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.

 

Anyone Know of a Good Antidote for Chemtrails?

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia
I think the questions that need answering first are:

Anyone know if "chemtrails" actually cause health problems, with conclusive evidence?

Anyone know what "chemtrails" are made of?

Anyone actually have proof of a "chemtrail"?

Not to be a downer, but you can't speculate a cure without even knowing what the problem is, or if there's even a problem in the first place.


I have seen proof of Chemtrails .... in East Texas Skies .... many many times ... Especially in the early 90's .... not here recently as much but still occasionally ... What are they made of .. I am not sure ... but they leave a CLOUD in the sky when they are dispersed ... that does not go away like a tail off of a Jet ... Either that or they are using two different types of Gases ... and one burns away clean and the other one doesn't burn away !!!




posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by selfless
magnito i think that some of the things you are saying is not healthy.
If you take time to think about not touching your face in public then that will be what causes you a disease.

Don't be paranoid about anything and simply don't think about it or else you will develope a disease called paranoya.




Oh Im not paranoid...Im just going off what some AMA doctors have said during flu season regarding touching your face. As far as paranoia...some arent paranoid enough, look at the country. It will become more apparent as we move along.
Go Democrats.....(sarcasm regarding change of power)



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   
What is that !?!?! LoL ... yeah ... Very soon we will all know a new world ...



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by greydawn
Magnito, how can I keep my ph above 6.8, for instance what kind of foods should I eat and what kind of water should I drink, thanks.


Quote:
Balancing Metabolism
Lipodystrophy, fatigue and diarrhea can all be related to metabolic imbalance and/or toxicity. Cellular metabolism is a complex orchestration of distinct, highly regulated reactions. These reactions dictate how food is broken down, burned for energy, used for structure, and how toxic by-products are excreted. How well this system works depends on environmental factors inside and outside the cell, including pH balance, hydration, availability of nutrients, oxidative stress level, and the activity of hormones such as insulin, cortisol and testosterone.
www.thebody.com...



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deus_Brandon
What is that !?!?! LoL ... yeah ... Very soon we will all know a new world ...


Question is, will it be a New World as in Old World Order (Barbaric Rome, Aztec style sacrafices) or are Aliens real and are about to cancel the technology contract with the military and dethrone our leaders and give it to the meek, kind, and responsible folks?



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by magnito_student

Originally posted by Deus_Brandon
What is that !?!?! LoL ... yeah ... Very soon we will all know a new world ...


Question is, will it be a New World as in Old World Order (Barbaric Rome, Aztec style sacrafices) or are Aliens real and are about to cancel the technology contract with the military and dethrone our leaders and give it to the meek, kind, and responsible folks?


It will be living hell for a bit ... Just long enough to put the richest people in Desperation ... and then there will be someone who comes forward and makes it all better ... he will almost be worshiped by some .... and be called Amazing by the others .... Anyways ... no matter it is upon us now .... To close to change anyones minds that havn't already been made ... ...

ANOTHER INTERESTING THREAD !!



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by magnito_student

Originally posted by selfless
magnito i think that some of the things you are saying is not healthy.
If you take time to think about not touching your face in public then that will be what causes you a disease.

Don't be paranoid about anything and simply don't think about it or else you will develope a disease called paranoya.



As far as paranoia...some arent paranoid enough



Are you suggesting that people should be more paranoid? wow that would be much worst then it already is...

Paranoya is not a healthy thing...

Im not trying to argue with you, i just don't agree with you on paranoya.

if you worry too much about something then it will happen in your mind.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Imperium Americana
Yeah, you would.


The nature of the opposing point of view...


See this is where you show your general ignorance on the subject. What do you think pilots are doing enroute?


And you think they actually fly the planes more than a few % of the time in the air? They pretty much do whatever they like as there will be a warning if something noteworthy happens...


While there are times both pilots are “head down” there is still plenty of time spent scanning.
Every time ATC gives a traffic alert or TCAS chirps eyes scan.


Scanning for what, when and for what reason? The sky is completely empty ,beside the chem trails that is, and there is just nothing to look at as far as i understand...


And yes this is a physics matter. Since you need a refresher I suggest playing around with this contrail simulator, it will help you understand the basics.


I have looked at that simulator before and what i noted was the contrails lasting 20-30 seconds if one can take that time to mean anything at all. I tried to find more specific data that would suggest the planes size has any bearing on the relative length or time duration but yes... As far as i can tell that applet shows that contrails are not long lasting but since i am here ( i think i went overboard with the earlier post as i do on occasion) to learn feel free to point out what i am missing here...


Once you have got that under control I suggest you do some more research.


Contrary to what you may think i have in fact spent some time reading about this and that was one of the many official sites i visited... Contrary to what is suggested on that page


One unique type of cloud is manmade. Contrails occur when exhaust from jet engines condenses. A narrow line of moisture makes up the contrail. Winds eventually dissipate it; in some instances conditions permit the contrail to survive for many minutes (their straight lines do distort). Contrails are believed to affect weather by raising both short and long-term temperatures (one estimate is for about a third of a degree per decade). Here is a MODIS image taken over the southeast U.S. on January 29, 2004 showing a large number of contrails (at times more than 2000 planes are over the North American continent at any one time):

rst.gsfc.nasa.gov...



Contrail formation typically occurs in the upper Troposphere between nine and twelve kilometers is height with temperatures ranging between -35ƒC and -55ƒC (Jensen e. al. 1998, Schrader 1997). Most contrails last on the order of seconds to a few minutes and only a small minority will last for hours as in the contrails photographed (Jensen et. al. 1998). A newly formed contrail will be approximately one kilometer wide and one-half a kilometer tall. As a contrail evolves, it grows greatly in the horizontal plane sometimes extending over 20 kilometers in width (Spinhirne et al. 1998). Examples of this horizontal evolution is shown in the photograph. Contrails can also be 100ís of kilometers long given the right atmospheric conditions and a plane on a steady course.

Long lasting contrails like the ones observed usually occur in parts of the sky that have preexisting patches of cirrus clouds. Since the cirrus clouds are formed of ice crystals like the contrails, cirrus clouds in a region of the sky suggests supersaturation with respect to ice and sufficient heterogeneous nuclei for ice crystals to form (Jenson et al. 1998). The GOES-8 satellite photographs, Figure 3 and Figure 4, taken at approximately at the same time as the contrails were present shows significant cirrus clouds around the Norman area providing a condition necessary for contrail persistence.

students.ou.edu...



The condensation trails (contrails) that form in the wake of high-flying jets are another interesting example. These cylindrical clouds have variable lifetimes and water concentrations depending on environmental conditions. In some cases the contrails can persist for many minutes. But they do slowly diffuse, much like the smoke plume emitted by an acrobatic aircraft.

www.sciam.com...


So what should one believe? Commercial aircraft normally fly at altitudes somewhere between 9 and 12 km altitude ( enter that on the applet) with temperates in the -40 -50 degrees being the norm and the relativity humidity at ground rarely going above 60 -70%... I'm just not sure how they can tell us that physics ( and perfectly regular jet fuel mixtures) can give us contrails that last good parts of entire days in conditions where there is not even a cloud ( indicating high humidity) in sight.... The links i provided back all this up as far as i can tell.


LOL you are giving me a lecture on informal fallacies?


Well that was not the intent and apparently a good choice.



LOL Your whole “chem trails” theory is nothing more than Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc with a touch of Ad Ignorantiam. And FYI if anything you would accuse me of Ad Verecundiam, not Ad Populum.


Actually the conclusion did not come before the evidence and it's certainly not 'my theory' as much as it's my 'defense' ( seeking answers really) of other people's theories... I reckon your only appealing to the authorities you like; much the same as i am doing.
Appealing to the general public is probably something that would better serve your cause as there is more agreement there than in the physical sciences.



Frankly the history of rogue waves is irrelevant to the subject at hand, but since you brought it up…might I remind you that they were well known to mariners for generations.


So are you telling me that not one of the major maritime institutions that denied these things were happening on any regular ( dozens of times a year on most oceans) were run by a person with maritime experience? It may have been a well known 'myth' by it was most certainly not accepted by the majority of mariners consider how few would have survived it in ancient and even modern times. This is certainly not the best way for me to show how even people involved in a certain field can not realise a known contradiction but it's not the worse either as some reading on it would show you.


One the other hand “chem trails” are ridiculed not just by scientists but by aviators themselves. Maybe you could come up with another analogy.


Mariners also ridiculed the 'freak wave' idea and it actually killed some of them so until 'chem trails' start killing aviators are we to expect them to present themselves for ridicule? I could come up with a few dozen other analogies but this one is working well enough for now.


Once again… irrelevant. Pilots tend to be a dedicated profession.


I just do not understand how you can argue that being dedicated to a specific field of endeavour or investigation/understanding makes perception of it's contradictions or untruths so perfectly obvious? Where does the historic record indicate that this is the historic norm? People , however dedicated or well informed, almost always seek to explain what they observe by means of the knowledge they already have and i can think of at least a half dozen reason why a pilot could assume away a persistent contrails as nothing out of the ordinary. That being said once again we must first find out how many civil flights and or pilots are in fact involved before we can shoot down what we observe based on what the majority of pilots ( who are not in fact involved) may or may not belief. Consensus can not and does not determine reality as function of the relative size of the majority opinion however you look at it.


Abnormalities are always noted, failure to develop this ability is not a “healthy” thing in aviation.


We have very few fields of science and engineering where there are no contradictions or abnormalities that are reasoned away or simply excluded from accounting if they do not ( and sometimes even if they do as the medical industry proves every day) impact the operation or the operator on a significant scale. We know toxic emissions from industry harms us yet how many industrial leaders or politicians are made to pay for their oversight over these far more obvious crimes?


You have repeatedly shown in this thread that you have no knowledge of aviation, or if you prefer a very minimal knowledge. In light of this, I guess I should not be surprised by comments, such as the one above.


Well since it's your opinion you can say whatever you like! I think it's obvious you have a minimal knowledge of history, the workings of the science establishment and government institutions ( i am sure the list will grow as this conversation continues) so we all have our perceived flaws in the eyes of others; the truth of those opinions being decided by others based on their own unique , or maybe not so much, shortcomings.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Continued


You might be tempted to declare the previous statement an Ad Hominem fallacy, but I have never called your character, actions, or circumstances into question. I do however; feel no compunction “calling out” you general lack of knowledge of aviation.


Since i have no formal degree or training in the aviation industry or field i am largely dependent on books and online material so i may obviously be entirely wrong considering the apparent reality that 'truth' ( meteorological, physics etc)only comes from those in the industry or from those who write the text books for them! We should all possibly just give up thinking for ourselves and accept reality as determined by consensus, and current text books, as there is no more to learn and no contradictions to address.!


LOL Again you show that, while you know the terms involved in informal fallacies, you do not truly understand the concept of the terms.


I know a few general terms but i am not interested in debate ( defense or attack of a specific premise) in the formal, very restrictive, sense as should be obvious by my absence on the debate forum... Had i known there there was a specific formal fallacy involved i might have checked and stated it in such terms. Your knowledge in this area might very well force me to go brush up on what i never needed before...


Ad Verecundiam is an appeal to a illegitimate authority. I appealed to legitimate authorities: Pilots.


It assume that pilots had formal 'contrail' course or general physics lesson on the science involved. Since contrail formation is to this very day incredibly hard to predict by pure numerical methods in a reasonably wide range ( as far as i can tell anyways) of atmospheric conditions i hardly think appealing to your average pilot it appealing to legitimate authorities on the physics that is really behind contrails. Your appeal to pilots is based on at least a few assumptions that have imo no well established basis in fact:

1. Pilots spend more than a few percent of their flight time peering out of the cockpit windows. Well as far as my knowledge goes a commercial passenger plane flying in European and North American skies flies itself for 90-95% of the physical distance involved with the pilots free to do just about whatever they like as long as one of them stays within the cockpit in the sense that he can observe warning lights or hear audio cues....

2.Pilots regularly spend time observing contrail formation and dissipation and are well versed in the physics involved full well knowing what can and what can not happen under specific flight conditions. As any look at contrail formation 'science' will tell you it's not that simple and at best a pilot might be used to observing a certain general type of contrail under certain flight conditions; there are a wide range of exceptions at normal commercial altitudes.

3. Pilots would find any persistent long term deviation from a established previous contrail 'norms' ( which were always hard to predict under some conditions) odd enough to warrant formal investigation and questions to their superiors which might then become a issue in aviation circles. I think it can easily be established that criminal activity in very many industries are so entrenched that serious discussion on operational level ( not management) does not even take place anymore. Think of the peak oil scam ( entire countries are still practically floating on cheap oil ) which certainly impacts far more lives than does any mostly non toxic chem trails...

4. Pilots would talk between themselves and some of this discussions ( How many pilots spent time on the Internet in 1997?) would take place on public forums where average citizens might pick up on the general tone. As above i think those who speak up about certain issues in most industries are simply sidelined or fired, or more generally learn to keep their mouths firmly shut, and the 'issue' does not normally get much media attention anyways considering how most media in at least the USA are in industrial hands.

5. Pilots were not selected ( profiling and secrecy clauses; renewed contracts or whatever carrot and stick combination) specifically because they could or would 'do as they were told' by superiors. As information availability grows ( Reinhardt had a file and card system on each and every German citizen back in the 30's with different coloured tags for who to arrest/silence in which kind of national emergency) so does the ease with which people can be profiled for sensitive jobs. Does someone who believe his doing what's best for his country risk his life , and breach contract, simply to acknowledge that a certain thing is happening? I think history speaks volumes as to what sort of information can be withheld at will from the general public.

6. Pilots are in fact involved in anything but observation of unmanned or military ( or some combination) planes laying trails... At least one investigation ( ) revealed that the flights leaving the very persistent trails did not appear to be commercial. People in uniform ( if any) at subject to a whole host of agreements and laws which could relatively easily ensure that no critical information leaked out.

Those are a few assumptions, related to who pilots these flights, that readily came to mind and it does not even include all the assumption made as to how such a 'secret' large scale operation could be kept out of the popular press.


If there is a degree of debate among experts (in this case pilots) then my argument would constitute an Ad Verecundiam fallacy. Unfortunately for you, there is no debate, about “chem trails” in the aviation community.


Actually there is very little debate in the electrical engineering community, related to the source charge problem, but that certainly does not make the problem any less significant. I could make you a very long list of contradictions relatively well known in the science community that lay people or even interested parties have absolutely no idea about. I think my original point is largely accurate as you are assuming a lack of credibility based on the relatively absence of discussion in a specific community. Is objective reality normally established by consensus or is it imposed on most by a very small minority even if specific fields of science?


Careful studies eh, care to show us your notes.


I posted a link to a report but i should have noted that i consider it quite detailed while you may not..

www.chemtrailcentral.com...


I would have some very serious questions to ask. Your location is listed as South Africa. I understand that your actual location may/may not be in the US, but how do you validate your data. You do realize that all ATC data you might see on your computer is delayed per FAA rules. If you look up, in US airspace, and see a aircraft & contrail, then run to your computer to check the ID on the fight; you will not see the flight directly over your position. You have to check around 2-5 min back on the route. This is relatively easy to do with the proper software and a quick check of the flight’s route.


Well validation i can not do as such and this will just come down to who we choose to believe in the end as the data is so conflicting.


you were referring to my position on the logistical strain an operation such as this would entail, as a straw man, you are wrong. Pointing out the details of a nation wide spraying operation, is not a distortion. By using conservative numbers I was, in fact, going out of my way to keep from distorting your position. Ignoring or spinning my point as a straw man, does not invalidate the logic in it.


Well as far as i can tell you are suggesting that such a operation would be impossible,or very hard to hide, from public scrutiny due to the scale of it and or it's implications on average people. Personal i think this appeal is completely baseless as we have such things as foreign owned federal reserve banks who print money from thin air and then charge federal and national governments interest on it. I think it's far easier to investigate that issue ( it's been going on so many hundreds of years) and even thought so many knows about it the scam is still being run affecting the lives of billions and leading to the deaths of tens of millions each year due to starvation and preventable disease alone. Compared to such a relatively well know scam ( in certain circles anyways) chem trails is very knew and would by comparison be easily hidden by the falsification of a relatively badly understood part of the atmospheric sciences. I could make a very very long list as to how many criminal schemes are in operation at this time that would easily dwarf any resource required to spray a few added chemicals into our skies...



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Continued


And once again you are guilty of Petitio Principii. You have yet to quantitatively and qualitatively issue a convincing logical argument supporting “chem trails”.


Thousands of phone calls and letters to government officials by citizens who demand a explanation for the trails that they did not apparently think were the same they used to see.


Federal bureaucracies have gotten thousands of phone calls, e-mails and letters in recent years from people demanding to know what is being sprayed and why. Some of the missives are threatening.

www.usatoday.com...


And that was back in 2001 when this was still a relative non-issue on the Internet. What inspired all these thousands ( we will have to take their word it's only thousands knowing full well that for everyone who moans tens of thousands observe and worry) of people to suddenly freak out demand answers from government officials on this apparent 'impossibility'? That is surely a good many people's observations to just wish away considering how this is something in our skies that can readily be observed by most unlike UFOs and things that never get caught on camera...


Again with the Petitio Principii. Just because you fail to see the logic of why the logistics of such an operation would not be noticed does not invalidate the point.


What i said with some clarify is that the scale of the logistics have absolutely nothing to do with how well hidden such a project could stay if it were in fact in their interest to keep it from general view and or understand.


It seems just about every meager rebuttal you attempt, involves you telling someone they are blind. It really is a silly tactic the first time you did it and repeating it does not, somehow, endure yourself to anyone. Ridicule does not suite you.


The historic record speaks volumes about how obvious certain things were long before the people or science/government establishments admitted the observed reality. Hundreds of thousands of people have observed this and you dismissal of what their seeing based on appeals to 'pilots' ( as some kind of authority on atmospheric physics) and other establishment figures just indicates that you apparently have no working understanding of the power structures of the world or their general historic record. I am NOT ridiculing the scientist and other officials/pilots who deny this as that would be based on the assumption that they are really ignorant of reality and not lying on purpose. I have long ago given up on the notion that the truth can be suppressed by just enforcing ignorance while allowing those who wish to speak the truth. The media is very much controlled and true opposing views ( NOT the Democratic vs republican type arguments based on a agreed assumed reality) are simply not allowed very often or at all. There is absolutely no discernible readily supported science behind human inspired GW yet the media of the world keeps giving air time almost exclusively to those who support the lie; how does that happen by shear coincidence?


Ok? What does this have to do with “chem trails” and your argument?


The killing of hundreds of thousands by aerial bombardment without declaration of war or admitting to the fact at the time shows quite clearly that relatively big secrets can be kept even if it involves thousands of servicemen, planes, millions of tons worth of logistics. When did you find out about the Loas bombings as i only did so a few years ago? When were the documents declassified or how did we become aware of it? What about the fact that this massive project were ever even undertaken? What about the fake second gulf of Tonkin incident that led to so many deaths? What about the fact that Hitler's empire were built up with western money and the fact that they never seriously tried to stop them when they had such opportunity for most of the late thirties? If one starts looking at the history behind what makes it into school text books one quickly finds that to change it so completely took a conspiracy stretching over dozens of generations . I can thus understand your POV based on what physics might allow for or not but not the dismissal of it because the scale dwarfs what your your understanding of current events and history allows for.


If anything it would disprove your contentions. Why you ask? Well you know about it! The very fact you know anything about the raids over Laos shows that even an operation a fraction of the size of the one you are proposing, could not escape scrutiny. You know about it because someone credible leaked the info.


The Laos bombings happened decades ago and we would have to go look when and how it leaked out before coming to the conclusion that one conspiracy( for undetermined reasons as i have not looked into it) becoming obvious to a few who actually study as many aspects of the historic record as they can... How many are in fact aware of that conspiracy?


returned to the Pentagon, but later called and asked if I would meet him that night at a residential address in Alexandria, Va., and would I please bring my affidavits. I arrived at the appointed hour and was introduced to a tall and distinguished gentleman identified as Secretary of the Air Force Robert C. Seamans Jr. When I showed the secretary the affidavits, he also reflected shock.

A few days later, it was announced that we were indeed bombing in Laos, but that for security reasons, this knowledge had been withheld from the civilian secretaries of the Air Force, Navy and Army. At the direct order from the White House to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, false coordinates were reported to the secretaries for the daily and nightly bombing runs over Laos and Cambodia. The justification, then as now, was that national security required that the bombing raids not be disclosed to the American people.

www.commondreams.org...



During the Vietnam war between the United States of America and Vietnam, Laos was caught in the middle. That unprecidented war drew the Soviet Union (Russia), China, Thailand and many other countries into the horrible conflicts.

The CIA without any support of the American people created a secret war in Laos by recruiting the hill tribe people in the eastern part of Laos to fight the Communist North Vietnamese troops in Laos. When it was all over, the U.S had turned a tiny Laos into a second moon face of the earth.

The U.S. bombing of Laos was unprecedented. The U.S. Air Force carried out 580,000 missions against the country. That breaks down to about one planeload of bombs dropped every eight minutes, 24 hours a day, for nine years. According to the experts, the U.S. dropped over 2 million tonnes of bombs in Laos, more than all of the bombs dropped during the World War II.

www.savannanet.com...



It didn't take long to find one. Savannakhet is the most heavily bombed province in one of the most heavily bombed countries in the history of warfare. About 150 yards into the jungle, the boys spotted an unexploded bomblet from a U.S. cluster bomb dropped here during the Vietnam War

Cluster bombs were the weapon of choice. They could penetrate the jungle canopy and cover several football fields' worth of ground. The bombing runs were designed to wipe out convoys or enemy troops beneath the trees. The United States dropped 80 million cluster bomblets on Laos. Ten percent to 30% did not explode, leaving 8 million to 24 million scattered across the country; 15 of Laos' 18 provinces are contaminated with UXO. In the northern Xiangkhoang province, grazing water buffalo have eaten dud submunitions and exploded.

www.usatoday.com...



Excusing your Appeal to Ridicule, how do you know anything about my education or my knowledge of history?


Based on the fact that you are appealing to a historic record that clearly shows how massive conspiracies can be maintained for generations i assumed that you did not know much about history as the only other possibility is a deliberate argument based on the assumed ignorance of others.


Frankly this reply was at best patronizing; at worst insulting. You would serve your position better by avoiding tantrums such at this.


Well it's only patronizing if you know whats going on and that does not seem to be the case.


All that aside, you mention remote control. Humm so instead of proving how the pilot roster could be accommodating, to your position, you now shift to remote control.


I never suggested that this was a commercial operation ( i never thought it was) but tried to explain how that might be possible under certain conditions. I never assumed these planes were in fact manned as once again there is IMO not clear evidence that the operation in the USA is largely carried out by commercial aircraft. Since i can readily imagine how this could be possible with commercial aircraft and pilots i tried to cover that possibility as well.


suppose that when I point out that massive amounts of “ground controllers” would still be needed (given the scale of the operation), you would simply state that they were AI controlled.


If you can build cars and complex machinery without any hands on human intervention i hardly consider flight scheduling and control by AI ( with few operators waiting for flashing lights) impossible or even unlikely. The easiest most trouble free way of keeping a secret is to involve very few or very many.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Sigh……..


I realise the lack of technical terms might not be to your liking but every ATC in the world could probably attest to seeing planes on his radar with no identification ( if such data even reaches their screens considering how all of those data comes from a central computer in office probably regulated by the FAA) or flight plan but a marker indicating it's military nature...


What stories? The fact that there are so few means that it is not happening.


Never believe anything till it's officially denied? Imo just one voice or proof can show that not all ducks are in fact white. Objective reality cares nothing for consensus or how many people were involved in uncovering it for it is independent of perception.


Or, like yourself, when confronted with experts and a massive body of evidence disproving your position; you persist in your position.


I have good evidence to believe that these 'experts' have changed their minds over the last ten years and that is not at all strange or even unexpected considering the fact that experts do change their minds on a regular basis. To suggest that some kind of consensus determines reality is very, very bad reasoning if the word reasoning is to be used at all in description of such mental processes. I have no vested interest in this specific issue but i do at this time still believe that we are not getting anywhere near the truth when it comes to what is happening in our skies; this is but a small subset on which i have spent relatively little energy. I could be wrong about the extent or the fact that it's not so unexpected but at the very least we should determine why this was not the norm decades ago.


Sort of a plug your fingers in your ears and yell “I hear you point and I am ignoring it!”


If you look at my posting habits i think you will find that i do not ignore evidence in reaching my forever temporary conclusions ( my mind is not made up about very many things; a moving train can kill people etc) that are only used while they on the whole lend me some predictive powers.


Someone help me here. Is this an Appeal to Tradition or an Appeal to Common Practice. I am leaning towards Tradition, but I can not decide.


I am not appealing to traditional history or to the common interpretation of it or for that matter to anything traditional or common.


LOL Petitio Principii! You believe in it, so therefore it is true. Sorry, but that is just not how it works….no matter how bad you want it too.


Agreed and is a good summary of what i intended to say in the first place.


And the piece de resistance….a rambling Red Herring.


Did you read much or any of the material provided or are you ignoring the links and just making it know that you do not understand the relationship between my conclusion and the topic at hand? I always find it striking when people assume no connection instead of asking what their missing as i tend to when not sure what the intent of a given paragraph were...


BTW Found some pic of WWII contrails for ya!


And went to some trouble as well!


Pic 1
Page with info on Pic 1
Check out the amount of cloud cover created by the contrails!


Cloud cover can only be created if the conditions are right which normally means there are already some cloud cover. In the picture it's clear that all the planes leaving contrails are still visible and that there are already cloud cover at lower altitudes indicative of high relative high humidty on the day and that general altitude. These contrails look like contrails should.


In addition to the Emden mission, Waltz also studied aircraft positions and weather reports for several other missions. Using the microfiche records of the 390th combat missions available at the museum he determined that this mission was the only one in which the weather conditions and the formations were perfect for generating the contrails seen in the photograph.
Here is his report of these studies made in 1994, as follows:

www.390th.org...



The 390th participated in 301 operational missions dropping over 19,000 tons of bombs. 179 of its aircraft were lost, with 147 missing in action and 32 due to other causes. The Group's accomplishments show a total of 378 enemy aircraft destroyed, 78 probably destroyed, and 97 damaged. The Group was awarded two Presidential Unit Citations, six Battle Streamers and many commendations. During its combat history the Group's bombing accuracy was reported as the best in the 8th Air Force and its aircraft losses were the lowest per mission flown/bombs dropped.

www.390th.org...


So based on what i think he is saying here this is just more evidence as to how rare these relatively persistent ( remember as far as i am concerned they can persist for 'many minutes' on rare occasions) contrails are but that the norm used to be mere seconds with a few dozen seconds being as long as it will last under almost all atmospheric conditions.


Check this pic out! The center flights have contrails and the outer ones do not. I bet the center flights are the sprayer! LOL
Pic 2


I would say that indicates exactly what the graphs tell us; it is relatively easy to say when they will not occur but very hard to be sure when they will 'for sure'.


More evidence of WWII Spraying!!! Look at the top right of the photo. You can see a “trail” even though the subject aircraft are leaving none! Also look at the beginning of a grid at the bottom left of the pic!!
I also found a great resource for Contrails!
www.astro.ku.dk...


I have looked at all these pictures and in non of them do i see trails without aircraft still in the picture. Considering the speed of the bombers and fighters contrails lasting 'many minutes' (which we know are naturally possible on some occasions) might in fact cover the sky as far as the eye can see.. That most certainly did not seem to be the norm at all.

(And i obviously reserve the right to admit gross mistakes on my side when you point them out or when discover them myself. Good luck as i have been pretty 'lucky' so far.
)
Stellar



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Cloud cover can only be created if the conditions are right which normally means there are already some cloud cover.


What a fine example of circular logic.




posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by StellarX
Cloud cover can only be created if the conditions are right which normally means there are already some cloud cover.


What a fine example of circular logic.



I am pretty sure i meant to say relatively persistent contrail can only form when there are already some cloud formation taking place...


Long lasting contrails like the ones observed usually occur in parts of the sky that have preexisting patches of cirrus clouds. Since the cirrus clouds are formed of ice crystals like the contrails, cirrus clouds in a region of the sky suggests supersaturation with respect to ice and sufficient heterogeneous nuclei for ice crystals to form (Jenson et al. 1998). The GOES-8 satellite photographs, Figure 3 and Figure 4, taken at approximately at the same time as the contrails were present shows significant cirrus clouds around the Norman area providing a condition necessary for contrail persistence.

students.ou.edu...


I did post this bit of information in support of my arguments above so i think my correction should be acceptable?

Is that really the best you could do considering the twenty thousand odd words i employed there?

Shameless is what you are and i wish you could find a better way to spend your time .

Stellar



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 11:46 PM
link   


Scanning for what, when and for what reason? The sky is completely empty ,beside the chem trails that is, and there is just nothing to look at as far as i understand...

Pilots are constantly monitoring the plane, or scanning for other aircraft. Also, when on dense airroutes you really have to watch yourself to make sure you aren't on a collision course with another plane.

Although I don't fly Boeing 747's. I have taken control and flown light aircraft into huge airshows. Light aircraft don't usually have TCAS, so you REALLY need to watch where you are.

Watch this: www.flightlevel350.com...

Now all you need is another 747 to be on a collision course, then it's possible for another Uberlingen to happen. Around 50 school gifted children died in that accident. To not scan for other plane sis just plain stupid.



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by StellarX
Cloud cover can only be created if the conditions are right which normally means there are already some cloud cover.


What a fine example of circular logic.



I am pretty sure i meant to say relatively persistent contrail can only form when there are already some cloud formation taking place...


Long lasting contrails like the ones observed usually occur in parts of the sky that have preexisting patches of cirrus clouds. Since the cirrus clouds are formed of ice crystals like the contrails, cirrus clouds in a region of the sky suggests supersaturation with respect to ice and sufficient heterogeneous nuclei for ice crystals to form (Jenson et al. 1998). The GOES-8 satellite photographs, Figure 3 and Figure 4, taken at approximately at the same time as the contrails were present shows significant cirrus clouds around the Norman area providing a condition necessary for contrail persistence.

students.ou.edu...


I did post this bit of information in support of my arguments above so i think my correction should be acceptable?

Is that really the best you could do considering the twenty thousand odd words i employed there?

Shameless is what you are and i wish you could find a better way to spend your time .

Stellar




Check out this google search for the term: subvisual cirrus.

Subvisual meaning they can't be seen from the ground.

I'm glad you are at least acknowledging the existence and importance of supersaturation with respect to ice.

Have you looked at this thread yet?



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Check out this google search for the term: subvisual cirrus.

Subvisual meaning they can't be seen from the ground.


Which basically means that the RH is low enough that extensive cirrus cover is not forming; right?


I'm glad you are at least acknowledging the existence and importance of supersaturation with respect to ice.


While it may not seem so to you i am actually trying to discover the truth here and i i do not need chem trails to be 'real' to make my world go on turning. That being said i have done some reading and i have found a few scientific papers that refer to natural contrails lasting 'many minutes' and i would like someone to explain to me how this contradiction can exist so openly without comment. Contrails lasting hours is most certainly not the norm as far as i can tell to say nothing about the extent of the coverage these days.


Have you looked at this thread yet?


I just read that thread ( not all the links thought) and i did not see anything i have not seen in another form&context before... I have provided numerous pictures that have simply no natural explanation and until someone can propose how those forces can be brought to bear i wont consider them informed enough to comment on contrails or much related to atmospheric conditions.

Stellar



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   
For those guys with their B17 pics...How can you tell how long the trails are lasting from a picture? When you've got dozens of planes flying in formation you're gonna get a lot of contrails, it doesn't prove that contrails last for hours.

Yes contrails under the right conditions can last for a while, but those conditions are rare. So why would those rare conditions suddenly become common? If it's not chemtrails (i hate that term but...) then something in our atmosphere has changed.
And don't say traffic increase, that has happened too steadily to create a sudden increase in contrails.

What I don't understand is the head in the sand attitude some ppl have twds chemtrails. We all know the military is always experimenting with something, and we know they claim to want to own the weather. So why is it such a stretch to think that the military is testing some kind of either weather manipulation, or testing some kind of carrier system for chemical weapons.

You all want to focus on the few nuts who claim they're poisoning us, just like the 9-11 folks who focus on the bizarre fringe theories to argue for the official version.

Most of us don't think it's a 'sinister' (why is that word used so much by chem de-bunkers hmmm) plot. Just that we know it's happening (I've witnessed it first hand) and would like to know what they're up to. Normal human curiosity, not paranoia.



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   
This is how I see it from now on:

Stop wasting time arguing with paid agents of the system, whose job is to tie us down or hold us down.

We have to stop the spraying since not doing that is gonna destroy us in time or when they do decide to dump the pathogens on us.

How to do it?

Well taxpayers have a right to know what they spend their money on.

I recommend a world-wide network of plane spotters with dates, times, descriptions, photo's and videos...

A database be built up so that in time someone can approach officials to ask what these planes are doing.

Somebody has to answer and divided they will continue to cut us down and do a 'HOWARD' on us all.



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 11:31 PM
link   

For those guys with their B17 pics...How can you tell how long the trails are lasting from a picture? When you've got dozens of planes flying in formation you're gonna get a lot of contrails, it doesn't prove that contrails last for hours.

They're definatly longer than the so called '5 second normal contrails' .




Yes contrails under the right conditions can last for a while, but those conditions are rare. So why would those rare conditions suddenly become common? If it's not chemtrails (i hate that term but...) then something in our atmosphere has changed.
And don't say traffic increase, that has happened too steadily to create a sudden increase in contrails.

, but I still think increases traffic over the same routes makes it look like they're thicker.



You all want to focus on the few nuts who claim they're poisoning us, just like the 9-11 folks who focus on the bizarre fringe theories to argue for the official version.

That's because most of the people who post and argue about chemtrails are these 'few nuts', whomever they may be




Stop wasting time arguing with paid agents of the system, whose job is to tie us down or hold us down.

Yeah man, it's 75$ an hour! I recommend becoming a paid debunker.




I recommend a world-wide network of plane spotters with dates, times, descriptions, photo's and videos...

Ok ok, so waste hundreds of peoples time photographing abnormally long contrails? Correct? That will not prove anything, and two, it will be going to a FALSE cause taking people away from the real issue.

You call me a 'paid debunker' because I say [s]some[/s]lots of your arguement is incorrect.

How about getting real, rock solid facts which nobody can prove wrong. Once that happens then give it to the general public.

Now, is anyone going to tell me WhyContrails can't persist?

[edit on 19-11-2006 by PisTonZOR]



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   
I started this thread to find an antidote for chemtrails, that is the only thing I wish to discuss. If you know of anything that may help, please reply, otherwise post elsewhere. Thank You.

[edit on 20-11-2006 by greydawn]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join