common. Its hard to find anything decent on the subject accept some German website.

So why is it that I have not noticed them until the last 6-7 years? I am always looking to the sky. I am sure they have been around in the past, but they sure are becoming more common.


Just because you haven't noticed something before, doesn't mean it didn't exist
I would guess that most of the examples I've seen haven't been spotted by anyone else in my town - for the simple reason that I'm constantly looking at the sky (I do a lot of photography of meteorlogical phenomena) , whereas most people are largely ignorant of what goes on above their heads.

If it were a new phenomoena, or was becoming a lot more commonplace, I think it would have been mentioned in meteorological literature by now.

There's an explanation of them here



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You mean like these are "chemtrails" because they start near the tail?



can i see a chemical analysis of those 'contrails'. i'm not here to play stalemate, again. i just thought i'd weigh in a vote for 'my' truth.

and, no. not like that. like two spaced far apart, where the engines are and very close to the engines, and two starting much further back, off the tail(where there are no engines).

just a picture doesn't really cut it. you have to see what they do afterwards.

i'm getting pretty tired of providing arguments for government disinformationlists to study and think of creative new ways to 'debunk'. also tired of rehashing these arguments. i haven't done a chemtrail thread in quite a while.

however, perhaps the biggest proof of the reality of chemtrails is that howard roark, father luke duke, yourself, off the street and radioactive man ALWAYS show up and don't stop posting until the 'whackjob nutter' gives up and moves on.

seems like a lot of effort to deny something that doesn't exist. you spend this nuch time on bigfoot threads? any of you? chupacabra threads? ghost threads? aliean abduction threads?

nope. just chemtrails. and 911 not being an inside job.

suspicious? let the reader decide.



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 04:26 AM
link   
The reason I personally show up is because it’s something that I know about first hand, and I find the arguments to the contrary to be both zany and humorous. This is one theory that is so easy to debunk, but you guys that claim to see these things refuse to do it. All you have to do is note the time and location, take a photograph then show us with Flight Explorer that it is not a commercial airline flight, and we might look at the picture with a bit more of a critical eye. Until then, your right there is no point in debating this. Here you want an analysis of a Chemtrail/contrail:

www.atd.ucar.edu...

Ice, they are made of ice particles, of course you will not believe this I am sure…



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Again you de-bunkers claiming to be the 'experts' on contrails.
What first hand info do you have? let's have it.
Prove to me there is not a spraying programe going on, weather experimentation.

Do you think we don't know what contrails are? Clouds? We know as much as you do, maybe more I don't know.

The diff is we have seen something that we know to not be..
1. Normal air traffic.
2. Normal contrails.

Sry if I can't 'prove' it here on a web site. What I witnessed was a couple of yrs ago. I have not seen it happening again since, at least not for sure like I did the first time. And pics don't cut it, maybe a video of the whole event?
But would you sit through 2 hours of planes creating trails in a criss cross patern? It's not something that you can just glance at and say yeah your right. That's why most people don't notice, no time for sky watching and at a quick glance it's just another plane flying over.

But keep on showing your cloud pictures and contrail charts, good enough to convince the fence sitters that we are all just a bunch of loonies, right?

All I say is it is stupid to dissmis this just because you feel it can't be true,
and it is just a feeling right? You have no way to know fer sure do you?
Or do you and you're just here to keep it covered up?

[edit on 21/1/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

seems like a lot of effort to deny something that doesn't exist. you spend this nuch time on bigfoot threads? any of you? chupacabra threads? ghost threads? aliean abduction threads?

nope. just chemtrails. and 911 not being an inside job.

suspicious? let the reader decide.



I'm not an expert on those other topics
I do however know about meteorological phenomena, and if folk are mistaking such for something more untoward then it seems to me to sense that I try and put them right and save them worry.

On the other hand, why are you so determined to believe that something is sinister in spite of all the evidence?



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Prove to me there is not a spraying programe going on, weather experimentation.


Er, it's not up to us to prove a negative, rather for you to produce evidence that such activity is taking place.

So far, all we really have is anecdotal evidence, from people who for the most part are, by their own admission, not experts in meteorological phenomena, describing previously innoticed aircraft activity and contrails spreading across the sky to form sheets of cirrostratus, often in a criss-cross formation, a bit like this:-



Which formed from normal commercial airliner contrails on one of the rare occasions when the conditions over my house were right for them. Conditions which, incidently, tend to occur more frequently over large land masses.

Now, if someone - anyone - has proper evidence of anything more untoward, then bring it out.

Maybe you are right! But just saying you're right, doesn't necessarily make it so....




posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 07:33 AM
link   
Proving a negative...

www.infidels.org...

www2.canisius.edu...

I don't doubt contrails form criss cross paterns. But add that with two planes for over two hours working together creating these criss-cross patterns. Turning the trail off and on again.....No pics of clouds and CONtrails will change what I and many others have watched happen.

Nobody is arguing weather phenomena, except you guys.

And BTW I don't think it's anything sinister as you guys seem to believe we chem believers think. I think it's a weather control experiment of some kind maybe conected to H.A.A.R.P. It's not that far fetched.
And the word 'Chemtrail' actualy came from a government paper, I don't have a copy but there's one on this board in a chem thread somewhere.
We're not making this up.

[edit on 21/1/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 07:52 AM
link   
The government paper was written by the staff of a congressman, who once he read it flat out refused to stand behind it. I would imagine that some of his staff lost jobs over that document. Let me see if I can find the thing…



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 08:12 AM
link   
From the National Acadamy of Science;



Note the use of aircraft to maintain a cloud of dust to reflect sunlight.

From...www.lightwatcher.com...

More on geoengineering;
www.metatronics.net...

Chemtrails and H.A.A.R.P.
www.alternet.org...




[edit on 21/1/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Note the use of aircraft to maintain a cloud of dust to reflect sunlight.


That report is 14 years old, and atmospheric science has come a long way since then.

Anyway, 'chemtrails' form in the troposphere, along with all other clouds. Not the stratosphere. If they were forming that high up you certainly wouldn't see the aircraft responsible for them!



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan



To be fair, it's not like areoplanes all make whatever merry way they wish to their destination, they infact use Air corridors. This would explain the criss cross formations.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join