Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Chemtrails / EM

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 11:46 PM
link   
I'm so glad to see how much respext people have for people who disagree with them. Yes, I do the same things sometimes, but usually when someone insists that their information is right despite all the evidence to the contrary. I try hard to keep a debate civil, and show respect for others, until getting frustrated by that. But then there are others who automatically call anyone who disagrees with them sheeple, or worse.


And yes, this comment applies to BOTH sides, not just one or the other.

[edit on 11/20/2005 by Zaphod58]




posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

*Shakes head* First off what pictures? I didn't post any pictures, just an article in a locally respected newspaper.
Obvioulsy there was no trails because there was no traffic, normal OR miltary experimental. Again the point in the statement wasn't that they were surprised by no chemtrails. Just that they said EVERY weekend, so they had to add EXCEPT to it right. I can't believe I'm having to explain it to you.


umm, maybe the picture from the article? big huge thing with a bunch of contrails on it....cant miss it.


your source




Who's getting defensive? And it's not my theory. You can make negative coments all day I don't care, like I said.


ok, whatever. maybe you just dont realize how badly you tend to over-react.



You can't just dismiss something from pictures you see on the web, get out into the real world once in awhile and look up, you might notice something like I did. And until you know for sure one way or the other an open mind is a healthy mind.


since thats kind of my job as an air traffic controller, i have a tendency to look up at the sky from time to time during the day. but hey, maybe i'm not drinking the same chemically infested water or something, which keeps me blinded to the truth.





that comment kind of reminds me of a scene from 'the wizard of oz'
"pay no attention to the man behind the screen"


Err....What?


think about it awhile.

look, i tried to be nice and agree that we just can not agree on this, but i will continue to respond if you cant concur with that gentleman's agreement.



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
umm, maybe the picture from the article? big huge thing with a bunch of contrails on it....cant miss it.


Again not my picture, but I agree it looks like regular con-trails. But guess what? At first glance chemtrails look like regular contrails, that's why most ppl dismiss them.
You have to see the operation first hand IMO to really get the picture.



since thats kind of my job as an air traffic controller, i have a tendency to look up at the sky from time to time during the day. but hey, maybe i'm not drinking the same chemically infested water or something, which keeps me blinded to the truth.


Do you really look at the sky or do you look at a computer screen?
Last time I saw air traffic controlers they weren't staring at the sky.
And what "truth"? Show me this "truth". If you can I'll keep my mouth shut.
But you can't can you? It's just the "truth" as you see it.



look, i tried to be nice and agree that we just can not agree on this, but i will continue to respond if you cant concur with that gentleman's agreement.


So what are saying, you give up? I gave up being nice in chem threads after my fill of "other" de-bunkers, you know who I mean.
Either move on or get some skin my friend, if you don't like my aproach!
Respond or don't, no difference to me.

Anyway how about discussing the article? Answering my questions?
I want to discuss chemtrails, not argue with ppl over silly misunderstandings.



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Again not my picture


but you posted it



Do you really look at the sky or do you look at a computer screen?
Last time I saw air traffic controlers they weren't staring at the sky.


so, you actually think the guys in the tower have all of those big windows just so they can stare at a computer screen all day? incidentally, i am currently a radar controller, but i spent the last 5 years before that in the tower staring out at the sky all day long. i've seen alot of wierd stuff up there that i cant explain, and i'll be more than happy to go into it with you if you'd like, but i've never seen anything that even remotely suggests the existence of chemtrails. next argument?



And what "truth"? Show me this "truth". If you can I'll keep my mouth shut.
But you can't can you? It's just the "truth" as you see it.


as you seem to be on the side that is advocating these things, how bout you show me some "truth", preferably in the form of hard evidence....oh, wait, cant do that, can you?





look, i tried to be nice and agree that we just can not agree on this, but i will continue to respond if you cant concur with that gentleman's agreement.


So what are saying, you give up? I gave up being nice in chem threads after my fill of "other" de-bunkers, you know who I mean.
Either move on or get some skin my friend, if you don't like my aproach!
Respond or don't, no difference to me.


then bring it on. but when you start crying and pitching a fit like last time, dont expect me to back down and let you have your way again just because we're shipmates. if you really want to have this debate with me, i wont be throwing any punches, and when you start on your rants with no proof, i'll be moving in for the kill with no remorse.



Anyway how about discussing the article? Answering my questions?
I want to discuss chemtrails, not argue with ppl over silly misunderstandings.


that would be fine, except you have shown a propensity to get offensive and start ranting when someone disagrees with you on what any articles you bring up have to say.

ask your questions and i'll give you honest answers based on the facts as i understand them.

[edit on 21-11-2005 by snafu7700]



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
but you posted it


I didn't, I posted the ARTICLE! Read the article, forget about the darn picture.

And I didn't rant, no more than the debunkers do anyway.

Whatever, another chemtrail thread going around in circles


I don't care about you believing me, what does bother me is closed minds.

If we can't stay on subject then what's the point?



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Wow, that is a pretty dumb article. They quote William Thomas and Len Horowitz among others.


The on-line coments are especially funny.

disc.server.com...



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Wow, that is a pretty dumb article. They quote William Thomas and Len Horowitz among others.


Here we go can't offer an intelegent comment on the article, soo what's the dis-info method....Ridicule it.
Make people feel stupid to even consider the possibilty.

You know that's a well respected newspaper, right howwie?

I certanly have FAR more respect for what it says then YOU my friend.

See I'm not affraid of ridecule, your methods won't work with me and I know that frustrates you.

People pls don't let stupid comments like howweirds sway your own better judgment, read it and make your own mind up, thank you.



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 11:09 AM
link   
It always seems like the warmer it is outside the more chemtrails there are.

And, Ive seen planes stop spraying when they aren't by clouds and then start spraying again when they are back by the clouds.

Certain days there are no chemtrails and then certain days there are. Do planes just majically stop having contrails coming out of them?

If you observe it, you will see strange things, open your minds people.



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnmcandiez
It always seems like the warmer it is outside the more chemtrails there are.


Contrail formation is dictated by the relative humidity of the air, nothing else. Of course, the lower the temperature at high altitudes, the lower amount of moisture the air can hold.

The temperature at 30,000 feet is around -48 degrees. Cold enough for ya?


Originally posted by mnmcandiez
And, Ive seen planes stop spraying when they aren't by clouds and then start spraying again when they are back by the clouds.


Well what does that tell you/ Clouds form where the relative humidity is greater than 100%.



Originally posted by mnmcandiez
Certain days there are no chemtrails and then certain days there are. Do planes just majically stop having contrails coming out of them?


On certain days I look up and see clouds, on other days, I don’t! Do clouds just magically stop appearing on those days?



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by mnmcandiez
It always seems like the warmer it is outside the more chemtrails there are.


Contrail formation is dictated by the relative humidity of the air, nothing else. Of course, the lower the temperature at high altitudes, the lower amount of moisture the air can hold.

The temperature at 30,000 feet is around -48 degrees. Cold enough for ya?



no, i don't think he ever contested contrails exist, did he?





Originally posted by mnmcandiez
And, Ive seen planes stop spraying when they aren't by clouds and then start spraying again when they are back by the clouds.


Well what does that tell you/ Clouds form where the relative humidity is greater than 100%.



yo, that's all fine and dandy, and their operators were probably instructed to keep that copout in mind.

a contrail may be long or short, depending on weather condition, but that condition can't change from one point to the other, can it? so if i see a plane with originally XXL contrails suddenly leaving just cute tiny ones, then 'switch back', within the blink of an eye, to fog mode, does that suggest the plane hit a wall of cold air - or something? by that logic clouds would be polygonal...




Originally posted by mnmcandiez
Certain days there are no chemtrails and then certain days there are. Do planes just majically stop having contrails coming out of them?


On certain days I look up and see clouds, on other days, I don’t! Do clouds just magically stop appearing on those days?


do coulds pop up like mystery contrails? i mean you must be training real hard to come off that dense, right?



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by mnmcandiez
It always seems like the warmer it is outside the more chemtrails there are.


Contrail formation is dictated by the relative humidity of the air, nothing else. Of course, the lower the temperature at high altitudes, the lower amount of moisture the air can hold.

The temperature at 30,000 feet is around -48 degrees. Cold enough for ya?



no, i don't think he ever contested contrails exist, did he?



Fine. Then do you or mnmcandiez understand that the surface temperature has nothing to do with the temperature 6 miles up in the sky? It makes no difference if it is 90 degrees out you back door or 20 below. The critical parameter is the relative humidity with respect to ice at the altitude you are flying at.


Originally posted by Long Lance



Originally posted by mnmcandiez
And, Ive seen planes stop spraying when they aren't by clouds and then start spraying again when they are back by the clouds.


Well what does that tell you/ Clouds form where the relative humidity is greater than 100%.



yo, that's all fine and dandy, and their operators were probably instructed to keep that copout in mind.


You get a double eye roll for that



Originally posted by Long Lance
a contrail may be long or short, depending on weather condition, but that condition can't change from one point to the other, can it?


Hell yes, it can. The atmosphere is not a homogenous soup of consistency. The very fact that many types of clouds have definite edges is proof enough of this. Updrafts, downdrafts, turbulence all exist in what is normally clear air.


Originally posted by Long Lance
so if i see a plane with originally XXL contrails suddenly leaving just cute tiny ones, then 'switch back', within the blink of an eye, to fog mode, does that suggest the plane hit a wall of cold air - or something?


More likely a pocket of warmer air, or actually a pocket of air where the relative humidity with respect to ice was below 100 %.


Originally posted by Long Lance
by that logic clouds would be polygonal...


I don’t quite follow you there, how do to draw that conclusion?



Originally posted by Long Lance



Originally posted by mnmcandiez
Certain days there are no chemtrails and then certain days there are. Do planes just majically stop having contrails coming out of them?


On certain days I look up and see clouds, on other days, I don’t! Do clouds just magically stop appearing on those days?


do coulds pop up like mystery contrails? i mean you must be training real hard to come off that dense, right?


Sorry, I forgot to use my {sarcasm} {/sarcasm} tags.


In order to understand the phenomena of persistent contrails it is important to understand the phenomena of Supersaturation with respect to ice, a condition which is fairly common in the upper atmosphere.



www.pa.op.dlr.de...


snobear.colorado.edu...


www.rmets.org...



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 02:11 AM
link   
What does all of this have to do with the New World Order? Is it somehow connected in a way that is not clear to me?



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark



Fine. Then do you or mnmcandiez understand that the surface temperature has nothing to do with the temperature 6 miles up in the sky? It makes no difference if it is 90 degrees out you back door or 20 below. The critical parameter is the relative humidity with respect to ice at the altitude you are flying at.


surface temperature? who said that?

contrails happen, depending on the atmospheric parameters, so what? these parameters can't change instantly, can they? can you imagine two zones with vastly different temperature and moisture bordering each other? i can't. convection happens, the greater the relative difference, the stronger the wind. on other words, convection is caused by differing atmospheric conditions, progressively alleviating the differences, which caused them.





Originally posted by Long Lance
a contrail may be long or short, depending on weather condition, but that condition can't change from one point to the other, can it?


Hell yes, it can. The atmosphere is not a homogenous soup of consistency. The very fact that many types of clouds have definite edges is proof enough of this. Updrafts, downdrafts, turbulence all exist in what is normally clear air.



hell no it can't. two vastly different pockets of air would intermingle, any stream of air would pull adjascent air with it, again resulting in a gradual change.





Originally posted by Long Lance
by that logic clouds would be polygonal...


I don’t quite follow you there, how do to draw that conclusion?

the on/off beahviour can only be 'explained' by discrete boundaries in the air, (otherwise you'd see gradual changes), what does that look like? not necessary polygonal, i admit (slightly curved layers would work as well)



-------



Originally posted by craig732
What does all of this have to do with the New World Order? Is it somehow connected in a way that is not clear to me?


well, if 'chemtrails' are genuine, who do you think has the motives and resources to do it, the media and state agencies to shut up any overly curious folks?

[edit on 24-11-2005 by Long Lance]



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Well, I watched a science discovery channel program on weather modification and they said that they were going to lay down contrails in grid like patterns to decrease the the effects of gloabal warming.

Sounds like chemtrials to me



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnmcandiez
Well, I watched a science discovery channel program on weather modification and they said that they were going to lay down contrails in grid like patterns to decrease the the effects of gloabal warming.

Sounds like chemtrials to me


Interesting, this is what I've been saying all along, and it's what I saw taking place. 2 planes creating a grid pattern of trails over a 2 hour-ish period....



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 04:30 PM
link   
longlance says:


contrails happen, depending on the atmospheric parameters, so what? these parameters can't change instantly, can they? can you imagine two zones with vastly different temperature and moisture bordering each other? i can't.


But the parameters don't have to be 'vastly different'. Contrails persist when the ambient temperature is -40 deg or lower and the relative humidity is 100 percent or higher (and yes, you can have an RH higher Than 100 percent).

If the ambient temperature is just a little bit higher than -40 deg or the RH is just a bit less than 100% -- or both -- then the ice crystals -- which are all that contrails are -- will sublime (that is, turn to vapor without going through the liquid phase, like dry ice does). And when sublimation takes place, the contrail disappears, oftwn within a minute or so of being formed.

And you see this boundary in the sky all the time: it's wherever the edge of a cirrus cloud is!

Think about it. At one spot in the sky, the atmospheric conditions are sufficient for a cloud (either water or ice, depending on the cloud) to be there. Right next to that spot, the conditions are insufficient for the cloud to be there, and as a result, you have a clear patch of sky.

Sometimes, there is no difference in the atmospheric conditions, and the result is either a completely overcast sky -- or a completely clear one.

But quite often, you will see clouds right next to blue skies, which show that the conditions are dynamic and variable.

That, by the way, is the only difference between contrails and "chem-trails" -- the atmospheric conditions will either make one go away or allow one to stick around!

[edit on 29-11-2005 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 04:34 PM
link   
mnmcandiez says:


And, Ive seen planes stop spraying when they aren't by clouds and then start spraying again when they are back by the clouds.


Exactly!

When the planes are flying through the spot where there aren't any clouds, the atmospheric conditions are such that the contrails won't persist. You know that because the clouds don't persist, either.

Then when the plane goes where the temperature is cold and damp enough for clouds to form, it's cold and damp enough for contrails to persist, too!



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 03:21 AM
link   
i've never seen an aircraft travel completely without contrails, so there's obviously always at least a small zone of oversaturation, which means altered conditions would enlarge them, not make them pop up out of the blue, which is consistent with what i (we?) see daily, btw.

so, a contrail gradually growing longer is ok, an abrupt stop of the contrail's 'rear end', so to speak, in all likelyhood isn't. i admit, i never saw that happen, so i'll leave it at that, witness reports are chronically unreliable (except my own of course
).



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 02:55 PM
link   
wind shear and turbulance


The atmosphere is not homogeneous.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 03:25 PM
link   
longlance says:


i've never seen an aircraft travel completely without contrails, so there's obviously always at least a small zone of oversaturation, which means altered conditions would enlarge them, not make them pop up out of the blue, which is consistent with what i (we?) see daily, btw.


Pretty much true, but there're two comments I'd like to make.

First, you don't need a 'small zone of oversaturation' to have contrails, because it the temperature is below freezing, even if it's not down to minus 40 and 100% RH, contrails will form, because the water will freeze. It's those two threshold parameters that make the contrail persist for more than a minute or two.

Second, the parameters can cross the threshhold (one way or another) within a short distance -- maybe 100 meters or so. And since most persistent contrails are around 10,000 meters or higher, 100 meters looks like absolutely adjacent!.

I mean the arguments about 'popping up out of the blue' would apply to clouds as well, and, if you look at a high (10,000 meter) cumulo-nimbus, the edges look pretty sharp there, too, right?





new topics




 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join