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.

 

Chemtrail debate

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2004 @ 09:34 PM
link   
There is a very interesting debate on Chemtrails going on over on Arianna Huffington’s forum right now.

www.ariannaonline.com...



who will take on the "devil's dozen"?

Jay Reynolds

1.Do you have a background in a technical field? If not, whom do you consider to have such a background who would state the case for "chemtrails" being a case of "geoengineering"? If no one with such a background exists after five years of interest(enough time for a baccalaureate degree to be earned) why not?

2.Which resource do you depend upon for accurate, sound scientific informaton about "chemtrails"? If none can be relied upon, why not?

3.Several meetings were held this past year which were unparalleled opportunities for you to present papers or exhibits to distinguished scientists in fields relevant to "aerosol research" and "aviation emissions". I have examined the proceedings and found no evidence that such a presentation was made. Did you, or any other"chemtrail" interest person present at these conferences? If not, why not?

4. What is your personal definition of 'chemtrails"?

5. What are ordinary contrails, how are they formed, and what determines whether they persist, or not?

6. In what way are alleged "chemtrails" different from ordinary contrails?

7.What is the best scientific proof available that "chemtrails" are anything other than ordinary contrails?

8.Could you please direct our attention to a photo of an
archetypical "chemtrail", one which you would attribute to "geoengineering"?

9. halva cites William Thomas in his case for "chemtrails". William Thomas has stated the following: "the formation of condensation trails requires temperatures lower than about minus 76 F". Is that statement correct, and if not, do you personally consider Thomas an accurate source of information?

10. Have you personally corresponded with any of the advocates of geoengineering you cite? If so, how did they respond, if not, why not, given your interest?

11.halva, please explain WHY you sent a photo that you knew was fake to Thomas. Did you think that such a faked photo would help your cause?
Do you think now that it has helped your cause?
Do you regret that it shows viewers a make-believe reality?
Did you ask Thomas that it be removed from his website?

12.What tangible thing has come of the "chemtrails" hoax?

13.Tell us exactly which section of the document called
"Chemtrails Over America"(url below) did 'Sore' take part in creating, and which part do you support as being accurate at this time?
home1.gte.net...



Jay is looking for challengers. Any takers?




posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 09:53 PM
link   
50 pages later, and the chemies have been completely slapped around.




posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 09:59 AM
link   
I'm not the least bit surprised, really.

I'd love to see a debate here on the subject of chemtrails and their validity (or lack thereof) as an object of common paranoia... frankly, I find it really hard to be frightened of something that a combination of very basic meteorological knowledge and equally basic common sense tells me are harmless.

Such debates have arisen, but they always dissolve into name-calling and other such silliness... one day, perhaps, we (they?) shall know the truth



posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 10:08 AM
link   
i really wanted to try to document the chemtrail/contrail sightings in my area, gather weather and flight tracker statistics and then see if a conclusion could be formed..unfortunately, it seems to be an overwhelming task for me to undertake....i have way too much going on to focus on such a project..but i would love to see actual data and statistics about this...maybe one day I'll get to it.



posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 10:11 AM
link   
I've said before, I don't know that I believe in this whole, "chemtrail" conspiracy.. however I do see them in the sky..

I too am going to start taking my camera with me everywhere, as here in North Western Ohio, I've seen some pretty good "trails"



posted on May, 22 2004 @ 03:50 PM
link   
HowardRoark, (and all other 'agents' of disinfo)
I have seen your anti-chemtrail reality posts all over this forum. It seems all you have to share is a compulsive need to discredit vaild concerns.
You sure give it your all, I can see that. Why is it so important to you to negate this particular issue. I can understand the relentless conviction of those who can see the reality of CTs since it obviously threatens the well being of our friends and families, but why such need to negate it? What is the fear of us continuing to share the info? Its obviously important to you to shut us up. If its not true, then why not let us kooks be proven wrong in time and let the whole issue die out? Because you know it won't?
Now before you add me to your list of conspirators that you must shun quickly and publicly, before I may actually have a positive effect on people's awareness, I must tell you I am not here to enter into a pissing contest with you, or any other debunker. Engaging in such debates side tracks the real point of sharing this info. I mean I see how much effort you have put into discrediting those who report on chemtrails, so I know you'll pull out all your meteorological texts and explain everything away by the book, and then your accomplices join the slander. It is a moot point for you though, since the study requires more than verbal or written exchange of words. You often ask for evidence and proof, yet you are just as inept at proving chemtrails are normal contrails, because most of us can not very easily collect samples and analyse them, including you. Fortunately there ARE those independent researchers out there with scientific knowledge who ARE able to analyse the contents. Their reports have already been released and have become common knowledge to the seasoned fellow researcher. Most of us rely on photographs to compare and contrast what we see. Those of us who pay attention to the skies can see a distinct difference between normal contrail emmission and chemtrail aerosol particulate spraying. The latter act completely different. Don't give me that altitude crap, because we are not talking about the behavior of normal contrails at different altitudes, (nice try). Of course contrails behave differently at different altitudes... what a great point. This will help in distinguishing the difference between contrails and chemtrail PARTICULATES. The latter FALL!!
Yes thats right they fall, many pictures depict this as you can see whispy vapory vertical trails being left as the chemtrails are pulled to the earth by gravity. Not a normal sight! They don't fade. They're not ice crystals. When in your life have you ever seen contrails fall to lower atmosphere, only to spread and blank out the blue sky. There are also plenty of reports about the polymer particulates seen floating at ground level. I have seen this. I daringly caught one (risking my health and better judgement) it looked like a fake snowflake and it disolved in my hand.
The artificial cloud covers created by this operation ARE NOT weather fronts moving in that we fail to consider. I have watched a cloudless sky become entirely overcast from chemtrails alone... not a real cloud in sight! Chemtrail overcast cloud covers don't bring rain.
If one day is a chemsoup whiteout, and another day is not, it is not due to weather conditions, there are (thank God) fortunately days when no spraying is occurring. Those days are blatantly obvious here in AZ, because on normal days we can actually see the blue sky! Most cloud covers seen here are almost always accompanied by these CTs, and the cloudcover is distinguishable from normal clouds, as a uniform haze with no precipitation, completely white, and no reports of a front moving in. (although I've noticed weather stations becoming more vague about conditions.)
And now before you jump all over me, I, and most other chemtrail trackers, are not here to try to convince anyone of our take on the chemtrail reality. We would much rather promote awareness and encourage people to just LOOK. If you don't believe in the reality of this covert aerosol campaign, then WTF are you doing here??? Why has it become your mission to discredit posts on this issue? Are you afraid we'll turn everyone into chemtrail kooks and take over the world?
Or perhaps you're afraid you'll fail in your assignment.
...Actually I doubt you feel that way, you come off very sure of yourself.

In closing, here is a pic of the vertical wisps left from a chemtrail falling.
Anyone else out there seen this? It is one of the easiest distinctions to make between normal contrails and chemtrails. Check it out.
drewbage.tripod.com...

Hmmm, those strange vertical wisps coming off that trail seem pretty low... golly those ice crystals take an awful long time to melt... maybe its just too cold here in Arizona, or maybe thats how all contrails look at that altitude, oh no it must be the barometric pressure causing those vertical wisps, no wait...its the humidity....
Ohhhh... I forgot, those weather conditions effect PARTICULATE MATTER in a completely different way than normal contrail exhaust ice crystals.

I posted this so others can see, be encouraged, and not be duped by naysayers. Stand firm in your conviction. Point these trails out to people in person! Its much easier that way, as you can watch together and have a real discussion about what you see. Spend a good half hour to several hours watching it take place, watching how the trails continue to be laid out in paralell, grid or criss cross like fashion one after another... watching the trails persist for...1 hr...2 hrs...3hrs.. oh and look how they all join together and merge, spread and cover the sky...
oh look how you can see where they begin and end, that would be a neat trick if the pilot could turn off his exhaust suddenly, then on again.
Easier to see that someone is turning the spray on and off, or the damn thing got clogged with too much polymer crap...

Wow, I'm really going off.

I'd hate to see people who are just beginning to take notice and wanting to educate themselves on this matter be discouraged. It takes more than a glance...more than a second look. It takes continual vigilance. Don't be debunked and dismiss what you see as normal. Must keep watching and sharing thoughts.
We should all be watching the skies closely anyway.
Chemtrails are not the only strange thing to see up there.
I wonder how many chemtrail trackers Howard has convinced that this is normal stuff.

Here, have another on me...
drewbage.tripod.com...

Hmmm, where do you suppose all those planes were going that left those paralell trails? Local airport? Nahhh...wrong direction. Was it an airshow??
If so...not impressed. Commercial flights, yeah...sure... everyones going to Texas right now, theres a big party. Military Ops? Hmmm now we're getting somewhere.
Bye.


mrq

posted on May, 22 2004 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Drewbage,
Your pic links aren't workin'...maybe Tripod doesn't let ya link?

Just fyi.



posted on May, 22 2004 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Oh, dear. You really don't like me, do you? Such a long drawn out and rambling post, deserves a reply, OK, Here goes:



Originally posted by Drewbage
HowardRoark, (and all other 'agents' of disinfo)
I have seen your anti-chemtrail reality posts all over this forum. It seems all you have to share is a compulsive need to discredit vaild concerns.


Not just chemtrails, but if you looked at some of my other posts you will see that I also like to debunk ant theory that is based on ignorance of science and logic.


You sure give it your all, I can see that. Why is it so important to you to negate this particular issue. I can understand the relentless conviction of those who can see the reality of CTs since it obviously threatens the well being of our friends and families, but why such need to negate it? What is the fear of us continuing to share the info? Its obviously important to you to shut us up. If its not true, then why not let us kooks be proven wrong in time and let the whole issue die out? Because you know it won't?


Like I said, I dislike ignorance. The chemtrails hoax is born in ignorance and continues in ignorance. Along the way a few well meaning people have been swept up in the hoax, but fortunately they have come to realize their mistake. Actually the issue is dying out. Participation on the chemtrail message boards has dwindled down to a handful of bitter-enders. Most of the topics on those boards have little or nothing to do with chemtrails anyway.



Now before you add me to your list of conspirators that you must shun quickly and publicly, before I may actually have a positive effect on people's awareness, I must tell you I am not here to enter into a pissing contest with you, or any other debunker.


That is good, because I have a big bladder, a jug of ice tea, and a handful of diuretics! (what, did you just expect me to ignore you after this blatant attack?)


Engaging in such debates side tracks the real point of sharing this info. I mean I see how much effort you have put into discrediting those who report on chemtrails, so I know you'll pull out all your meteorological texts and explain everything away by the book, and then your accomplices join the slander. It is a moot point for you though, since the study requires more than verbal or written exchange of words.


So are you saying that the concept of science is not part of this discussion? Are you expecting me to accept what you say based purely on faith? sounds kind of cultish to me.



You often ask for evidence and proof, yet you are just as inept at proving chemtrails are normal contrails,


Not only are you ignorant of the basic principles of science, but your grasp of the basics of logic are shaky as well. Tell me, how does one go about proving a negative?


because most of us can not very easily collect samples and analyse them, including you. Fortunately there ARE those independent researchers out there with scientific knowledge who ARE able to analyse the contents. Their reports have already been released and have become common knowledge to the seasoned fellow researcher.


Are you talking about Cliff Carnicom???? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA


Most of us rely on photographs to compare and contrast what we see.


Fine so you take a bunch of photographs, but you have no data to back up your claims that the photos are anything but normal weather related phenomina. None, nothing, zip, nada, nix, nien, negative.


Those of us who pay attention to the skies can see a distinct difference between normal contrail emmission and chemtrail aerosol particulate spraying. The latter act completely different. Don't give me that altitude crap, because we are not talking about the behavior of normal contrails at different altitudes, (nice try). Of course contrails behave differently at different altitudes... what a great point. This will help in distinguishing the difference between contrails and chemtrail PARTICULATES. The latter FALL!!


???? You aren't making much sense here. oh, well.


Yes thats right they fall, many pictures depict this as you can see whispy vapory vertical trails being left as the chemtrails are pulled to the earth by gravity. Not a normal sight! They don't fade. They're not ice crystals.


Do you mean like "Mares Tails?" A common cirrus cloud type. So tell me, what do high winds aloft do to clouds?




When in your life have you ever seen contrails fall to lower atmosphere, only to spread and blank out the blue sky. There are also plenty of reports about the polymer particulates seen floating at ground level. I have seen this. I daringly caught one (risking my health and better judgement) it looked like a fake snowflake and it disolved in my hand.


Do you realize just how silly this sounds?




And now before you jump all over me, I, and most other chemtrail trackers, are not here to try to convince anyone of our take on the chemtrail reality. We would much rather promote awareness and encourage people to just LOOK.


And I would rather promote inteligent discussion on this issue, but the Chemmies won't play




If you don't believe in the reality of this covert aerosol campaign, then WTF are you doing here??? Why has it become your mission to discredit posts on this issue?


My mission, as it were, is to discredit scientific illiteracy.



In closing, here is a pic of the vertical wisps left from a chemtrail falling.
Anyone else out there seen this? It is one of the easiest distinctions to make between normal contrails and chemtrails. Check it out.

Hmmm, those strange vertical wisps coming off that trail seem pretty low... golly those ice crystals take an awful long time to melt... maybe its just too cold here in Arizona, or maybe thats how all contrails look at that altitude, oh no it must be the barometric pressure causing those vertical wisps, no wait...its the humidity....
Ohhhh... I forgot, those weather conditions effect PARTICULATE MATTER in a completely different way than normal contrail exhaust ice crystals.



Nice photo of a mares tail.


Hmmm, where do you suppose all those planes were going that left those paralell trails? Local airport? Nahhh...wrong direction. Was it an airshow??
If so...not impressed. Commercial flights, yeah...sure... everyones going to Texas right now, theres a big party. Military Ops? Hmmm now we're getting somewhere.
Bye.



So planes don't fly across the U.S.? To other countries? WOW.








[Edited on 22-5-2004 by HowardRoark]
edited to improve readability.



[Edited on 22-5-2004 by HowardRoark]



posted on May, 22 2004 @ 05:01 PM
link   
quote: who will take on the "devil's dozen"?

Jay Reynolds

1.Do you have a background in a technical field?
No, does that mean I have nothing to say about the stars because I'm not an astronomer? Or the earth because I'm not a geologist?

If not, whom do you consider to have such a background who would state the case for "chemtrails" being a case of "geoengineering"?
I honestly wish I knew someone with the technical knowledge, the time and wherewithall, to collect all pertinent data and collect samples of the CT contents, to stand up to the government and authorities responsible. and make a case for CTs being a health threat to citizens of America and the rest of the globe. I do not assume that CTs are for geoengineering, that is just one possibility left for us to consider, since no help will ever come from the government, aviation, the media, local or federal authorities. We have been purposefully isolated and ignored, and thats why our reports fill the internet.


If no one with such a background exists after five years of interest(enough time for a baccalaureate degree to be earned) why not?
Nice try Roark. That's quite an ussumption you've made. I believe there may be someone... or maybe not. 5years of interest?? Maybe only for you.
The interest goes further back than 5 years, especially for the government and those who have been contracted to perform these operations.

2.Which resource do you depend upon for accurate, sound scientific informaton about "chemtrails"? If none can be relied upon, why not?
Good question, thank you. Ultimately that source would be myself, even with all the limits to my education and ability to analyse the the contents of CTs and the purpose behind them. I rely on myself first because I know what I have seen and experienced since first noticing CTs. Any serious researcher will collect data from a variety of sources and weigh the possibilities with their own reasoning and judgement. Relying on one singular source would be plain stupid. Do not assume no one can be relied on. We must rely on ourselves and those who support us. Again, thats why we use these forums, to help each other understand, to compare notes and experiences, to share no info, whether for or against the reality of CTs.

3.Several meetings were held this past year which were unparalleled opportunities for you to present papers or exhibits to distinguished scientists in fields relevant to "aerosol research" and "aviation emissions". I have examined the proceedings and found no evidence that such a presentation was made. Did you, or any other"chemtrail" interest person present at these conferences?

Well no of course not, you didn't call me!!
Did anyone else? I don't know, I wasn't there. If someone did, do I suppose that they were able to present all of their materials and evidence and get a fair opportunity? Don't know that either. Do I suppose that if a case were made to prove CTs, would it be released to the public? Judging by the way this issue has been handled in the past, I seriously doubt it. If the media hasn't already treated this issue, why should I ever expect them to?


4. What is your personal definition of 'chemtrails"?
Nasty ugly hazardous crap being purposefully sprayed over this whole country and abroad with an undisclosed agenda.

5. What are ordinary contrails, how are they formed, and what determines whether they persist, or not?
Roark, I'll let you answer that yourself. You've explained contrails enough already, and all you've said is factual...ABOUT CONTRAILS, regarding altitude, temperature, weather conditions. And thanks to your good explanations, it helps us distinguish between those contrails and the CTs, which are two different things all together.
Persistence is the key. No contrail should persist long enough for another contrail and another to be added all day to create a complete artificial cloud cover... made of contrails???


6. In what way are alleged "chemtrails" different from ordinary contrails?
Persistence.
Grid like formations, or criss cross and paralells.
The spreading and creation of a white cloud cover.
Resulting in a cloudcover that yields no precipitation.
Trails begining and end can be seen.. did they run out of exhaust??
Persistent CTs are effected by gravity, they fall, and you can see the horizontal trail yield vertical wisps as it falls. Heavy persistent ice crystals??

7.What is the best scientific proof available that "chemtrails" are anything other than ordinary contrails?
Thanks for the encouragement, lets all look for the best evidence, and be open minded and eclectic about relevant data before making a decision. Then if you have made a decision, be open to changes in info, as new sources give new info. However, the last questions answer as to the different characteristics of a CT is my own very best proof, seen in photos.

8.Could you please direct our attention to a photo of an
archetypical "chemtrail", one which you would attribute to "geoengineering"?
I will continue to direct your attention to the odd behavior of CTs with photos when I can. Again I am not convinced CTs are about geoengineering, and I'm not convinced that they are not. I openly admit the limitations of my findings and available proof. Oh, and to bring up an earlier point, why havn't I enrolled in a university to educate myself enough to provide proof CTs are real? Because I don't have the time or the money and it was never my chosen field. How naive of you to expect us to jump up and become professional meteorologists or environmental scientists just to prove our point. Ridiculous.

9. halva cites William Thomas in his case for "chemtrails". William Thomas has stated the following: "the formation of condensation trails requires temperatures lower than about minus 76 F". Is that statement correct, and if not, do you personally consider Thomas an accurate source of information?
Don't know William. Don't know Halva. I have already pointed out that your temperature and altitude argument only apply to contrails. We are talking about chemtrails, which I have seen persist in a variety of conditions and which change altitude as they FALLLLLL. It is particulate matter.

10. Have you personally corresponded with any of the advocates of geoengineering you cite?
Correspond with someone responsible for a secret operation to geoengineer??? Yeah, sure...all my friends are doing it.
Sorry... gotta be a smartass sometimes.
Why should anyone expect such correspondence unless they too are involved with the operations?

If so, how did they respond, if not, why not, given your interest?
Actually Roark, my interest and involvement with this issue has resulted in frequent black helicopter visits, computer monitoring and hacking, slander from disinfo agents such as yourself, and even being accused of being an agent myself, probably in order to foster distrust between me and anyone else I correspond with who takes this matter seriously.

11.halva, please explain WHY you sent a photo that you knew was fake to Thomas. Did you think that such a faked photo would help your cause?

Why did you include this personal question for general responses?
We can not assume the existence of a faked photo based on your say so.
My photos are real.

Do you think now that it has helped your cause?
Tell us what do YOU believe our cause is?? Why do you care and why so concerned?
Do you regret that it shows viewers a make-believe reality?
Did you ask Thomas that it be removed from his website?
This is between you and halva.

12.What tangible thing has come of the "chemtrails" hoax?
Again your questions are presumptuous in the assunption that this is a hoax. But good question anyway. If it is a hoax, how is it that so many people have joined in on this hoax? Are we all fabricating lies? The numbers of witnesses to this activity are staggering. Have we all organized a grand scheme to convince the public that we are being sprayed...?? If so, then I join your questioning, yes...to what end??? To what purpose??
We all want attention??
Its ok though, soon the pharmaceutical companies will release a drug for paranoia, which will probably kill all those who question authority.


13.Tell us exactly which section of the document called
"Chemtrails Over America"(url below) did 'Sore' take part in creating, and which part do you support as being accurate at this time?

Not applicable. Maybe I'll check that out later.

You take satisfaction in chemtrail researchers getting slapped around..as you say. It puzzles me again why you've chosen this personal vendetta or crusade to silence the voices of those who believe this particular threat. Why so emotional about it? Why does it matter TO YOU?
could there be a motivating factor that you're not sharing with us? Perhaps your covert government or corporate issued paycheck??

Anyway thanks for the questionairre.



posted on May, 22 2004 @ 05:07 PM
link   
mrq, thanks for the fyi...man that would really suck if my pics won't load. I clicked on link myself and it did load, so ...I dunno.



posted on May, 22 2004 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Tripod has never allowed outside linking. You can upload the pics here, but ATS does not allow outside linking either, but you can link to them in your post. (or so I believe.
)



BTW, I am not Jay.


[Edited on 22-5-2004 by HowardRoark]



posted on May, 22 2004 @ 05:24 PM
link   
chemtrails are made of ulktra light icecream fellas...go eat some



posted on May, 22 2004 @ 06:36 PM
link   
[Actually the issue is dying out. Participation on the chemtrail message boards has dwindled down to a handful of bitter-enders. Most of the topics on those boards have little or nothing to do with chemtrails anyway.]

I'm not convinced. I don't doubt that there are alot of off topic things in those forums. You can not claim the topic is dying out based on forum participation.

[That is good, because I have a big bladder, a jug of ice tea, and a handful of diuretics! (what, did you just expect me to ignore you after this blatant attack?)]

Good one! Actually I'd very much like to sit and share a pitcher of iced tea and stare at the CTs together and debate debate debate. I have a feeling we'd never agree tho. And honestly, no..I knew you'd have to respond. I would've.

[So are you saying that the concept of science is not part of this discussion? Are you expecting me to accept what you say based purely on faith? sounds kind of cultish to me. ]

Certainly not, but your science keeps going back to weather conditions and altitude and the like, which I have agreed with. I never for a moment expected you to accept a word I have said. I am saying that CTs are consistent and persistent at different altitudes, because I have watched them change altitude and expand. I have also seen CTs at different seasons and temperatures and in different weather conditions. I have also seen a difference between contrails and CTs in the same weather conditions. One day CTs are sprayed and behave as I have described. Another day with similar conditions, planes can fly all day without any CTs.
I don't call this proof, just another factor to consider.

[Not only are you ignorant of the basic principles of science, but your grasp of the basics of logic are shaky as well. Tell me, how does one go about proving a negative?]

Ask a lawyer.
I love your style of broad assumptions and presumptuous questioning.
You have concluded based on my responses that I lack basic scientific knowledge. Why?
And what don't you understand about my logic?

Damn.. here we are pissing!
By the way, I'm not trying to be nasty, mean or rude, and I don't mean to sound like I'm attacking. I can see where you would get that impression tho.

[Fine so you take a bunch of photographs, but you have no data to back up your claims that the photos are anything but normal weather related phenomina. None, nothing, zip, nada, nix, nien, negative.]

For me the photos speak for themselves. I have never claimed to have anymore data than that. The reason the photos are enough for me is because I have never seen contrails behave in the way I have described until 2000 when I started paying attention. Before that, all contrails I've ever taken notice of have faded within minutes and did not persist all the way across the sky, and did not ever spread and become a cloudcover, did not persist long enough to fall closer to earth, did not block out the sun, did not follow paralell lines or grid formations, did not noticably effect ground level conditions, did not effect my sinuses and eyes and respiration.
Thats all.

I said: Those of us who pay attention to the skies can see a distinct difference between normal contrail emmission and chemtrail aerosol particulate spraying. The latter act completely different. Don't give me that altitude crap, because we are not talking about the behavior of normal contrails at different altitudes, (nice try). Of course contrails behave differently at different altitudes... what a great point. This will help in distinguishing the difference between contrails and chemtrail PARTICULATES. The latter FALL!!
You said: ???? You aren't making much sense here. oh, well.

CTs start at high altitude, they spread and fall and do not fade, therefore they persist as they change altitude. Contrails do not do this. Do they???
For hours??

[Do you mean like "Mares Tails?" A common cirrus cloud type. So tell me, what do high winds aloft do to clouds?]

Ah good there is terminology for this effect. My lack of basic science has kept me ignorant about "Mares Tails"
And yes I have seen this effect on cirrus type clouds. Yes it is common.
High winds aloft may do this to clouds.. why yes indeed. They also do this to CTs. I do not look up and see a cloud and say oh look theres a CT. I watch them being sprayed from the source and watch them persist and see them create these "Mares Tails"..so they are not cirrus clouds. Can you explain why a contrail would have this effect? Perhaps they do, I don't know...I just have never seen that effect from the trail of a plane before.

I said: When in your life have you ever seen contrails fall to lower atmosphere, only to spread and blank out the blue sky. There are also plenty of reports about the polymer particulates seen floating at ground level. I have seen this. I daringly caught one (risking my health and better judgement) it looked like a fake snowflake and it disolved in my hand.

You said: Do you realize just hoe silly this sounds?

Blah, Blah, Blah

Its all silly to me. People will think I am silly. I don't have a problem with that. I did have a witness that day who saw me catch the strange particle and watched it dissolve with me though.

Blah, Blah, Blah.

[And I would rather promote inteligent discussion on this issue, but the Chemmies won't play]
I'm sorry to hear that. I'm tryin....

[My mission, as it were, is to discredit scientific illiteracy.]
That is a good mission. Perhaps you should get your degree, if you don't already have one, and teach! God knows we need that.

I said: In closing, here is a pic of the vertical wisps left from a chemtrail falling.
Anyone else out there seen this? It is one of the easiest distinctions to make between normal contrails and chemtrails. Check it out.

Hmmm, those strange vertical wisps coming off that trail seem pretty low... golly those ice crystals take an awful long time to melt... maybe its just too cold here in Arizona, or maybe thats how all contrails look at that altitude, oh no it must be the barometric pressure causing those vertical wisps, no wait...its the humidity....
Ohhhh... I forgot, those weather conditions effect PARTICULATE MATTER in a completely different way than normal contrail exhaust ice crystals.

You said: [Nice photo of a mares tail]

Thanks. It is isn't it? A mares tail from a trail left by a plane.

I said (in reference to photo): Hmmm, where do you suppose all those planes were going that left those paralell trails? Local airport? Nahhh...wrong direction. Was it an airshow??
If so...not impressed. Commercial flights, yeah...sure... everyones going to Texas right now, theres a big party. Military Ops? Hmmm now we're getting somewhere.

You said:[So planes don't fly across the U.S.? To other countries? WOW.]

pause to laugh at both our smart remarks...

I was just pointing out that these trails are not from local airtraffic. Perhaps it was not a good point.

It's been fun Roark.
It appears our major unresolved differences are:
How can normal contrails persist for hours and spread and cause complete cloud cover? I have watched the whole process take place, not just peeking every now and again.
Can normal contrails cause these mares tails?
Explain why I can often see the start and finish of these trails, initiation and termination. And why do such start and finish points coincide with the perimeter of our city?
Such trails are consistently laid at high altitudes, so high you can barely see the plane, you can't even hear them. I can attest to other reports though, that what I can see of these planes is that they have all been white, at least in my experience.
I can't say what that means, its just odd isn't it?
I wish that I could agree with you. Then I could move on to the rest of the subjects on this forum.

And so I am curious, whats this about ant theory?


Enjoy your day.

















posted on May, 22 2004 @ 06:44 PM
link   
I see chemtrails all the time. I've been aware for the last three years. I have even seen small chemtrail segments being added to by another jet passing at an angle and watching it start and stop the spray, them turn off and fly away as if it completed the job of building one small cloud.



posted on May, 22 2004 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Do you agree with the following two statements?

1) contrails consist of ice crystals.

2) High altitude clouds (i.e. cirrus clouds etc.) consist of ice crystals.


CTs start at high altitude, they spread and fall and do not fade, therefore they persist as they change altitude. Contrails do not do this. Do they???
For hours??


Don't clouds persist for hours?

Why do you think that contrails should behave differently than clouds?



posted on May, 22 2004 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Do you agree with the following two statements?

1) contrails consist of ice crystals.
Yes, they only form at high altitudes

2) High altitude clouds (i.e. cirrus clouds etc.) consist of ice crystals.
Yes, they usually form above 18,000 feet and generally move from west to east across the sky


CTs start at high altitude, they spread and fall and do not fade, therefore they persist as they change altitude. Contrails do not do this. Do they???
For hours??


Don't clouds persist for hours?

Why do you think that contrails should behave differently than clouds?





I have watched jets come in where they don't fly and travel from horizion to horizion laying trails. Within an hour they blend together to form a milky haze and blot out the sun. It then drops noticably in temorature. I have also taken a trip up high on a nearby hill where there is a 1,000 ft tower. Low and behold the clouds thin out around the tower. They are level or below the tower and hill. There is one of the dirtyest coal fired power plants nearby which has led me to believe the chemtrails are beilg used to clean the air. That is just one of my theories. I live around 1350 ft above sea level to give you an idea how high the chemtrails are being sprayed.



posted on May, 22 2004 @ 08:16 PM
link   

How can normal contrails persist for hours and spread and cause complete cloud cover? I have watched the whole process take place, not just peeking every now and again.


First, are you sure you are not confusing cause and effects? If you did not observe any contrails, but instead observed a few small clouds spread into a cloud cover, would that upset you also?

How do you know that the same meteorological process that would have caused a cloud cover to form pre-1903 (the year of the Wright Brother's first flight) aren't at work here?

How do you know that these same meteorological processes aren't causing the contrail to persist for hours?

If a contrail is frozen ice crystals formed from the engine exhuast, why wouldn't they behave in the exact same way that normal clouds at those altitudes do?




Can normal contrails cause these mares tails?



Sure, why not? Mares tails are just the spreading of ice crystals due to strong winds. If a contrail is made up of ice crystals just like a cirrus cloud is why wouldn't it behave that way?



Explain why I can often see the start and finish of these trails, initiation and termination.


Why do clouds have shapes? by your logic we would only have two types of conditions, totally clear skies or totally overcast.

Even cirrus clouds can have edges.


And why do such start and finish points coincide with the perimeter of our city?


Urban heat islands



Such trails are consistently laid at high altitudes, so high you can barely see the plane, you can't even hear them. I can attest to other reports though, that what I can see of these planes is that they have all been white, at least in my experience.



Look at the Standard atmosphere table. Look at the average temperature at 35,000 feet (a common flight level): 68 degrees below zero. That is pretty cold.



posted on May, 22 2004 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by energy_wave

I have watched jets come in where they don't fly and travel from horizion to horizion laying trails.


"jets come in where they don't fly." Could you explain/rephrase that? I don't understand what you are trying to say.



Within an hour they blend together to form a milky haze and blot out the sun. It then drops noticably in temorature.


Congratulations, you have just witnessed a cold front passing though. Persistent contrails often form ahead of weather fronts as the moving air mass forces warm moist air aloft.


I have also taken a trip up high on a nearby hill where there is a 1,000 ft tower. Low and behold the clouds thin out around the tower. They are level or below the tower and hill. There is one of the dirtyest coal fired power plants nearby which has led me to believe the chemtrails are beilg used to clean the air. That is just one of my theories. I live around 1350 ft above sea level to give you an idea how high the chemtrails are being sprayed.


So are you stating that chemtrails are being sprayed at 2350 feet (1350 + 1000)?

What about Drewbage's contention that chemtrails are being sprayed at high altitudes?

Do you see jet planes spraying at 2500 feet? I bet at that height a good telephoto lens would be able to take a picture of the spray mechanism.



posted on May, 22 2004 @ 10:21 PM
link   
howard! i see you've made some new friends! that's fab.
drewbage, ......nice.
you might start explaining how the sky's not really blue, it only looks that way, howard. you can measure it, quantify it, and whatnot, but people are going to look up and say, 'the sky is blue, i see it'.
i see it.
it looks different.
all SCIENTIFIC whatnot starts with OBSERVATION, howard.



posted on May, 22 2004 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Hi Billybob, I was wondering how long it would take you to show up.

Yes, it all starts with observation, as you state,

The Scientific Method:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

here is a good site explaining the phenomina.

Note the following


There is a very important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypothesis which differentiates it from, for example, an act of faith: a theory must be ``falsifiable''. This means that there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue. For example, Einstein's theory of Relativity made predictions about the results of experiments. These experiments could have produced results that contradicted Einstein, so the theory was (and still is) falsifiable.


In contrast, the theory that ``the moon is populated by little green men who can read our minds and will hide whenever anyone on Earth looks for them, and will flee into deep space whenever a spacecraft comes near'' is not falsifiable: these green men are designed so that no one can ever see them. On the other hand, the theory that there are no little green men on the moon is scientific: you can disprove it by catching one. Similar arguments apply to abominable snow-persons, UFOs and the Loch Ness Monster(s?).






new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join