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.

 

Report Chemtrails.

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   
One thing that needs to be done with this issue is some hardline statistical research. I have noticed that many of the pictures on rense.com and other places of "chemtrails" also appear to contain many normal contrails. My thinking is this ... we need to start documenting the actual dates, times, and atmospheric conditions of these occurrences.

The reasoning? I lived the majority of my life in the southern suburbs of Chicago with significant air traffic going into Midway airport flying above my house. I have noticed that some days there are very numerous and obvious contrails from planes that I have watched fly towards Midway. Under certain conditions (particularly humid summer days and cold clear fall days) these contrails can expand and sit in the atmosphere for up to an hour at a time, and often times the sky looks like many of those chemtrail pictures.

Now the flight paths are pretty much like a funnel ... planes bank from the SW and SE roughly over my area and fly north to Midway. I have never seen any contrails perpendicular to these however, and these are all contrails from planes that are within 15 min of approaching Midway.

These personal observations of my own lead me to a few conclusions. First of all, these contrails I see are NOT chemtrails ... I highly doubt there would be major dumping of chemicals, in one direction, so close to Midway (not even taking into account that the airport is rarely used for cargo flights ... see statistics here).

And yet these contrails look EXACTLY like the pictures on rense (without the perpendicular nature). Now seeing as these only appear at certain times of the year under certain weather conditions, and I know that they are formed from flights descending to Midway, I find it hard to justify these other "chemtrail" pictures as being anything other than normal contrails expanding under the right atmospheric conditions.

If people can do some serious research on these variables (time of year, day, temperature, humidity, dew point, wind direction, etc.) then maybe we will able to draw a correlation that shows chemtrails are nothing more than a product of contrails under certain variable conditions. Or that there is not correlation, which would suggest that chemtrails are entirely possible as an explanation. So for the OP, that site is great in intentions but falls short on the actual science end of things.

(Note: I currently live in central Illinois which sees very little air traffic. I have never seen more than one or two contrails in the entire time I've lived here. However, I have notified family back in the suburbs to take pictures if they see what I am describing above so that I can provide evidence of what I normally see there).




posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   
I had another thought...
depending on the sensitivity of the required atmospheric conditions...

airplane spotters should be able to notice similar planes taking off from the same airport- in the same direction, at the relitive same velocity, and attaining the same altitude ...,

and then document, how one leaves a contrail, and the other doesn't...

I would guess doing this at a commercial airport would be pointless...
but a military airport, or private airport might yield a few gems of data...

I bring this up, because i live in an area that has both a military airport, and a commercial...
and i often see instances where one plane leaves a contrail, and others dont, at (what looks to be) the same height, and area of sky.

We would also have to nail down differences in fuel types, and the resultant output...



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong

Not asking for blind faith here...
I am asking for faith in the integrity of reputable journalists, and their research...
Unless we see it with our own eyes, we are ALWAYS left to either believe the source, or not...

And i accept that you are vigiliant.... good for you


but in this day and age, I believe you have to start "believing" somewhere...
Or else, (extreme example here-) how do you know that you are even alive?
how do you know that this isn't the creation of a comatose mind?
how can you even trust your own eyes, when dreams can be as vivid?

I have watched Kevin Ogle for years (BTW- he is quite conservative) and am familiar with his reputation...
I choose to believe that he did his homework on this report...
I can understand now why you dont...
and I also accept that it is for valid reasons within your beliefs...

so in this affect, we have an impasse...
can we both agree to disagree for valid reasons within our beliefs?
and do you accept my sincere apology, so that we can part with respect, and perhaps even agree on other topics later?

- Lazarus


I would never refuse to accept an apology offered in sincerity, and of course I accept yours.

My problem with the story is that it offers no proof what so ever, simply the word of a journalist. The fact that he may be a conservative lends absolutely no credence to the story what so ever, and does not change my opinion of the story OR the story teller in the least. Again, I NEVER believe a source that tells a story and says I must believe it because the teller says it's true. The only thing I have faith in, besides the Bible (you see, I'm not TOTALLY without faith! But faith in god, not man...man is fallible...) is pure science. Facts. Figures. Tangible results sprung from the use of the scientific method. Concrete things I can see, touch & smell...for example, I can’t see my own farts, but I can sure smell them, therefore, I know they exist; therefore "I" exist.

No journalist is above reproach, and for one to believe so is pure folly. They all have their own agendas...it's just that some are better at hiding them than others.

Sorry, class coming in…need to start teaching again!



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Then i have to compliment you as well on your "cross the board" rejection of journalism integrity...

I would much rather that you be a person to reject all, than to listen and believe all...

and I also have firm faith in the existance of your farts...
so if given the opportunity... please dont ever try to prove it to me...



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
they documented spraying over 239 cities...
it was chemical weapons tests... (using a far less harmful agent- BUT STILL!)

Ah I see. Heck, they tested actual chemical weapons on troops on board ships to 'see what happens' too.


would it finally shut up the scoffers, that laugh at chemtrail CTists?

Lets not worry about people that laugh at ideas, they're having an irrational reaction within their own ignorance. My concerns, anyway, about chemtrails, isn't that 'the government wouldn't do it' (of course they would), but rather, is it actually happening. How do we distinguish between a contrail and a chemtrail, for example? Some people suggest that any contrails that are more or less long lived are chemtrails, I don't think that that is an acceptable criteria. Others have suggested that, when there is chemtrail activity, there will be unusual chemicals and compounds that filter down to the land below, but I haven't seen any rigorous tests of that.


the whole point of bringing it up, is that it is truly ignorant to laugh at or dismiss claims of present chemtrails due to lack of historical evidence- because suprise- we now have it!

I think AR's major issue here is, where are the reports, as mentioned below:

www.kfor.com...
"Among the hundreds and hundreds of tests that the army did, Stillwater, Oklahoma was targeted," said Cole, an expert on the Army's development of biological weapons. In some cities reports indicate Americans actually died because of the testing.
Government records show florescent particles of zinc cadmium sulfide were released in Stillwater in 1962.

Clearly, its not going to be a single report, so we're somewhat dependant upon the quality of research that Cole does, but I see no reason to discount him or to state that he is making it up.
But, again, cropdusters is one thing, secret devices attached to passenger jets, using the phenomena of contrails to cover up their spraying, is another.


Also, Leonard Cole (reporters primary source) is the well renowned and respected author. He has acheived acclaim, and uncontested status as a Bioterrorism expert.
Here is a bit on his creditials via a book review of his book on the anthrax attacks

Looks like Leonard Cole should get an account here.


but in this day and age, I believe you have to start "believing" somewhere...

Well, it would be warranted to question his research, rather than accept it out of hand. AR does have a point, there are lots of people out there that are incomptent, but get stuff published. But I think that the onus is on anyone claiming that there is a lie to at least show that its reasonable think that there is a lie, not merely say that the claims are incredible, and thus not worth beleiving.

airplane spotters should be able to notice similar planes taking off from the same airport- in the same direction, at the relitive same velocity, and attaining the same altitude ..., and then document, how one leaves a contrail, and the other doesn't...

Now this, this might be worth something. There are people out there that have made a hobby of recording what flights leave an airport and when. IF those people could be convinced that it'd be worth their while to record local airconditions, or even, given that they are probably airline enthusiasts and have access to such information, air conditions at the planes altitude, and then mark if there is a contrail, that might provide some data worth mining.
But simply noting, at random, that there is a contrail, isn't all that useful, imho. If it could be made more systematic, then it might prove useful.

I don't accept ANY source that asks me to simply have "faith" that they are telling me the truth,

Anything other than your own personal research has to be accepted with a certain degree of 'faith'. You are saying that Cole is fabricating the existence of these reports, and that the reporter that wrote the article either didn't look at Cole's reports, or that he is in cahoots with him, correct?

especially when it deals with something so unbelievable.

What is unbeleivable about this? I agree that its a big leap from the government using crop dusters to test materials in the atmosphere to secret Chemtrails from passenger jets. But the concept that the government would test hazardous chemicals without people's knowledge certainly isn't unbeleivable. Also, in the case mentioned in the article, the substance wasn't necessarily toxic, at least not without information about its concentration for a person on the ground. They said that the government wanted to know if, say, the soviets flew a jet over a city, and released a toxic cloud, would it show up on radar, or otherwise be detectable, so that they sprayed some chemicals. What is unbeleivable, on its face, about that?
It'd be reasonable for the government to experiment with that kind of technology, if for no other reason than to be able to thwart, detect, or respond to such an attack.


Affirmative Reaction
Why are they [gov documents] not included in the story?

Well waitaminute, why would they be? When a newspaper makes a report about a bill passing into law in congress, they don't attach the bill.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
Then i have to compliment you as well on your "cross the board" rejection of journalism integrity...

I would much rather that you be a person to reject all, than to listen and believe all...

and I also have firm faith in the existance of your farts...
so if given the opportunity... please dont ever try to prove it to me...






"Journalist integrity" is as much an oxymoron as "Jumbo Shrimp"...

My wife can attest to the fact that she has confirmed, through use of the scientific method, the existence of my farts...



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
I had another thought...
depending on the sensitivity of the required atmospheric conditions...

airplane spotters should be able to notice similar planes taking off from the same airport- in the same direction, at the relitive same velocity, and attaining the same altitude ...,

and then document, how one leaves a contrail, and the other doesn't...

I would guess doing this at a commercial airport would be pointless...
but a military airport, or private airport might yield a few gems of data...

I bring this up, because i live in an area that has both a military airport, and a commercial...
and i often see instances where one plane leaves a contrail, and others dont, at (what looks to be) the same height, and area of sky.

We would also have to nail down differences in fuel types, and the resultant output...


(Waving hand in the air) Twenty years flying C-130s for the USAF here. Over 5,000 hours in the air, 6 of 7 continents, thousands of airfields, tens of thousands of aircraft, never, NEVER, saw anything even CLOSE to what has been described...except contrails. Lots and lots of contrails.

Nothing special.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 03:23 PM
link   
For those of you who needs a scientific report on the existence of chemtrails well here is one, i hope it can inform.


www.chemtrailcentral.com...



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Anything other than your own personal research has to be accepted with a certain degree of 'faith'. You are saying that Cole is fabricating the existence of these reports, and that the reporter that wrote the article either didn't look at Cole's reports, or that he is in cahoots with him, correct?



Absolutely not! I believe properly documented research that entails the scientific method, especially that which I can reproduce myself. If you can show me something that I can grasp onto as a belief system, that is something you have proven to me. However, simply saying that "according to government reports" as this story does, that you wish me to believe something...well, sorry, I need to know what government reports, who wrote them, when were they written, where are they, can I look at them myself...there is none of that here what so ever.

I'm not saying anybody fabricated anything, just that there is no proof offered what so ever. The author simply demands we believe him because he "says it's so". Nope, sorry. I was born in the morning, but not THIS morning.



Well waitaminute, why would they be? When a newspaper makes a report about a bill passing into law in congress, they don't attach the bill.



No they don't, but I can go online and pull up that bill in its entirety myself and read it. Thus, I have PROOF it exists. Case in point, Dennis Kucinich's bill that was offered several years ago and is very often offered as proof that "chemtrails" exist is readily available online. Problem. Kucinich PULLED the reference to "chemtrails" before the bill was offered. Not much proof there, quite the opposite. But there is PROOF, tangible proof that the document exists.

That is something I can believe in....



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by selfless
For those of you who needs a scientific report on the existence of chemtrails well here is one, i hope it can inform.


www.chemtrailcentral.com...




Sorry...been debunked time and time again. There is NO scientific evidence here what so ever. It is simply a web site that BELIEVES in "chemtrails" and tries to get you to do so as well. It's not a credible source. It's sort of like going to "MoveOn.Org" for factual information about the Republican Party, or listening to Rush Limbaugh for information on the Democrats.

Can you say, "Agenda"?


[edit on 24-10-2006 by Affirmative Reaction]



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction
(Waving hand in the air) Twenty years flying C-130s for the USAF here. Over 5,000 hours in the air, 6 of 7 continents, thousands of airfields, tens of thousands of aircraft, never, NEVER, saw anything even CLOSE to what has been described...except contrails. Lots and lots of contrails.

Nothing special.


Just so we are specific here, and on the same page...
and even though it was your eyes, and not mine...
If you haven't seen any instances of contrails at same altitudes as planes with no contrails...
then that is some valid data...

and is also very comforting, considering at least it proves that chemtrail use isn't widespread enough to be seen by a pilot with over 5000hrs in the air. (but doesn't preclude the possibility totally)

But using your experience, please do keep your eyes open for:
military planes that are leaving heavy contrails at altitudes that other aircraft dont seem to leave contrails at...

and of course, if you see a cropduster over a population center... dont assume it is a harmless test...



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction

Originally posted by selfless
For those of you who needs a scientific report on the existence of chemtrails well here is one, i hope it can inform.


www.chemtrailcentral.com...




Sorry...been debunked time and time again. There is NO scientific evidence here what so ever. It is simply a web site that BELIEVES in "chemtrails" and tries to get you to do so as well. It's not a credible source. It's sort of like going to "MoveOn.Org" for factual information about the Republican Party, or listening to Rush Limbaugh for information on the Democrats.

Can you say, "Agenda"?


[edit on 24-10-2006 by Affirmative Reaction]


Sorry but you need to realise that this is just one source out of many, it's open for interpretation. there is no debunking involved in this.

I dunno why you say this? perhaps you need another source out of the 930.000 web sites that is dedicated to understanding chemtrails?

Oh im sure we are all just paranoid and you are the one who is completely right just because you declaire debunk.

What is debunking anyways? how can you debunk something that is open to interpretation? you can't... you simply make your own opinion about it but you can't just force a debunk word on others that's no different then trying to force your ideas on someone.

I do not force you to consider the possibility of chemtrails AR, you can think what you want but please don't try to ruin a source of information for others just because you declair it debunked.

By the way this thread is about reporting chemtrails and this site is an explaination on how to identify chemtrails and how to report them.

www.chemtrailcentral.com...



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong


Just so we are specific here, and on the same page...
and even though it was your eyes, and not mine...
If you haven't seen any instances of contrails at same altitudes as planes with no contrails...
then that is some valid data...

and is also very comforting, considering at least it proves that chemtrail use isn't widespread enough to be seen by a pilot with over 5000hrs in the air. (but doesn't preclude the possibility totally)

But using your experience, please do keep your eyes open for:
military planes that are leaving heavy contrails at altitudes that other aircraft dont seem to leave contrails at...

and of course, if you see a cropduster over a population center... dont assume it is a harmless test...


There is more to contrail formation than just altitude. Engine type, power setting, temperature inversion, wind shear, aircraft type...there are literally hundreds of variables. What you also have to remember is that aircraft, as they are vectored around each other, are assigned different altitudes. 1,000 feet is the norm in the vertical plain. While from the ground they may LOOK like they are co-altitude, they are not. Where you see them crossing, there is normally at least 1,000 feet of vertical separation, most often more. The atmospheric conditions between altitudes can be very different, especially in temperature.

Sadly, I am retired from the AF now, and flying a desk teaching school. I seldom get above 9,000 feet in my experimental...I like to breathe!!!



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction
Can you say, "Agenda"?
[edit on 24-10-2006 by Affirmative Reaction]


You dont' post on ats for like 1 year or more and then all of a suddent you start to post only in chemtrail threads and all you do is insult and redicule those who are open to the posssibility of chemtrails.



can YOU say agenda?



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by selfless
What is debunking anyways? how can you debunk something that is open to interpretation? you can't... you simply make your own opinion about it but you can't just force a debunk word on others that's no different then trying to force your ideas on someone.


That's just it ... you need facts to support a theory. Most websites that are in favor of this issue have little factual evidence (see my post above on this page) that can actually prove the images are of chemtrails and not just normal contrails.


Originally posted by selfless
I do not force you to consider the possibility of chemtrails AR, you can think what you want but please don't try to ruin a source of information for others just because you declair it debunked.

By the way this thread is about reporting chemtrails and this site is an explaination on how to identify chemtrails and how to report them.

www.chemtrailcentral.com...



As I stated above in my previous post, if there was hardline scientfic research done with atmospheric variables comparing chemtrails to normal contrails under those same conditions there might be more room for discussion. But all I've come across is pictures of what to me look like the contrails I see from planes flying into Midway airport tied together with army research on chemical weapons dispersed from aircraft.

Note I am not saying that chemtrails do not exist. But there needs to be more research done in a scientific manner before I am willing to believe random peoples' pictures and accounts. You don't take a picture of a ufo or a ghost on here and say right away "Wow that's definitive proof!!!" That is being awfully ignorant to all the other possibilities ... you have to at least entertain other ideas. It's no different with chemtrails. If that site forced you to input time of day, temperature, humidity, etc then at least there would be some science behind it (although even that is solely people's accounts which can easily be manipulated).



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fiverz
Note I am not saying that chemtrails do not exist. But there needs to be more research done in a scientific manner before I am willing to believe random peoples' pictures and accounts



www.google.ca...



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 04:20 AM
link   
Tell me, fellow people who believe chemtrails are simply contrails:

1) Why do these contrails form above citys on calm not so windy days, when on windy days there concentrated a little ways away from the city and then move in toward the city thus than, finally evaporating?

2) Why is it on certain days that these contrails don't appear in the sky while there is still a lot of air traffic?

3) Why do they rarely occur out away from citys? Don't say they're landing there, because they aren't.

It is so obvious they are dumping chemicals over populated/targeted areas.
I noticed this happen when I was not living in the city for some time. I had also saw a jet or plane appear right out of the blue and started spraying these contrails... or dare I say chemtrails?!

[edit on 25-10-2006 by 7Ayreon]



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by 7Ayreon
Tell me, fellow people who believe chemtrails are simply contrails:

1) Why do these contrails form above citys on calm not so windy days, when on windy days there concentrated a little ways away from the city and then move in toward the city thus than, finally evaporating?

2) Why is it on certain days that these contrails don't appear in the sky while there is still a lot of air traffic?

3) Why do they rarely occur out away from citys? Don't say they're landing there, because they aren't.

It is so obvious they are dumping chemicals over populated/targeted areas.

[edit on 25-10-2006 by 7Ayreon]


Off the top of my head:

1. Air traffic patterns change as the wind does.
2. Upper atmosphere temperatures.
3. How often do you spend away from citys? I lived most of my life away from the city, but always seemed to see them.


My question: With all the money that is supposedly put into these chemicals, why not make them so they can't be seen? They can make my deodorant invisible, why not the chemicals they are spraying?


Just thoughts to your questions, don't jump all over me as a "debunker" or a paid government dis-informer as usually happens to someone with a contrary thought.

edit for clarity

[edit on 10/25/2006 by Katolu]



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 07:25 AM
link   
It's clear that the people that are concerned are witnessing something in the skies they've never seen before (I'm assuming the thousands, or hundreds of thousands of people who are seeing something "for the first time" did not just step out of caves).

It seems that the people that are arguing against the existence of chemtrails keep referring to altitude and its part in the creation of condensation (and we're not necessarily saying that the government is spraying poisons intended to kill when we say chemtrails. chemicals covers a broad spectrum of material.).

Every single person that comes onto these threads arguing against this unusual spraying (which I will say right now is not water condensation) also keeps referring to photos of trails being interpreted in any number of ways. Yes, photos can be interpreted in any number of ways. Because of this, people studying this phenomenon have moved on to presenting more material outside of simple photographs. This includes material gathered from the ground after heavy spraying, government documentation, observed weather phenomena in relation to heavy chemtrail spraying, official responses from the FAA and other government sources, and a host of other evidence.

A link provided before shows an individual's study of spraying over his head. In a graph toward the bottom of the page entitled, "Persistence by Date for Identified and Unidentifiable", he clearly shows craft that were not identified in Flight Exploror, or which he could not identify as commercial aircraft, which he called "unidentified". His simple observation that the "unidentified" craft, which were flying overhead at the same time as the commercial aircraft, WERE THE ONLY CRAFT LEAVING THESE PERSISTENT STREAMS.

I've also submitted photos of chemtrails that stopped abruptly, with a clean break, and started again almost as if turned off, then back on by a switch - these things are not being disputed, but a cry of "the process by which condensation is formed" and the multiple interpretations that photos are prone to is repeated like some mantra. Do the research is all we're asking. You're not being sincere or thorough, and this only helps to undermine those arguing against this.

I've stated that if a program of this size and magnitude were going on over the entire planet, that it would need to be concealed. My argument in part is that the tanks containing these materials are concealed within the planes. Also, the materials can most likely be dispersed in a normal contrail, so there appears to be no difference.

Now this isn't me being paranoid and saying "It's there, but you just can't see it." Just follow the links provided in all of the ATS chemtrail threads ("Report Chemtrails", "NBC news report on chemtrails!!!", "Chemtrails awareness inscreased", "Chemtrail photos: ATS report", "Chemtrails brainstorm", "Chemtrails or not photos taken today", "Fake Contrails", "Are these chemtrails?", "Chemtrail Science?") and stop looking at photos. Most of the people arguing against this phenomenon keep referring to the photos and the process of condensation formation, but are not reading what the chemtrail people are dutifully resaerching. We realize that condensation exists, and that it can explain some of these streams, but not all of them.

Anti-chemtrailers cling to water condensation as if it were some magic wand that can make all of the evidence to the contrary, and even simple common sense vanish. It's similar to the argument that people can mistake manmade blimps, or military flares for ufo sightings. I would suggest that some people may have mistaken blimps for ufos, but to suggest that all ufo sightings are blimps is commensurate to saying, "Because blimps exist, ufos do not." It's faulty reasoning, and it's being stubbornly adhered to in the case of those doubting the unusual spraying going on over our heads.

If this case were being presented in court, there is so much credible witness testimony, evidence and government documentation available - recent documentation, including legislation approving a weather modification program - there would be a landslide victory in this case. I suggest that there already has been, but there are those left that are still clinging to water condensation, and unfailing faith in the absolute moral infalibility of our government. The preponderance of the evidence is overwhelming.



[edit on 25-10-2006 by OnTheDeck]

[edit on 25-10-2006 by OnTheDeck]



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   
excellent post `on the deck`

my sentiments exactly, i work in the aviation industry and all to well understand the process of contrail formation, however every time i have tried to present my evidence of non normal contrails i was ridiculed...it is a shame people are far too willing to debunk without looking at something other than photos,
for example there are lots of images taken from sat images and weather radar that shows loads of huge long lasting trails that were not showing up there before.

examples can be seen here:

www.flickr.com...

snoopyuk

[edit on 25-10-2006 by snoopyuk]




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join