Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

My Chemtrail evidence

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilot
the old curvature of the earth trick, eh?

Even though it may not seem like the earth should curve so drastically that we can see it in our line of sight, it does, and that is a proven fact. Proven so much that I can prove it to you. All you have to do is go to a wide flat area, and watch a distant object approach, and you can visibly observe it. A good place to do this is the ocean, where you can observe a ship approach and that you can only see its top first. While that may seem like the waves, or small hills, its not, it is actually the curve of the earth and can be done in any flat, wide, clear area.


Originally posted by Pilot
So basically none of you are concerned? About the trails?

Nope, and I’ll tell you why I personally am not concerned about them. I worked at the airport as a fueler, Lead Agent (What the military sometimes calls a Lead Safety or Loadmaster), and Ramp Supervisor. I would have been the guy who had to load that stuff on the aircraft if it actually existed (which it doesn’t). I worked for a company that did the fuel distribution for almost the entire state, and I know that to move, store, process, and load that amount of chemicals would be a huge logistical job with hundreds of thousands of people involved in it who would leak the information. I know that I never signed anything that kept me from telling the truth about anything out there, outside of security stuff (even then I did not sign anything, I just know it would be unethical and would have possibly cost me my job at the time). The final clincher in why I don’t believe it is because I used to live in the approach/departure corridor for that same airport, and I used to see our aircraft leaving persistent contrails (many of which I personally loaded or unloaded) when the weather was right.

If you have been around this topic for a while, you might notice that when it first came up in the late 90’s, they were originally accusing Commercial Aircraft of dumping things. Those of us that have worked to eliminate this have been slightly effective in the fact that most of the mainline ‘believer’ sites no longer make that accusation and now restrict it to only the military. But the truth is that there is just not enough military aircraft to do the amount of ‘spraying’ that they claim all around the world, everyday.

I obviously cannot calm your nerves about this topic, as you’ll just think I am some sort of disinfo agent, so I say take any precautions you feel necessary to make yourself feel more secure. It really won’t hurt anything, despite being a waste of money. I wish you luck with your search for the truth.




posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   
What about Morgellons disease? That has been blamed on trails-and nobody seems to have a viable explanation for that-other than calling sufferers delusional.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilot
 


As far as I know Morgellons is questionable as even being a real disease, let along stating it comes form contrails or even chemtrails. Byrd, a moderator on here, has done a upstanding job of showing that a lot of the supposed experts in the field are self-proclaimed experts, with little to no medical background, and a lot of their science is just plain bad. For the sake of argument though, if you have a legitimate medical document you can show me on the topic, I’ll run it by one of my doctors I work with.

I find it hard to believe that they can scientifically correlate the two however, as there has yet to be any evidence of there being any chemtrails. For that matter why wouldn’t someone like me have this disease as I’ve been exposed to aircraft, contrails, and the chemicals, used in aviation, more then the average person? I worry a lot more about the exposure I got to real things such as asbestos, microwave radiation, fiberglass, hydraulic fluid, JP-8, and halon. If they don’t have an actual sample of these supposed existent chemicals to test, then they are literally grabbing at a cause out of thin air. Personally, based on that kind of bad science, I believe that Morgellons is a made up disease by those who just cannot accept that there is no such thing as a chemtrail.

Surely you must understand that there are people out there that have made this chemtrail nonsense into a business. Heck there was that weatherman who quit his job to pursue this as a full time job. Must be pretty lucrative as TV weathermen are not exactly badly paid.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Here is a pretty good report from a station in Oakland:

www.youtube.com...


and this:

www.youtube.com...

Make of it what you will-I tend to put more stock in what the average person reports rather than a controlled news source or and expert that may very well have an agenda.
That's why I come to ATS...to indulge in my paranoia, deny ignorance sure, but aren't we all ultimately speculating much of the time? I'd rather keep an open mind about chemtrails, that pretty much sums it up. Morgellons is just gross, delusion or not!



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilot
 



The first video you linked, besides being fairly local to where I am, also gave you the answer right in it. It’s not from an external contamination, but rather a substance that somehow materializes inside the body, as an artifact of something infectious. There is an infectious disease Dr here on occasion, maybe I can ask him if he has any information on this. Still though, I see no connection between the two things, Morgellions seems to be concentrated in areas were there is a warm somewhat tropical climate, and chemtrails are reported all over the world. I would guess that Morgellions is more likely going to be something akin to a bacterial or fungal infection that thrives in warm, moist conditions.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   
I thought they were still speculating about the cause, if it is infectious, well the infection must come from somewhere right? Nanotech polymers, sounds like military to me.

Wish I had more time, right now gotta go to work, catch you later.

Pilot



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilot
 


Pilot, it's like you don't even bother to read what defcon posted, or what I and many many others have posted.

Instead, you seem to think the junk from YouTube is FAR more accurate and truthful...sorry, YT is full of nonsense, even pranksters, who sit back and chuckle at the mischief they can create, just by posting and watching the reactions!!

If these alleged 'chemtrails' caused a rection on the epeidermis, then it would be RAMPANT! And on the Nightly News! WHat's more, it would affect not only humans, but other fauna, and possibly flora....

See?! Logic needs to be implemented to counter-act this kind of nonsense.

Off-topic, but as example: A simple search will provide 'evidence' that flouride in Public Drinking Water was a Gov't plot to poison the populace, when, in fact, it helped to prevent tooth decay in the long run. Maybe 9 out of 10 dentists are banding together to 'diss' fouride, since they need tooth decay to keep their practices going???



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilot
the old curvature of the earth trick, eh?

Soand OZ, if you are concerned about the spread of dis-info as you say, well, why not go bother FOX or something really dangerous



Wait a sec..... you were saying I was getting paid for spreading disinfo, right?



When have I ever worried about disinfo. According to you hard core conspiracy theorists I apparently have been spreading disinfo across ATS. Funny that....lol



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   
No, OZ I never said you were spreading dis-info-that was dock6 or whomever

Weedwack, lighten up. why do you care so much what I think, anyway?? I said I'm keeping an open mind, that includes yours and others' statements that chemtrails are just overblown paranoia. I don't think it's wise to come to conclusions when there are not sufficient facts available. You obviously think it's nothing to be concerned about, OK. If that is your opinion, I will not try to convince you otherwise, why would I ? I just don't care that much. But if you have information that you are willing to share, I am more than happy to ask questions and consider your response. I asked you how many miles a jet travels before it reaches cruising altitude and you didn't answer. I am reading what defcon writes, are you reading what I write?



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 06:05 PM
link   
First off what is your EXACT LOCATION AND TIME OF DAY. Then we will need to know the weather if you can give the first 2 i can figure out the answer. At what altitudes were



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilot
No, OZ I never said you were spreading dis-info-that was dock6 or whomever


Ooops...Sorry my mistake



ut if you have information that you are willing to share, I am more than happy to ask questions and consider your response. I asked you how many miles a jet travels before it reaches cruising altitude and you didn't answer. I am reading what defcon writes, are you reading what I write?


Yes I am reading what you write and I have been sharing information from a meteorological point of view. I am not the best at aviation questions as it is not my field. Defcon and Weedwhacker were both involved in this field and as far as I know, Weedwhacker has flown a different array of aircraft including commercial jets. He would be the best to ask rather than myself. Any weather related or upper atmosphere questions you have, direct here and I will (hopefully) be able to answer them



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 10:50 PM
link   
OZ, I was asking Weed about the altitude thingy...



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilot
OZ, I was asking Weed about the altitude thingy...


OK, Pilot...first time I saw your question about how many miles a jet travels on its climb to altitude. There are variables, not the least of which is the airplane's weight from Take-Off. Also, there can be ATC restrictions that require intermediate level-offs, say for conflicting traffic.

But, for the purposes of an example, let's assume an unimpeded climb from a sea-level airport to 35,000 cruise. Let's also assume an average of 2,000 fpm vertical speed, it will be greater at lower altitudes, and somewhat less at the higher altitudes. I won't bother to factor in the few minutes spent just above 10,000 feet when we accelerate from the mandatory 250K speed limit to the 300-320K climb speed.

SO, a good average time to TOC (top of climb) is around 20 minutes. At a groundspeed of 450K you travel 7.5 miles in one minute (talking Nautical miles here...one Nautical mile is 6,060 feet, compared to Statute mile, 5,280). Now, 7.5 miles per minute times 20 minutes...150 miles.

Of course, groundspeed isn't 450K throughout the climb, so I've exagerrated a bit, if that helps. BTW, for comparison, a typical glide ratio for jets in descent, at flight idle power, is 3:1...that is, 3 miles downrange for every 1,000 feet. SO, from 35,000 we would expect to begin an idle descent from about 100 miles out. This would be the most efficient way to do it, but unfortunately it doesn't always work that way in the real world, much to the dismay of the airlines as they see oil and fuel prices go through the roof.

Hope this helps.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


The reason I ask is I wanted to calculate the distance from the airport to here to see if i could figure out altitudes of some of these planes, but guess what happened??

I saw a plane that was most def climbing...well, the trail it was leaving didn't start till it got pretty far up, which proves your thesis...how about that?



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilot
 


Pillot, not sure what to make of it, since I don't know exactly where you are in relation to the various airports, and VORs that exist in the 'Great Plains' region of the contiguous USA!

As to my rather lengthy explanation, we find that the most effiecient climb to cruise, and descent from cruise scenarios will happen in areas that are less dense, in terms of traffic flow. SO, the NYC/BOS area doesn't fit that category, far too busy.

Likewise, the LAX/SoCal area in general (includes SNA, LGB, ONT).

Oddly, every time I've operated into SFO we get a pretty efficient descent, and departure. Of course, that's during good weather...throw in some low visibilities, and the situation changes!

Nearly every major airport has arrival and departure 'gates', in the airspace. These are points, whether VORs or just intersections, that define a point where ATC hands-off from one control sector to another, and there are sometimes speed and altitude limits imposed on these locations, so the next controller knows what to expect, and can take it from there...I oversimplify the process, but that's it in a nutshell....



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


The great plains! not very densley populated brother...northern
OK...I am at least 90 miles from ITC, and that is the closest airport of any consequence. We have a small airport in my town that services small private jets.The plane I saw climb must have been from OKC, it was SSW from my line of sight, going up at an angle, travelling east, that's why it was clear. I wished I had my camera and thought of you...



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilot
 


Well, as I pointed out, the most efficient climb and descent scenarios are in and out of airports without a lot of traffic or restrictions. Oklahoma City and Witchita definately good locations for that!

Contrast that with the NYC area...the three major airports, in close proximity - JFK, LGA and EWR cause some terrible fuel wasting approach and departure routing and procedures. Oh, I forgot, the airport Teterboro, also in this mix, for private jets.

When EWR is landing SouthWest, arrivals from the West and South, and even the North, are brought down to 8,000 at about 30 - 40 miles out. Now, we are droning along at 250KIAS, wasting fuel. Being vectored by the TRACON, as they try to co-ordinate all of the airplanes and funnel them to the final approach. The controllers have to step each airplane down, gradually, until at 3,000 feet, and a few miles from the FAF (Final Approach Fix) where we are then 'cleared for the approach' and handed off to the tower, or Local Control. The FAF is about 3 to 3.5 miles from the end of the runway.

While the ATC have to do all of this, they also must maintain lateral separation of 3 miles, or 5 miles in trail of a 'heavy', and 1,000 feet vertically. We owe these controllers every penny they get paid, it is a high stress job, and requires great skill.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 11:27 PM
link   



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alien Abduct
Here ya go..

Local news station confirms barium in chemtrails


Barium Wikipedia



They did NOT confirm that the barium came from planes flying over. The 2 can not be proven connected.

Barium can be found in various places in the ground - that have nothing to do with planes.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


you are correct BUT they did find evidence of the U.S. doing experiments with chemtrails did they not?

Did they not show documents?






new topics




 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join