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.

 

Proof of true purpose of chemtrails?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 07:53 PM
link   
for what it's worth I saw this first hand today...beautiful clear sky day..start seeing the planes spray out in grid like patterns..before you know it the entire sky is clouds..really starting to get sick of it




posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke How exactly does this support the chemtrails conspiricy theory? The article mentions contrails.


Just my opinion, but I feel that global warming (which, as this article suggests, contrails contribute to) is being engineered (or helped along). For what purpose, who knows? Perhaps to thin out the herd (as suggested by the images here: www.abovetopsecret.com...) or to get the planet ready for reptilian occupation? Yes, these are radical theories, but isn't that part of what this website is about?

Perhaps I should have used "contrail" instead of "chemtrails" in the title of this thread. I just normally use vapor trails - contrails - chemtrails interchangably.

[edit on 28-1-2006 by craig732]

[edit on 28-1-2006 by craig732]



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by invisibleplane
for what it's worth I saw this first hand today...beautiful clear sky day..start seeing the planes spray out in grid like patterns..before you know it the entire sky is clouds..really starting to get sick of it



How do you know that the clouds wouldn't have formed even if there was no air traffic?

Did you do any research on the weather conditions? Did you bother to check to see if a front was moving through?



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigpappadiaz
Yeah, that's amazing. Low-lying clouds reflect light away and higher clouds reflect light back towards us... some scientists are so damn stupid, or maybe they know better and think everybody is as simple-minded as HowardRoark and Essan. Like a higher-elevation cloud reflects any less light and is any less white than a lower-lying ones. Remember, the sun gives off much more electrical energy than light, and much more in other forms as well. But I'm sure you think light is the only one that has any effect on earth's warming, right? Or clouds only have an effect on light energy, everything else just kinda does it's own thing.



To understand why, consider again that summer day: If a big, fluffy cumulus cloud comes drifting by, it's usually good news for hot cloud-watchers. Low thick clouds cast a refreshing shadow and reflect sunlight back into space. They cool the planet and the people beneath them.

On the other hand, high wispy clouds drifting by are less refreshing. Such clouds cast meagre shadows and, because they are themselves cold, they trap heat radiated from the planet below. The air temperature near the ground might actually increase.

It is this schizophrenic behavior that makes clouds so vexing to researchers who are trying to predict the course of climate change.

science.nasa.gov...


1 round trip from NY to LA or Trans Atlantic round trip = 2,000 pounds of CO2 In a year air travel releases 600 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere



Air traffic and, therefore, contrails, are not evenly distributed around the globe. They are concentrated over parts of the United States and Europe, where local warming reaches up to 0.7 watts per square meter, or 35 times the global average. The ghostly white trails following airplanes and rockets through the sky, called contrails, are probably adding to global warming, according to scientists at NASA’s Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va. The contrails often turn into cirrus clouds, a thin, wispy type of cloud made of ice crystals. The most common form of high-level clouds are thin and often wispy cirrus clouds. Typically found at heights greater than 20,000 feet (6,000 meters), cirrus clouds are composed of ice crystals that originate from the freezing of super cooled water droplets. Cirrus generally occur in fair weather and point in the direction of air movement at their elevation. While some clouds tend to help cool the globe and negate the affects of global warming, thin cirrus clouds are heat trappers, holding in more heat than they reflect back into space.

www.theozonehole.com...

Contrails are making global warming WORSE, not better. The whiteness of clouds has NOTHING to do with how they reflect heat or infrared radiation. You can have two clouds that are just as white, but if one has more ice crystals in the formation than the other, you'll have a completely different reaction to the infrared. It's an easily verified principle if you bothered to research it.

Oh and I'm still waiting to be "owned" in the chemtrails/em thread.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Contrails are making global warming worse, the same as the clouds on Venus help perpetuate a runaway greenhouse effect. This is because high altitude clouds have an inulating effect. Chemtrails are different, they are much more reflective and instead of being a insulating type cloud the reflection is a higher facter than normal clouds.

Enough to overcome the insulating qualities, espcially if they are being sprayed at a much lower altitude, it ends up working like snow does in the winte, and reflects, more energy back than what is being absorbed.

Just my 2 cents...



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Here's the question that comes up every time in a chemtrail thread. How do you know what altitude they're spraying at? When you're looking up, it's incredibly difficult to judge altitude.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Holy moly ya gotta be kidding me. Of course you cannot dial in an altitude within a few thousand feet, but you tell when something is at half of a certain altitude.

Edit to add: You mean you cant tell the difference between maximum altitude of a Cessna 182 and a Boeing 747 from the ground?

[edit on 29-1-2006 by LoneGunMan]



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Of course I can. But can you tell the difference between a 747 flying at 25000 and a 747 flying at 30000? Or a 757 flying at 23000, and a 757 flying at 29000?



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Chemtrails are different, they are much more reflective and instead of being a insulating type cloud the reflection is a higher facter than normal clouds.

Enough to overcome the insulating qualities, ......


And you are basing this on what data? Have you a single shred of evidence that chemtrails exist? What is it that makes them "much more reflective"?



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Well Mr. LukeDuke, your so biased in the other direction, unless I get proof broadcast on the BBC you ill never believe it.

So why would I want to do that?



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Well Mr. LukeDuke, your so biased in the other direction, unless I get proof broadcast on the BBC you ill never believe it.

So why would I want to do that?


Don;t be so quick to believe all you read see on the BBC
Just a peer reviewed paper in Science or Nature will suffice
Or even a report from a recognised meteorological organisation



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Well Mr. LukeDuke, your so biased in the other direction, unless I get proof broadcast on the BBC you ill never believe it.

So why would I want to do that?


Don;t be so quick to believe all you read see on the BBC
Just a peer reviewed paper in Science or Nature will suffice
Or even a report from a recognised meteorological organisation


Kind of like a peer reviewed paper in geography when trying to proove the world was round?

Or how about a paper on astronomy when one ws trying to proove the earth is not the center of the universe?

Or maybe paper wriiten by the DEA that medical marijuana has no health benifits?



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Are you implying that all atmospheric scientists are "in on it?"



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan

Kind of like a peer reviewed paper in geography when trying to proove the world was round?

Or how about a paper on astronomy when one ws trying to proove the earth is not the center of the universe?

Err, that's just silly. There wasn't anything called science or scientific journals during those discoveries, though the discoverers did of course provide some supporting evidence. They didn't just say "The world is round, so there!" However it would be quite easy to prove both these statements now using scientific journals, or evidence from a multitude of different sources.



Or maybe paper wriiten by the DEA that medical marijuana has no health benifits?

Again, silly. Do the DEA write papers for scientific journals? However using scientific journals it would be quite easy to find supporting evidence that marijuana has certain health benifits. We are not asking for data from the DEA, just any evidence.

LGM, you made this clear statement earlier:



Chemtrails are different, they are much more reflective ....

Here's my challenge: I just want any verifiable evidence to support this statement. It doesn't have to have been in a peer reviewed journal, though that would obviously add some weight to it.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   
well, just 'cause i like crazy drunk rude priests...

(although i'm SURE you've already seen this, lol)...a meteorologist sees scalar patterns in clouds

[ext]I am a meteorologist at an affiliate in the Northwest who now uses scalar weapons signatures within the clouds to better my forecasting record. After closely watching high-resolution visible satellite imagery there is no question in my mind that these storms weren’t altered and guided to their final destinations. No doubt what so ever. I have come to a further conclusion; that the entire Earth’s weather had been digitized. There is not a flood, thunderstorm, cyclone, or drought that isn’t allowed to happen. Control over global weather is complete. This way it is much easier to control portions, hurricanes/storms, within this system.[/ext]

convinced, yet, HAHA!

what's that? not until i see it on the six o'clock news? lol.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 02:24 PM
link   
A meteorologist sees scalar patterns in the clouds.. Hmmm.

The website says:


No doubt Stevens will take some heat for going public here, and we've careful not to give his station affiliation, but it appears he's doing good basic science: making observations and trying to correlate them with known phenomena. When things don't fit, he's asking the obvious question.


Why are they hiding his station affiliation – to make it harder to find out about him? For what it’s worth, Scott Stevens left Channel 6 (KPVI -- NBC affiliate) at Pocatello, Idaho sometime after his claim that the “Japanese mafia” was responsible for Hurricane Katrina in an effort to get revenge for the nuclear attask on Hiroshima and Nagasaki sixty years ago.

Yeah, right..

And “good basic science” -- I don’t see any. Here’s what Stevens himself says:


I am a meteorologist at an affiliate in the Northwest who now uses scalar weapons signatures within the clouds to better my forecasting record.


I don’t know of any scientist who has even heard of “scalar weapons signatures”, and yet Mr. Stevens claims
(1) they exist;
(2) he has figured out how to measure them; and
(3) he is able to correlate his measurements with repeatable phenomena.

But he never tells us how he does this, or what anomalies his “scalar weapons signatures” explain better than any other routine and mundane explanation for the way the atmosphere behaves!

This is [b[]not “basic science”. This is a person telling us his opinions which aren’t backed by anything I can see and then expects us to just believe it without question.

Stevens goes on to say:


After closely watching high-resolution visible satellite imagery there is no question in my mind that these storms weren’t altered and guided to their final destinations. No doubt what so ever.


And what is it from the “high-resolution visible satellite imagery” that has convinced him with no doubts what so ever”? He never tells us.


I have come to a further conclusion; that the entire Earth’s weather had been digitized.


And, amazingly, Mr. Stevens avoids telling us how he arrived at such an astounding conclusion.

If this is “basic science”, I’m Dick Cheney’s grandmother.

[edit on 30-1-2006 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 03:01 PM
link   
he's not the only one noticing. shhhhhhh. we don't want 'them' to find out that 'we' know.

those are unnatural cloud formations. a meteorologist told me. are you a meteorologist? because 'scott stevens' is.

have you ever seen any of the types of clouds that he photographed? waves at ninetey degree angles to each other, square clouds, ...well, you did see the pictures didn't you? those are unnatural clouds, plain and simple.

oh lord, please protect us from the illuminati information gatekeeper sillys.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
well, just 'cause i like crazy drunk rude priests...

(although i'm SURE you've already seen this, lol)...a meteorologist sees scalar patterns in clouds



a) This thread is about "chemtrails" and not "scaler weapons signatures" or, err, "digitising the weather"

b) The guy in the link also doesn't provide any evidence to back up his assertions. You can link to a 1000 loons who also don't provide any evidence, however a 1000 x nothing is still nothing.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
a) This thread is about "chemtrails" and not "scaler weapons signatures" or, err, "digitising the weather"

b) The guy in the link also doesn't provide any evidence to back up his assertions. You can link to a 1000 loons who also don't provide any evidence, however a 1000 x nothing is still nothing.


well, put it this way. when you go see a movie, they beam light energy onto a 'screen'. in absence of the screen, the light is hardly effective at portaying the 'image'. so, unless you know that chemtrails are actually for something else, i will continue to theorise that they somehow work in tandem with haarp, as a 'screen for it's 'projections', or that they are seperate man-made phenomena associated with CONTROL.

1000 loons? who don't provide evidence? you SAW the PICTURES, right? in my universe, pictures are evidence, and 'expert testimony' is not instantly filed in the 'loony bin'.

but that's just me.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
those are unnatural cloud formations. a meteorologist told me. are you a meteorologist? because 'scott stevens' is.

Yes



have you ever seen any of the types of clouds that he photographed? waves at ninetey degree angles to each other, square clouds, ...well, you did see the pictures didn't you? those are unnatural clouds, plain and simple.

Are you being serious?
Clouds are water.....
Do you know what shapes they can form?
EVERY single shape known to man and then some. They are at the mercy of the wind. There are no "unnatural" cloud formations.
Well, except for maybe these
:





I love the chemtail crowd! It's absolutely hillarious seeing all these non-meteorologist talk on stuff they have no clue about. And the people who claim to get sick, LMAO!!




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join