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.

 

The Chemtrail Myth

page: 16
24
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Spectre0o0
 


And again, who said it was for the F-18s. The F-18s were raised as a POSSIBLE reason for them being there. Just because you were at an airshow doesn't mean that the rest of the military stops cold and nothing happens. I've been to airshows before where we launched 4 KC-135s and several fighters in the background, because they had to go that day. ONE C-5 going from the west coast to Japan can EASILY use two of those three KC-10s with the third being up there for backup. But you're right, there was an airshow that day for you guys out there on the ships. That means that NOTHING could be moving for the rest of the military until it was done.


And please explain the logic of them spraying in the middle of a group of ships where everyone can see it if it's supposed to be something that no one knows about.

[edit on 4/22/2008 by Zaphod58]




posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 12:34 AM
link   
It's the jets at 35 to 40k ft that blip off their 'contrails' then resume a few miles later that greatly impress my meteorlogical wonder.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by jpm1602
 


Which is caused by things like Thermals changing the temperature in a section of air that the aircraft is flying through.
Thermals


[edit on 4/22/2008 by defcon5]



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by jpm1602
It's the jets at 35 to 40k ft that blip off their 'contrails' then resume a few miles later that greatly impress my meteorlogical wonder.


Ever heard of a dry pocket of air....if the air was all the same humidity then every time we had any clouds...low or high, then it would always be a sheet covering the entire sky



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


well then they were waitng for a flight that was 8 hours late. maybe you could explain to me with your logic why they waited all day. according to my nephew, they limit the flights severly due to fuel restraints. oh and why would there be 3 planes continually flying over the same area with the trails behind them, being turned on and off in patterns?



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Naw Spectre. The debunkers have vigorously explained all to us. We must believe them et al.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Spectre0o0
 


Without knowing what they were waiting for, I can't tell you why they were there. But I've been involved in launching 3-4 KC-135s that went up and flew circles for three or four hours at a time or longer, and wound up refueling 5 fighters in that time. Without being at the base, and without knowing anything more than you are telling me there's no way to know WHAT they were up there waiting for. I am simply giving POSSIBILITIES as to why they were there. But I seriously doubt they were up there spraying some chemical with a group of ships with a bunch of civilians onboard making it blatantly obvious that they were up to something.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by jpm1602
 


you got that right. all i can tell them is take a deep breath and enjoy. then read the first commandment on the georgia guide stones
keep the population of earth under 500,000,000
my government will screw me any way they can,but they wouldn't do ANYTHING like this!

[edit on 22-4-2008 by Spectre0o0]
funny how they haven't proved anything either,in the face of visuual evidence. but they know for sure with no proof.

[edit on 22-4-2008 by Spectre0o0]



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 01:15 AM
link   
Do believe they protest to much. They consign themselves to admitting aerial spraying has been propagated, but say it has been limited and for cloud seeding. Anyone who looks at the sky on a regular basis would have serious issue with this nonsense.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by jpm1602
Do believe they protest to much. They consign themselves to admitting aerial spraying has been propagated, but say it has been limited and for cloud seeding. Anyone who looks at the sky on a regular basis would have serious issue with this nonsense.


Yes looking is about all the evidence that points to chemtrails isnt it. Just because you dont understand something you automatically assume its something suspicious



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 01:22 AM
link   
Ok Oz. We agree to disagree. I think you are a true weatherman about as much as I am a heart surgeon. How bout a little linky to where you do your weatherman extraodinnaire thing at?



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by jpm1602
Ok Oz. We agree to disagree. I think you are a true weatherman about as much as I am a heart surgeon. How bout a little linky to where you do your weatherman extraodinnaire thing at?


Believe it or dont believe it....why dont you get a mod to check my IP address



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 01:31 AM
link   
Lame OZ. Lame, lame, lame. Give a wkyc or radio blip or something. You are not whom you say you are.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by jpm1602
Lame OZ. Lame, lame, lame. Give a wkyc or radio blip or something. You are not whom you say you are.


You know where you can go....typical paranoid nut.

Have no idea why you are calling me a liar, you have not once contributed to a chemtrail thread apart from insuting someone and making allegations like this.

If you think I am lying then fine, but I am not, oh by the way here's my email address

d.first@bom.gov.au

bom standing for bureau of meteorology, i dare you to email me

[edit on 22/4/2008 by OzWeatherman]



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by jpm1602
Ok Oz. We agree to disagree. I think you are a true weatherman about as much as I am a heart surgeon. How bout a little linky to where you do your weatherman extraodinnaire thing at?


Not that my word will mean anything to some....but I can PROMISE he is who he says he is. I have his contact info...meaning, work info, etc...I have spoken with him off this board......He is who he say she is.




[edit on 22-4-2008 by greeneyedleo]



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by jpm1602
Anyone who looks at the sky on a regular basis would have serious issue with this nonsense.


Indeed we do.

Those of us who look at the sky on a regular basis and photograph the sky on a regular basis and study the real science behind atmospheric processes on a regular basis and fly aircraft on a regular basis and issue weather forecasts on a regular basis have very serious issues with this nonsense.

The only people who don't are those who do none of the above, but who do watch youtube videos on a regular basis.

Now, I wonder who is more likely to be right? The observers and photographers and scientists and pilots and forecasters? Or the kids watching youtube?



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


Yes, visual evidence is at best insufficient for us to conclude if these trail mixes in the skies are either contrails or chemtrails. Until independent panels(s) tests these aerial activities as they occur worldwide on a daily basis or whatever methodology the experts happen to employ for the sake of science, I’m afraid these alleged ‘chemtrails’ may become nothing more than a myth.





posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 01:43 AM
link   
Paranoid nut. Who is insulting now. I say again, they doth protest too much.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 01:46 AM
link   
With my mod hat on - Enough of the sniping please.

With my member hat on
It strikes me that those posters who believe in "chemtrails" are presenting a straw man here, because there are two meteorologists on this thread and several people with aviation expertise, and they are imparting a lot of information and all I see the "chemtrailers" do is simply repeating the same old same old, which is "I see lines in the sky" and if someone doesn't agree the words "disinfo agent" and "government employee" get trotted out. Now wheres the substance in that kind of ad hominem attack?

Questioning Oz's qualifications as a meteorologist is - lets be frank - particularly insulting to him.

I would ask any contributors to the thread who chose to insult Oz in that manner to stop and think for a minute about their chosen professions. How would you like it if, one day, twenty people showed up at your door and told you that you were wrong about everything you do, not based on any particular reason or practicality or years of experience, but only on the fact that it doesn't look right to them?

So far, in this thread, cloud formation, weather systems, the atmosphere, jet engines and how they work, flight routes/patterns and military routine operations have been put forward as explanations by the people who are arguing for the case Oz put forward in his original post that chemtrails are a myth.

The people who say they are real have offered lines in the sky and observations of planes passing overhead, and accusations.

Now tell me, based on that - who is on the more shaky ground here?



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 01:52 AM
link   
Chemtrails don't exist. People are not being sickened at great rates. I am completely wrong. And hope I am.




top topics



 
24
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join