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: 2
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2004 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
explaining the phenomina.

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?).






that's some good ant theory phenomina, howard. you clear up them inorant thots of the dum dums.
sorry. i couldn't resist.




posted on May, 22 2004 @ 11:20 PM
link   



posted on May, 22 2004 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Ah, an excellent example of the Attacking the Person fallacy (argumentum ad hominem)




i know. i was just yanking yer chain. i didn't mean it. i honestly hold you in relatively high esteem.
you're alright for a disinfo pro.


XL5

posted on May, 23 2004 @ 12:43 AM
link   
Copy the link text and paste in a new weeb window. I think an avid small air craft trainer should be able to look in a passanger jets cockpit and see whats not stock/standard, but I am not leaning one way or the other.



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob


i know. i was just yanking yer chain. i didn't mean it. i honestly hold you in relatively high esteem.
you're alright for a disinfo pro.



I Know that. It was late and I was tired. (Waitng for the SWMBO to get home from work so that I could go to bed)



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 04:06 PM
link   
We should keep in mind that chemtrail spraying is as close as you will come to an official "forbidden thought". This is a very expensive program, estimated at two billion dollars a year for the US and Europe combined. There is too much at stake here to allow unfettered public discussion.

I doubt there are any signifificant internet forums that do not have their official watchers, charged with confusing this issue and shutting down discussion. This has been true from the time discussion began to mushroom in 1999, after spraying began in December 1998. Having taken part in the debate then, and watched from the sidelines for several years, I can assure those who are interested in this topic that it does no good whatsoever to engage the Thought Police in debate.

Why? Because debate is not their mission. It is not their job to "be convinced". Nor do they expect to persuade you to abandon the evidence of your own eyes. They are interested in two things only:

1) To take up as much of your time as possible, because you should be pulled off track.

2) To create the APPEARANCE that chemtrails are just an idea in some peoples' heads, and that there is hot debate over whether or not they even exist. The effect of this ploy is to persuade people who are new to the subject that they are not going to be able to find the truth, and they might as well forget about it. This helps prevent the spread of information to a larger audience.

When you ask serious questions, or post observations you think might be helpful to others, and immediately run across someone like HowardRoark, above, it is naturally a shock. You've done your best and now, as you try to explain your thoughts, you seem to be up against someone who is too dumb to find his way to work each morning.

Don't get suckered in. Ignore the thought police. They've had nothing new to say for five years, anyway. Focus on basic issues that people CAN OBSERVE FOR THEMSELVES. Thought police take advantage of the fact that it is very difficult to "prove" anything in a few paragraphs of text. Consequently, if you devote your text to things that are self-proving, you will be miles ahead with the audience you really care about.

If you make a point that the average left shoe is significantly different than the average right shoe, you don't have to prove a thing because people can simply look at a pair of shoes and see that you are right. The same goes for chemtrails. There are distinct characteristics and patterns to this operation which make it absolutely clear it is not a normal phenomena, and many conclusions that can be drawn through simple, logical thought. All the reader has to do is go outside and look. Those that won't do so are certainly not worth spending time on.



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Strider
you seem to be up against someone who is too dumb to find his way to work each morning.


The only person too dumb to do anything here are those who are too dumb to understand the basic principles of metrology.


They've had nothing new to say for five years, anyway.


Neither have the chemtrail addicts. No new data, no samples, no photos of spray apparatus, nothing at all.



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Strider
We should keep in mind that chemtrail spraying is as close as you will come to an official "forbidden thought". This is a very expensive program, estimated at two billion dollars a year for the US and Europe combined. There is too much at stake here to allow unfettered public discussion.


Cool, a new sig line.



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 04:46 PM
link   
You will also notice that whatever forum you are in, the chemtrail Thought Police are very, very quick on the trigger.



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 05:04 PM
link   
I'll be happy to discuss chemtrails with you. Please answer a few questions:

How can you tell the difference between a contrail and a chemtrail?

How can you tell the altitude of an airplane by looking at it from the ground?

Is the wind direction at 30,000 feet the same as the wind direction on the ground?



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 06:21 PM
link   
OK - I'll bite. But only because I'm working on an article in which these three questions fit rather well. Be about thirty minutes.

[Edited on 29-5-2004 by Strider]



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 08:19 PM
link   
As readers may have gathered from my previous post, while HowardRoark may be willing to "discuss chemtrails" with me, I have no interest in discussing them with HIM, because there would be no point. On the other hand, I'm happy to share information with the group in general. In reverse order,

3) Wind directions vary quite a bit from ground level on up. This is why hot air baloon pilots can change their direction of flight by changing altitudes. You can easily find wind speeds, directions and TEMPERATURES for your own location via the WINDS ALOFT charts published for pilots and updated every six hours. I'll post a link later, with advice on how to use them. Check Google if you are in a hurry. Only the levels up to 10-12,000 feet are significant, since normal spraying does not use higher altitudes.

2) Determining, or just estimating, the altitude of large aircraft is not terribly difficult. Europeans are better at it than we are, perhaps due to memories of Allied bombing raids in WWII. This is probably why they are told chemtrails are from pollution, rather than contrails which are altitude dependent. Remember that on the rare occassions when you might have seen a contrail as a child, the aircraft was only a tiny dot some distance ahead of the actual contrail. You could see no aircraft detail at all because if it was in fact leaving a contrail it was six miles high, and that much distance or more from the observer.

If you wish to train yourself to estimate aircraft altitudes, you will focus on how much detail you can see, and compare that with aircraft at known altitudes (listen to the local controllers via a scanner) or at known distances. If you are two miles from the airport, how much detail can you see on a large jet that is landing or taking off? How large does it appear. If you drive in to one mile (~5000 ft) or out to three miles (~15,000 ft) how much can you see of wings, windows, engines, and so on. You will find that at ten to twelve thousand feet, with the naked eye, you can still see the shape of the aircraft, maybe how many engines it has, but not much more. This is the general level of naked eye detail observed on the tankers. Of course a good pair of binoculars will give you plenty of detail, including the identifying configuration of Air Force and National Guard tankers, while even really good binoculars could not do this if they were up at 30,000.

If you have several people involved, and anyone has woodworking or metal working gear, you can do as we did and build a simple rangefinder system. It takes two units, and two people with cellphones because you need to be about 1000 feet apart for accuracy. Both units must be able to display the horizontal angle to the aircraft, preferably to a tenth of a degree. This fixes it's location in reference to the ground, ie. the point directly below the plane. One unit must also be able to display the vertical angle to the aircraft. This lets you determine it's altitude. The math used is simple, involving computing the dimensions of a triangle when you know two angles and the distance between them. To check your accuracy, you want to take five or six readings on a tanker while it is making its run. Altitude should remain the same. Deviations can be averaged if they are not too great, otherwise review your procedures and math. Our tankers actually dipped below 10,000 at times, but generally stayed right at the bottom of the 10,000 - 30,000 ft box that air controllers say they reserve "for national security purposes".

1) there are so many differences between chemtrails and contrails that it would take way too long to list them all. One thing to remember, though, is that on very rare occassions some natural phenomenon will mimic a particular spraying characteristic. You see it with spray operations virtually every day, but once in a while, on the outskirts of a hurricane for instance, or near the arctic circle, something similiar will appear. Don't let the Thought Police persuade you to disbelieve your own eyes. Whatever it is, it does not occur naturally five days in a row, over Phoenix. Or Baltimore. Or your hometown either. Those who present themselves as weather experts, conveniently omit this fact.

Focusing on things that you can easily observer yourself, and which are therefore self-proving, here are some of my favorites:

A. This is an oldie, that you won't see very often now. In 1999 many spray plumes appeared to emerge from the aircraft in clumps or puffs. It was actually rather comical. It caused such an uproar on the web, that the government actually laid out big bucks to fix it. Here's what was happening. Even the oldest of the aging tanker fleet had been called out for spray duty, and in many cases the older pumps had a pressure pulsation that became quite visible in the plume trailing behind the aircraft. Many pics of this went up on the web, and you can still find them (self-proving). Within a few months, Boeing announced that they had received a major contract for new, high speed refueling pumps, despite the fact that there were no orders for new tankers. If you compare the 1999-2000 chemtrail photos with current photos, or your current sky, you will see that the problem was fixed. However the idea that the exhaust from jet engines was coming out in clumps and globs before it could freeze into contrails was sheer comedy. Again, just hunt around in some of the photo collections and you will see this clearly.

B. Simple observation that will only take a few minutes of your time will show that the white spray plume appears so close to the aircraft that it appears almost attached to it. Binoculars will make this even more clear. During the initial frenzy of information requests, the Air Force admitted that over the U.S. and aircraft had to be close to 30,000 feet up before it would begin leaving a contrail. (They also insisted their tankers had no reason to fly that high - and didn't) At this altitude, where temperaturs are just cold enough to freeze some of the moisture in 1000 degree (F) jet exhaust before it is completely dispersed, it takes TIME to do the freezing. Consequently, the contrail appears far behind the aircraft. As altitudes increase, going up through 40,000 and 50,000 ft (higher than commercial aircraft usually fly over the US) the freezing time shortens, and the contrail appears closer to the airplane. No one really knows how high you would have to go get jet exhaust to freeze instantly, but a physics professor told me it's probably so high that jet engines wouldn't work anyway. Regardless, you can through close observation, or a little math based on an estimated 350 mph flight speed, and a many times faster jet exhaust speed, discover that it is some tiny fraction of a second for the jet exhaust to travel from the engine to the tail of the aircraft. At the tail, as you can see with your own eyes (self-proving) the stream is now densely, solidly white. Refer to any current Winds Aloft chart to get temperature data, and you will see that no temperatures are cold enought to do this - at any altitude given. Borrow some binoculars! You'll get a kick out this.

C. Perhaps the most interesting feature of chemtrails stems from their jet fuel composition, and that the two main components, gasoline and kerosine, slowly separate. If you don't want to watch for this in real life, there are plenty of pictures on the web. If you will watch ordinary clouds, you will see that in no-turbulent air the whole cloud moves as a unit. There may be some slow churning from temperature variations, but since the cloud is all made of a single thing, water vapor, it pretty much hangs together. In hot weather you can observe a haze around clouds. As the air warms up around them it can hold more moisture. The cloud appears to get smaller and smaller as it slowly disappears. Chemtrails, and the "clouds" that they become, do not behave this way at all. Chemtrails never get smaller. They always expand. The fact that there are two components, of different volatility, creates fascinating effects.

The kerosine is not so volatile, and is somewhat sluggish when compared to the gasoline. The gasoline is much more effected by the slightest change in the wind. For this reason, you can often see with your own eyes that the upwind side of the chemtrail appears more dense and "heavy" than the downwind side. The movement of the wind itself is enough to separate the heavier and lighter compenents, blowing the lighter gasoline vapor on ahead, often creating imazing whisps and swirls, almost an angel-hair appearance. To verify that you are seeing a fundamental difference in behavior from the way a single-substance cloud would behave, simply look around for a natural cloud, assuming there are some (days with no clouds used to be common, you know), and compare. You will see that the natural cloud, composed only of water vapor, is not behaving like this. This is true, even though the natural cloud is probably at significantly lower altitude where wind can be more variable in speed and direction. You will never see a water vapor cloud (or ice crystals for that matter) appear to shred, or grow hair, except under the most bizarre conditions.

D. The final characteristic of chemtrails that you can easily verify for yourself, regards the timing of spray operations. Again, you can easiliy verify this for yourself, so no proof is required. First, spray operations run from just before dawn until sunset, in two shifts. In five years of observation I have never seen chemtrail spray operations at night, with the exception of two evenings under very full moons. You will also see that while spraying tends to increase when a weather front is on the way, it halts abruptly, I might even say instantly, when a cold front actually arrives. In fact, the spraying will remain stopped until winds below 10,000 ft. return to a predictable direction and their speed returns to aprox. 6 - 26 mph. The point is - when night falls, and when a cold front arrives, temperatures DROP. If we were dealing with contrails, dropping temperatures would make them more pronounced, especially if you "humidity" to the equation. Instead, they simply stop. Of course you can use this time to identify "normal air traffic" because "normal air traffic" is still flying. The same routes and schedules as always. Of course, even though it's much colder, or even a little bit colder, normal traffic is not leaving white streaks in the sky. They never did.








[Edited on 29-5-2004 by Strider]



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Strider

Only the levels up to 10-12,000 feet are significant, since normal spraying does not use higher altitudes.


OK. that is a new one. CHemtrails are sprayed at 10,000 to 12,000 feet. Since most Commercial airlines fly much higher (25,000 to 30,000) feet, You would expect to see airliners flying way above the "sprayplanes."


Our tankers actually dipped below 10,000 at times, but generally stayed right at the bottom of the 10,000 - 30,000 ft box that air controllers say they reserve "for national security purposes".


You have no idea who the air traffic system works, do you? It sounds like you just made this up out of thin air.


Perhaps the most interesting feature of chemtrails stems from their jet fuel composition, and that the two main components, gasoline and kerosine, slowly separate. If you don't want to watch for this in real life, there are plenty of pictures on the web. If you will watch ordinary clouds, you will see that in no-turbulent air the whole cloud moves as a unit. There may be some slow churning from temperature variations, but since the cloud is all made of a single thing, water vapor, it pretty much hangs together. In hot weather you can observe a haze around clouds. As the air warms up around them it can hold more moisture. The cloud appears to get smaller and smaller as it slowly disappears. Chemtrails, and the "clouds" that they become, do not behave this way at all. Chemtrails never get smaller. They always expand. The fact that there are two components, of different volatility, creates fascinating effects.

The kerosine is not so volatile, and is somewhat sluggish when compared to the gasoline. The gasoline is much more effected by the slightest change in the wind.


Not only do you have no idea how the air traffic system works, but your understanding of some of the basics of meteorology is just as shaky as your understanding of chemistry.



contrail photo 1

contrail photo 2

contrail photo 3

contrail photo 4

contrail photo 5 This is a good one! what altitude would you estimate that both of these planes are at, Strider?


Contrail photo 6

Contrail photo 7



[Edited on 29-5-2004 by HowardRoark]



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 09:26 PM
link   
One more from 1958, no less.


Notice the contrails in the sky above the old San Francisco airport.





posted on May, 29 2004 @ 10:11 PM
link   
All I have to ask is.......

I CARE BECAUSE?



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 10:38 PM
link   
As you can see, it is not possible to engage the Thought Police in actual debate. On the other hand, I think I've proved my point that by sticking with key ideas that other people can test for themselves, you can still cover the ground pretty well.

In the early days of the chemtrail program, one of the most irritating factors was that television stations were not airing any pictures of them. I can't tell you how frustrated we got! It was like they didn't exist. People in local TV production didn't know what they were, either, but they were damn sure they didn't want them in their shots. They made the city look bad in any kind of news coverage, and for commercials no one wanted some bizarre streak across the sky to distract from the product.

Unfortunately, the damn things wouldn't go away, and eventually you get to a news event or a product shoot that simply can't wait. I clearly remember the evening I got an excited phone call, telling me to turn on the news. A news story from New Orleans showed a very clear chemtrail. It was right there "in front of God and everybody!" That was sometime in the summer (of 1999 - five years ago) and for some reason it seemed like a triumph of truth and justice - that an unannounced boycott on chemtrail images had finally been broken. Those were exciting times!

Although there were isolated tests of spray procedures for tanker crews going back into the eighties, (chemical and biological warfare operations ARE their other primary mission component) you will virtually never see them in films because they were extremely rare and, from a director's point of view, both ugly and historically inaccurate for many movies. You can easily see for yourself how all that changed when production companies filming in the US, Canada, and Europe could no longer predict when they might have clear skies. Just watch a mix of old and new cable movies and you will see the watershed - 1999 - when it was no longer possible to find clear skies. Not sure about spraying in Europe? Watch the Bourne Identity. You will see that they did fairly well avoiding them in the countryside, but when they had to do the expensive shooting in the city, where you can only get permission to block off the streets for a short period, there they are.

We did see one older film, Mars Attacks, where someone appears to have painted in a chemtrail cloud near Washington, D.C., but it only appears in the single scene - a few seconds long - and doesn't fit in with the scenes around it. I've thought of trying to find an old VHS tape, to see if this was painted in later, on the way to Turner Broadcasting.

Automotive commercials, for new car models or special offers, are probably under the most time pressure, and it is no surprise that it was this group among commercials that first begin showing the new reality no matter how bad it looked. This will be a little more difficult for you to verify on your own, but if you can find a buddy who has taped all the Super Bowl games for the last 10 years, or any other really big annual event, and left the commercials on the tape, then you have another easy resource for documenting what has happened to us all.

Just a couple more ways you can do your own investigation, and come up with your own proofs. Good hunting!!





[Edited on 29-5-2004 by Strider]



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Hmm, It looks like the "Though Police" were around in the 1975 (when this mural was painted)




"This image is the 25-foot by 75-foot mural in the World War II Gallery of the National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.. The B-17G, 42-38050, "Thunder Bird" of the 303rd Bomb Group, based at Molesworth, England, is seen at 11:45 AM, August 15, 1944, over Trier, Germany, on its return to base from a mission to Weisbaden. B-17Gs "Bonnie B," "Special Delivery," and "Marie" are seen below as a Messerschmitt 109G and Focke Wulf FW 190 attack "Thunder Bird's" element."

source



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 11:07 PM
link   
So Strider, back to your claims.

Just how much gasoline is in jet fuel anyway?



[Edited on 29-5-2004 by HowardRoark]



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 11:27 PM
link   
The terrific painting from the National Air and Space Museum is certainly worth a response. It is of course, an artists rendition. That's fine. As I pointed out, contrails ARE a high altitude effect, and bombers flew as high as their planes could go, to avoid anti-aircraft cannon, and to require fighters to use up just that little bit more fuel on the way up.

I would rather see a photo, if attempting to do any actual measuring regarding the contrails themselves. These aircraft are also pretty slow, and do not have extremely hot and greatly accelerated exhaust of jet engines.

The best point here is that this is what the Europeans saw from the ground, and they also knew that allied bombers were flying much higher than anyone normally flew around Europe, where distances are relatively short. The same holds true today, which is the main reason that Europeans could never be convinced that the flight from Nice to Rome was suddenly leaving contrails.

And, as discussed above, high altitude effects have nothing to do with the chemtrail program.



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 11:36 PM
link   
So I take it that the basis of your whole claim is that chemtrails are only sprayed between 10,000 and 12,000 feet?

Do any other chemtrail believers agree with you on this?


And don't think that I didn't notice that you ignored my gasoline/jet fuel question.

[Edited on 29-5-2004 by HowardRoark]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join