Chemtrails: Debunking the Peristent Contrail myth

page: 7
25
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 26 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Nice cut and paste.




posted on Oct, 26 2007 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by stompk
reply to post by neformore
 


Nice cut and paste.


Cut and paste?

From what?



posted on Oct, 26 2007 @ 04:20 PM
link   
10000 flights, and 10 of them should produce contrails, let alone persistant, which requires specific circumstances.



posted on Oct, 27 2007 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Oh sorry, he DID read it, but he didn't read it until AFTER it was submitted.


Thanks for admitting even that small error when it's such a uncommon thing around here...

I am going to address the person responsible for the external quotes and i would like to remind everyone that this is from a run of the mill Internet site and that what Zaphod posted were just the opinions of someone ' on the Internet'...



So what really happened? In a nutshell, Kucinich did not write the bill (or read it, until too late), the focus of the bill is nothing to do with chemtrails,


Kucinich did not write the bill but i am still unsure why i should believe that he did not read it. Thanks for showing us where your claim came from but it's not the type of 'proof' i wanted and i am no wiser for this source.



it was written by UFO enthusiasts trying to: A) nullify a conspiracy by the “military-industrial complex”,


What the fact that she is a 'UFO enthusiast' have to do with anything ( Are people who believe in their various gods , or anything of substance, 'enthusiast' too?) with this i am not sure but i suppose we must quickly marginalise her as a 'cook' not deserving of further attention. Why anyone would argue against the reality of the American military industrial complex that managed to make the US government pay reparations for their second world war bombing of their German factories is ANY ONES guess. How corporations that are doing better than ever is evidence against a strengthening of those already substantial powers is quite beyond me.



B) allow the use of suppressed alien technology for free energy, and


Don't know about the Alien nature of such 'free energy' devices but i have posted extensively on just how real i happen to believe they are.



C) avoid accidentally shooting down or scaring away visiting aliens.


And i wouldn't want any specific government declaring war on Alpha Centauri for the entire planet either! Maybe the Aliens don't bother to check if we are a united planet or not...



They listed a bunch of weird weapons, including mind control, tectonic weapons and (very briefly) chemtrails.


And mind control is suddenly not science? Tectonic weapons not real?


"Q: Let me ask you specifically about last week's scare here in Washington, and what we might have learned from how prepared we are to deal with that (inaudible), at B'nai Brith.\par

A: Well, it points out the nature of the threat. It turned out to be a false threat under the circumstances. But as we've learned in the intelligence community, we had something called -- and we have James Woolsey here to perhaps even address this question about phantom moles. The mere fear that there is a mole within an agency can set off a chain reaction and a hunt for that particular mole which can paralyze the agency for weeks and months and years even, in a search. The same thing is true about just the false scare of a threat of using some kind of a chemical weapon or a biological one. There are some reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves."

So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that's why this is so important.

DoD News Briefing
Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen


I have not really done much cutting and pasting to show just how real mind 'control' ( and no one is suggesting perfect control and all the time) weaponry is but i will if anyone takes issues with that reality.



The bill was re-written several time in less unusual language to give it chance of passing, but ultimately fizzled in committee.


And in the final incarnation 39 senators added their support which is oddly something the author leaves out. Lots of crazy senators i suppose and i wonder where the chem trail or 'crazy weapon' Senate lobby got enough money to pay off 40 senators...



The initial version of the act is the only one that makes mention of “exotic weapons systems”, listing several technologies that will be familiar to conspiracy theorists:

(i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons (ii) chemtrails; (iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems; (iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons;
(v) laser weapons systems; (vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and (vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons.


And according to me all those , unless by extraterrestrial they mean alien and not just in space or on the Moon, were extensively tested or reached operational status in the 60's - late 70's...



Yes, it even includes “extraterrestrial weapons”, meaning weapons created by aliens (or created from alien technology from crashed flying saucers at Roswell), as well as psychotronic (mind control) weapons. Yet somehow “chemtrails” gets all the attention here.


Chem trails do not get ALL the intention but it's interesting that it's the one worth denying when the others are just mocked or ignored.



So what’s Kucinich’s involvement in this? It’s difficult to say. Kucinich is anti-war, so perhaps that’s his motivation.


And your not anti war? Why so?



He does have a lot of new-age, UFO-believing, friends, but he’s also running for president. When he was made aware of the nature of the “exotic weapons” language in the bill, it was re-written, and when questioned about it, he said

“I’m not into that. Understand me. When I found out that was in there, I said, ‘Look, I’m not interested in going there.’”


I still do not see any sources and wondering where this all comes from!



Kucinich’s motivations are perhaps revealed by his speech to the house on May 18th, 2005, introducing a newer version of the bill:

“ *** speech ***
“Such an offense against humanity could bring the wrath of God upon this nation.”

contrailscience.com...


Perhaps it is and i find myself in agreement with the fact that weapons in space are a very real threat to one and all.


As for introducing bills they don't care about, many congresspeople introduce bills that they know nothing about, or that they don't read first
That's the whole point of the lobbyist. The lobbyist gets them money for their campaign and in return they get special consideration to what they care about.


I understand the lobbyist have great power and fists full of cash but i am not sure that we have any evidence that he put forward this bill for reward or because he was ignorant of it's content.I am even less sure how the 'ufo' lobby ( i will presume) found the money or influence to bribe 40 or convince three dozen other senators...

Stellar

[edit on 27-10-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Oct, 27 2007 @ 08:39 AM
link   
They wouldn't have to have found influence or money for 40 senators. It's very common for a senator to use the "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" method to get a bill through, or get it sponsored. They frequently will work out a deal where if another senator votes for their bill, they promise to vote for a bill the other senator is trying to get through. That's how some of the bills that make no sense have gotten through. They also wouldn't have to use money for the initial senator. They could promise favors, or they could work out a deal where they get people to give him money for his campaign, or any number of other promises.



posted on Oct, 27 2007 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
They wouldn't have to have found influence or money for 40 senators. It's very common for a senator to use the "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" method to get a bill through, or get it sponsored.


And 40 senators would scratch one persons back for such a 'stupid' bill? Why would he use any of the favors owed him for this specific bill?


They frequently will work out a deal where if another senator votes for their bill, they promise to vote for a bill the other senator is trying to get through.


That's a bit patronizing don't you think? What do you think i have been reading?


That's how some of the bills that make no sense have gotten through.


Oh voting or sponsoring ALWAYS makes sense in the larger picture and to suggest that anyone spends their political clout on nonsensical bills just seems like a entirely self serving argument. Would YOU convince 40 senators to vote for your stupid bill that wont go anywhere then being forced to do something for all of them?


They also wouldn't have to use money for the initial senator. They could promise favors, or they could work out a deal where they get people to give him money for his campaign, or any number of other promises.


And while i am not going to argue that any of this is in fact impossible i must wonder why you would wish to go to these types of lengths to ensure that no one believes that any senator in the US senate actually read or believed any of the claims in that bill!

Each to their own i suppose.


Stellar



posted on Oct, 27 2007 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
And while i am not going to argue that any of this is in fact impossible i must wonder why you would wish to go to these types of lengths to ensure that no one believes that any senator in the US senate actually read or believed any of the claims in that bill!

Each to their own i suppose.


Stellar


It satisfies a certain constituency (ATSers, for example) yet is satisfyingly cost-free, as it will never make it out of committee.

Hey, they passed the "Patriot" act without reading it, you can't give them much credit for being thorough.



posted on Oct, 27 2007 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


Excuse me, but WHERE did I say that NONE of the senators read the bill? I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. I simply explained how it would be possible to get 40 senators to sponsor the bill. And I don't know that he was using favors to get it. It could be that some of them owed HIM a favor. I have no idea what was going on behind closed doors with this bill. I was simply explaining how it would have been POSSIBLE for them to have gotten 40 senators to help sponsor the bill.

As for being patronizing, if you want to think that then fine. As you said, to each their own.

[edit on 10/27/2007 by Zaphod58]



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Looking out my window just now, I notice a couple of persistent contrails.

Checking the nearest 12z soundings (Nottingham, UK) I get following data:

299.0 9303 -43.1 -51.1 41 0.12 240 71 324.8 325.3 324.8
297.0 9348 -43.4 -51.0 43 0.12 240 70 324.9 325.4 325.0
283.0 9673 -45.9 -50.4 60 0.13 237 74 325.9 326.5 326.0
276.0 9838 -47.2 -52.3 56 0.11 235 76 326.4 326.8 326.4
252.0 10438 -52.1 -59.1 43 0.05 235 70 327.7 328.0 327.7
250.0 10490 -52.5 -59.5 42 0.05 235 70 327.9 328.1 327.9

weather.uwyo.edu...

The first figure indicates pressure (hPa or millibars) which in turn indicates altitude. Most commerical air traffic flies between 300 and 200 hPa

The 3rd figure indicates temperature

The 5th figure indicates relative humidity (RH)

We know that persistent contrails need a RH of at least 60%. Using an Appleman Chart we can see that that at 280hPa we also need a temp of about -46c

asd-www.larc.nasa.gov...

Looks about spot on to me


There haven't been many contrails (in fact, only those 2 that I've seen) and that fits well with the sounding data which suggest that there's only a short range of altitude at which contrails will form. So most aircraft will likely fly just too high or too low.

Now, can any chemtrail believers produce similar data showing persistent contrails when they shouldn't be occurring? because then we might have something to discuss



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
It satisfies a certain constituency (ATSers, for example) yet is satisfyingly cost-free, as it will never make it out of committee.


Not following so do clarify.


Hey, they passed the "Patriot" act without reading it, you can't give them much credit for being thorough.


They knew very well that they were supposed to vote for that and that not doing so would just make things more difficult for them. I do not see how you can compete those bills that are meant to protect the population to those that are meant to oppress them!


Originally posted by Zaphod58
Excuse me, but WHERE did I say that NONE of the senators read the bill?


You didn't but in my opinion your trying to create the impression that many senators would put their name to a bill that would go nowhere and don't according to you do not have much to do with 'reality'.


I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. I simply explained how it would be possible to get 40 senators to sponsor the bill.


There is what one says and then there is the perceptions created due to it. You tried to explain how it's possible that 40 senators could have sponsored a given bill but did very little to show why they would sponsor something you think they would think crazy.


And I don't know that he was using favors to get it. It could be that some of them owed HIM a favor. I have no idea what was going on behind closed doors with this bill.


So why would he use up so many favors when in the source you employed it's suggested that he did not back the main intent of the bill? Non of us have much of a idea of what happens behind those closed doors on any given day but patterns are readily observable and those suggests to me at least that this bill got pretty far for something so apparently counter establishment.


I was simply explaining how it would have been POSSIBLE for them to have gotten 40 senators to help sponsor the bill.


And that's what i found patronizing as i at least am well aware of how that process normally works.


As for being patronizing, if you want to think that then fine. As you said, to each their own.


Ok...

Stellar



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
It satisfies a certain constituency (ATSers, for example) yet is satisfyingly cost-free, as it will never make it out of committee.


Not following so do clarify.


It's not unheard of for congresscritters to vote on bills to satisfy a block of their constituents, knowing full well that it's been guaranteed not to pass a vote or to be sent to committee to die. They may not support it, or care, but their vote may garner support next election amongst the constituency it appeases. So it's of no importance if they vote it - it's cost-free.

It's sort of like those floor speeches you hear late night on C-SPAN, no one at all is in session, but some congress drone is up there running his mouth. It gets the comments on the record but no one has to actually bother listening. Those are for the constituents, not for their co-workers.




They knew very well that they were supposed to vote for that and that not doing so would just make things more difficult for them. I do not see how you can compete those bills that are meant to protect the population to those that are meant to oppress them!


They're "supposed" to read them and not vote them if it's not in the best interests of their constituency, not that it's how business actually is conducted, which was my point.



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 05:04 AM
link   
Wonderful derailment of the debate going on here.

None of this stuff about US political bills has any bearing on Essans original topic.

A speculative bill by someone with an agenda is not proof of anything.

I do believe the challenge is to prove chemtrails exist, and the onus is on chemtrail protagonists to prove that.



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
It's not unheard of for congresscritters to vote on bills to satisfy a block of their constituents, knowing full well that it's been guaranteed not to pass a vote or to be sent to committee to die.


Sure...


They may not support it, or care, but their vote may garner support next election amongst the constituency it appeases. So it's of no importance if they vote it - it's cost-free.


frwebgate.access.gpo.gov...

May show why reading many bills may simply be too much work for some! What i am more interested in is how he found another 40 senators to sponsor that specific bill!


It's sort of like those floor speeches you hear late night on C-SPAN, no one at all is in session, but some congress drone is up there running his mouth. It gets the comments on the record but no one has to actually bother listening. Those are for the constituents, not for their co-workers.


It may be for the co-workers but some are clearly not interested it listening to everything that is being said...


They're "supposed" to read them and not vote them if it's not in the best interests of their constituency, not that it's how business actually is conducted, which was my point.


The original question were related to the merit of the bill and i have repeatedly pointed out that he did in good time , and some editing, found many other sponsors ( approaching half of the senate) for that specific bill. It is just interesting to me that he kept presenting it and the work he clearly had to do to get forty others to sign on to something that can clearly not be in the best interest of the corporate profiteers who normally run the senators!

Maybe i am not making myself clear enough?

Stellar



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Anyone actually contacted Kucinich about this? I guess he'd probably know more than we do?



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


come on andy, your missing the point.this is looking more like weather manipulation rather than a worldwide plot to reduce the population.



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


good try andy.great post.do you bother to check any of the imformation everyone else provides, or do you just ignore it because your convinced your right?i think facts from both sides are valid, and your persistance to bash heads with supposed nut jobs is puzzling.if we're wrong then go away and let us swim in our own stew.otherwise. go get a camera and show us your stuff.please.your research, not old research.peace.



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 07:34 PM
link   
I am currently dealing with our defense forecaster at work and shortly I will put up some information on how we forecast contrails



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

This is primarily a result of the lack of sufficient observations for contrail-forming environments and the inability to obtain reliable moisture measurements from rawinsonde data at contrail altitudes. For this reason, much of the previous research directed toward predicting contrail development has not utilized empirical temperature and moisture observations but instead relied mainly on physically based models that could not always be verified (Appleman 1953; Scorer and Davenport 1970; Hanson and Hanson 1995).




Lack of data? We launch 2 sondes a day into the upper atmosphere her in Oz. We have 42 stations nation wide that do it twice a day which equates to 84 upper air soundings per day. Multiply that by the the other 10,000 upper air observations around the world and see how many measurements happen on a daily basis. And if that isn't enough information for these so called experts, what is?



[



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


All that information is false and misleading. Not one document you have privded so far is recognised by the WMO or adheres to their guidlines. If radiosondes get a humidity of over 100% in any flight, they are automatically considered faulty and another one is launched. Any radiosonde that gives data of a high humidity at the height at which cirrus forms is automatically considered suspect and therefore not used. The typical humdity at cirrus heights is normally around 35% ,to in extreme cases, 50% (if cirrus is present of course). Anything over that is crap, and yes I have years and years of upper air soundings to prove that. And when sondes reach a temperature of -60 degrees celsius, the humidity is no longer measured because the producers of them (vaisala) have proven the humidity probes will not accurately provide information at such a low temperature.



posted on Oct, 30 2007 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ralph nader
reply to post by Essan
 


go get a camera and show us your stuff.please.your research, not old research.peace.



Are these contrails or chemtrails? Taken 07.30z 30th Oct 2007










top topics
 
25
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join