Chemtrails Vs Contrails... There's a MASSIVE Difference!!! Check these out...

page: 10
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
On a more serious note, and certainly more on-topic: what would we be "spraying"?


Not sure yet aluminum has come up... but that's not as effective as gold... when I get a list I will be sure to post it




posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 02:14 AM
link   
Come on, no serious stuff tonight, its party night at the agency…
Tomorrow will be payday for following down this pig-trail, I’m sure…

But at least I got some sorely needed laughs out if it tonight.

Zorgon, you have a nice night.
I’m outta here.



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by _Del_
On a more serious note, and certainly more on-topic: what would we be "spraying"?


Not sure yet aluminum has come up... but that's not as effective as gold... when I get a list I will be sure to post it


To what purpose? and isn't that rather expensive? And don't you think if the chemtrails were made even in part by aluminum that you would be able to track the chemtrails nightly when the weather guy shows the local sweep?



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
To what purpose? and isn't that rather expensive? And don't you think if the chemtrails were made even in part by aluminum that you would be able to track the chemtrails nightly when the weather guy shows the local sweep?


Like I said... not sure yet on what they are using... only 'got into' chemtrails after I witnessed them here in Vegas... but I will find out what I can...

The purpose 'appears' to be experiments at creating a 'shield' of some kind that is tied into HAARP and the HAARP like facilities around the world... part of the evidence points strongly to DoD use... part points to attempts to create a new 'protection' for us when the poles flip and we are left open to radiation...

Yeah yeah I know... I'm nuts


But you are here in this thread... and you asked...



[edit on 26-4-2008 by zorgon]



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 03:00 AM
link   
No sweat -- we actually agree on different issues in different threads. I think most of what you're trying to convey is similar to Scott Steven's material. I used to check him regularly when he updated regularly (that tells you how long ago). I think he's on to something with HAARP and weather manipulation. I also think some of the satellite images are intriguing, but the chemtrail thing is still, errrr, out there. As are several of his other theories. Yet, divining wheat from chaff is what we're trying to do here. I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not trying to beat the door down on your world view (as I said, I think there's something to the bigger picture), just let you know that as someone with a firm grasp of aviation every evidence, imo, is that the "chemtrail" portion is built on shifting sand. I can give you several practical reasons for this as it relates to HAARP without discarding the core of the belief. I may even lose my place in the Cabal when the meteorologists come back to add their expert opinions on weather manipulation.



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 03:34 AM
link   
Whats going on here no more debate?

check this out.

"Interesting note- the Dept of 'Defense' wants to lease 100 aerial refueling tankers. What on earth do we need 100 huge super tankers to refuel jets in the sky? Even if we launched full scale war with Russia, China and North Korea, we still wouldn't need 100 refueling tankers."

100 aerial refueling tankers

"This is a massive research study from 1992 and sponsored by the
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and
Institute of Medicine. This study was approved and funded by congress and
is the textbook on greenhouse gasses, global warming, policy decisions, and mitigation. Several of the suggestions for mitigation are under "Sunlight Screening" and include "Low Stratospheric Dust" ("Use aircraft to maintain a cloud of
dust in the low stratosphere to reflect sunlight"), "Low Stratospheric
Soot", and "Cloud Stimulation". Along with these is an "Ocean Biomass
Stimulation" suggestion to "place iron in the oceans to stimulate generation
of CO2-absorbing phytoplankton"

Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming:
Sunlight Screening

The Chemtrail Smoking Gun

Now our school children are even being taught about the
aerial 'sunscreen' concept!/

"In the Level 1 Science book, "Essential Interactions" by Centre Point Learning, Inc.,
a photo of a jet is titled "Particle Air" and is followed with: "Could we deliberately
add particles to the atmosphere? Jet engines running on richer fuel would add particles to the atmosphere to create a sunscreen". This is in the section titled "Solutions for Global Warming". The textbook also shows a helicopter dumping
iron into the ocean to stimulate growth of carbon-dioxide eating phytoplankton,
which we know is also already being done (see "Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming" link above). Our children are taught this in our schools yet adults are still
in denial and being told that no such concept or practice exists. Ironically, your child
may know more about chemtrails than you do."

school children being taught
Centre Point Learning, Inc.,

Read em and weep



-Alien



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 03:45 AM
link   
Children are also taught that one day we may send men to Mars - does that means there's already a human settlement there?

(For that matter they're also taught the all the dinosaurs were killed by a single meteorite impact - though current thinking is that that was not the case
)

Telling people some of the proposed solutions to a problem does not mean that such solutions are being employed. Apart from anything else, if they were I think most atmospheric scientists would know. As indeed would the military. And besides, there is no evidence such solutions would be visible from the ground anyway.

It's all non sequitur - a logical fallacy.

[edit on 26-4-2008 by Essan]



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Alien Abduct
 


The Boeing leasing deal was killed earlier. I won't get into the details, but it was a corruption scandal. The Air Force needs tankers to replace old KC-135's that uses an airframe first designed and flown in the 1950's. The KC-135 has been in service as a refueling aircraft since 1957. Some of the airframes are already over forty years old. Without going into details, the airframes (especially wings) suffer from metal fatigue as they accumulate flight hours. They are currently going to buy planes from EADS/Northrop Grumman to replace them.
As an aside, the Air Force spends way too much of it's budget on "sexy" things like fighters and not enough on boring things like transport/refueling aircraft. Even if the fleet did not need replacing, they could have used the new planes to augment strength.
It has nothing to do with chemtrails. That's as close to not-boring as I could make it.
I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to know those things; just thought you should know since you mentioned them as a source for concern.
And jets running on richer fuel is doing just what it says: creating more particulate matter. It's not adding chemicals to the air. It's similar to saying we should drive more diesel trucks because the smoke from the smoke stacks would add more particulate to the air. You see this all the time in older jet engines. It is a visible "smoke" trail at any altitude.


[edit on 26-4-2008 by _Del_]



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 05:02 AM
link   
With regards spraying to counter global warming, someone ought to contact NCAR



Source

A much-discussed idea to offset global warming by injecting sulfate particles into the stratosphere would have a drastic impact on Earth's protective ozone layer, new research concludes. The study, led by Simone Tilmes of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), warns that such an approach might delay the recovery of the Antarctic ozone hole by decades and cause significant ozone loss over the Arctic.


(worth reading the full article btw)



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
Children are also taught that one day we may send men to Mars - does that means there's already a human settlement there?

(For that matter they're also taught the all the dinosaurs were killed by a single meteorite impact - though current thinking is that that was not the case
)

Telling people some of the proposed solutions to a problem does not mean that such solutions are being employed. Apart from anything else, if they were I think most atmospheric scientists would know. As indeed would the military. And besides, there is no evidence such solutions would be visible from the ground anyway.

It's all non sequitur - a logical fallacy.

[edit on 26-4-2008 by Essan]


Yeah, just ignore the 918 page in depth report sponsored by the
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and
Institute of Medicine. This study was approved and funded by congress and is the textbook on greenhouse gasses, global warming, policy decisions, and mitigation.

oh and it is fact that they are dumping iron into the ocean. Why? well read the material and you see why. The same reason they are spraying.

_DEL_

Spraying "chemtrails" is a 'term' its not necessarily a chemical. Also, could you maybe post some sources for your claims. you are not exactly on my reputable source list. You can say anything it doesn't make it true.



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 



Sulfate particles?

What if they used something else like aluminum?

If I had the funds I would conduct my own hard research and obtain many samples from all over the united states and prove this thing once and for all.

But, it would probably be a waste time and money because people like you would just dismiss it and ignore the facts just like you ignore all the countless studies I have presented.

-Alien



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alien Abduct
_DEL_

Spraying "chemtrails" is a 'term' its not necessarily a chemical. Also, could you maybe post some sources for your claims. you are not exactly on my reputable source list. You can say anything it doesn't make it true.



What'd I do to land there?!

Here are some sources:
Metal fatigue on airframes:
en.wikipedia.org...
There are several more technical sites if you really want to dig, but this will cover the basics.


IHT (WSJ) article with a good history of the deal and the reasons for it.
www.iht.com...

The deal ... calls for spending up to $40 billion on the first phase of a multidecade program to replace the nation's aging aerial tanker fleet, which dates back to the Kennedy and Eisenhower era. The fleet, which now numbers about 535 refitted Boeing 707's and DC-10's is one of the largest but oldest fleets of jets in the world. Yet the tanker planes are essential to keeping Air Force and allied fighter jets, bombers, cargo planes and other military aircraft in the air when on critical missions far from airports where they can land to refuel... It is expected that nearly 400 new refueling planes will be needed.



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
Children are also taught that one day we may send men to Mars - does that means there's already a human settlement there?


Yes since about 1962... but that doesn't have much to do with Chemtrails so we will leave that for another thread...

However this image of Venus just night fit the topic at hand "Contrails VS Chemtrails"







(For that matter they're also taught the all the dinosaurs were killed by a single meteorite impact - though current thinking is that that was not the case
)


Again not much to do with Chemtrails...
"Dinosaur-Killer" Asteroid Crater Imaged for First Time
news.nationalgeographic.com...

Your right it wasn't a Meteorite... it was an Asteroid




And besides, there is no evidence such solutions would be visible from the ground anyway.


No only the eye witness accounts and the photos...



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_ I can give you several practical reasons for this as it relates to HAARP without discarding the core of the belief. I may even lose my place in the Cabal when the meteorologists come back to add their expert opinions on weather manipulation.



Well Cabals come and go... I would love to get into the HAARP stuff... and am almost ready to do a thread... my 'hitch' has been some of the info I uncovered ran me smack into Department of Defense 'stealth tech' issues... and I have to figure out how to separate the data... I hear the weather is rotten at Guantanamo these days



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alien Abduct

oh and it is fact that they are dumping iron into the ocean. Why? well read the material and you see why. The same reason they are spraying.



No they're not. It's just another ludicrous idea that if implemented would probably cause more harm than good.


Originally posted by Alien Abduct
Sulfate particles?

What if they used something else like aluminum?


Because there's no firm it'd make any difference.

Though if it did, and we were then a) we wouldn't see it form the ground and b) those studying such issues would know about it.

The world's scientists aren't that stupid



btw have you ignored all the studies I've posted links to - conducted over the past 40 years - into contrails?

If what we are seeing in our skies today are chemtrails then how come they were being studied in the 1960s? How come no one studying the phenomena today are aware of the true origins? Why is the UK Govt and NASA spending so much money investigating something when a quick phone call to the CIA (or whoever) will answer all their questions? And since when were the CIA (or whoever) so clever? If they can fool the experts, I'm wondering if they may be run by vastly superior space aliens after all!


And Zorgon: Touche! I should have known better than to use the Mars analogy!



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essanwhen a quick phone call to the CIA (or whoever) will answer all their questions?


CIA answering questions about an operation 'they' are 'supposedly' covering up? Okay so who do you know over there that will share such info?




And Zorgon: Touche! I should have known better than to use the Mars analogy!


Sorry but it was a perfect time to drop the Venusian Contrails



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Z....wait a minute, wait a minute. You bring a picture of Venus into the discussion?

BTW, isn't that a radar image? What's the source?

(Because everyone knows Venus is perpetually covered by clouds)

What are those lines supposed to be? More mis-direction? Could they possibly be where the over-lap occured, as the Orbiter used its Radar to image the surface under the clouds?

Or, does Airbus use Venus to secretly test-fly the new A380?

Wait again....I just remembered!!! Venus has a breathable atmosphere, is currently inhabited, has millions of individuals liveng in bucolic splendor...has yellow oceans....(according to "He Who Must Not Be Named") yet the Radar imaging shows a crater-marked surface, with possible extensive volcanic activity?

So....Contrails on Venus? Really? Now, you're just playin' with us!!

WW



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhackerCould they possibly be where the over-lap occured, as the Orbiter used its Radar to image the surface under the clouds?


No actually... overlap marks do not cast shadows




posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Z, not shadows....anomalies in the photo segments. Show me the shadows.....and then explain why one of the alleged 'contrail' on Venus is wider that the other....and, they're exactly parallel.

Oh, I know....one is the A380 test-flight, the other is an F-16........

WW



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
anomalies in the photo segments.


Ah so you are now also an expert on photo analyse? Well then please show me the evidence to prove these are 'photo anomalies' Forgive me if I don't take you word for it...


Show me the shadows.....



The 'alleged contrail' is the whitish, semi tranparent (you can see the landscape through it) white cloud like line... the shadow is the black parallel line beside it. the degree of parallel-ness would naturally depend on the amount of wind present... which in this case would seem like very little



The other 'alleged contrail' and shadow are almost on top of each other, most likely due to the anlgle of the spaceship view


A good Earthbound comparison would be this one...



[edit on 48-37-7809 by zorgon]

Here is one from NASA (this one shows wind)








[edit on 27-4-2008 by zorgon]





new topics
top topics
 
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join