Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Nothing in chemtrails... yeahhh riiiiight...Photos

page: 31
38
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Check out my wreb site for the most complete set of all aspects of chemtrail info including some rediculas info as well.

www.medialies.webs.com

if you wish to contribute or want to share send me a U2U




posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Anybody that says "chemtrails" are real, is uneducated in several areas of study. As a former pilot who studied meteorology for several years I can honestly chalk this one up to complete ignorance. Go ahead, tell me how wrong I am and insist that they are real...It provides me with endless laughter when the uneducated get defensive about things they have ZERO knowledge (or education) about. Just because one looks into the sky, and sees something "odd", doesn't mean they're an "expert" on these phenomena!

The belief in chemtrails stems from ignorance about the following subjects:

Meteorology
Aviation
(SIMPLE!!) Science (condensation)

I have studied these subjects for over the last 30 years and there is absolutely NO DOUBT that "chemtrails" are nothing more than "persistent contrails".

Go ahead, insist I'm wrong...no skin off my nose! My actual education and subsequent understanding of the FACTS allow me to be 100% secure in my stance. You would be doing yourself a HUGE favor by actually learning something about this subject ( NOT ON YOUTUBE!!!) and understanding how misguided paranoia results in the belief of the absurd.

Chemtrails......Hilarious!!!!


And all the supposed anomalies (gaps in trails, strange flight patterns, differences in trails at supposedly the same altitude) are ALL explained with actual KNOWLEDGE on the subject. Conspiracy nuts are just not happy unless they have something to speculate about based on a total lack of education on a particular subject.
Pathetic.




Thisguy is government dis info agent. Any time you hear folks like this trying to dispell proven clinical science by attacking the level of intelligence of the person considering any plausable truth, beware, this is exactly how one aspect of MK ultra, and moking bird programs worked.



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Missing Blue Sky
 


So basically you don't understand what a contrail is, and have decided, all by yourself, to replace "I don't know" with "it's an overly-complicated government scheme that can not possibly work, that I have no evidence for".

Deny ignorance - it's difficult, but if you want to actually learn, it's the only way.



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   
This is one of the better threads on this subject and I am thankful to many people on here that have provided so many links and information sources.

However - I really just do not know what to believe, there is information that pulls strongly towards that there is a real issue with something "funny" going on, and equally there is a rational viewpoint that pulls equally strongly that there is nothing "funny" going on.

I just wish we had some hard tangible proof one way or another. I am sure that spraying is done for weather modifications, also for war games (covering manoeuvres etc).

A simple "library" of tangible evidence collected, and any analysis by reputable labs etc would help. -
In the mean time I remain cautiously sceptical and suspicious at the same time !



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by sjb5000
 


If you really want to be rational you would have to come to this conclusion:

If chemtrails are real, due to the massive amount of reports from all over the world, it has to be a massive conspiracy with some sort of scientific establishment envolvement.

If you accept this scenario you cannot expect "respectable labs" to confirm it, because they are a part of the bigger problem.

Chemtrails, like 911 or the UFO truth embargo are a branch of a bigger conspiracy and you will only understand it with a holistic approach. Don't expect someone to prove this one for you, either you go out and experience them, or you stay in doubt, because the powers that be in this world would rather you not know.

Chemtrails is a branch of the awakening process, and this process will, if you chose to take the right pill, open your eyes to a world which is nothing like the media and hollywood tell you it is. So you either buy what your told or you make your own path, there is no middle term where a father figure makes life easy for you. That happens later if you really awaken to a greater spritual reality. But that's another thread.



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by Missing Blue Sky
 


So basically you don't understand what a contrail is, and have decided, all by yourself, to replace "I don't know" with "it's an overly-complicated government scheme that can not possibly work, that I have no evidence for".

Deny ignorance - it's difficult, but if you want to actually learn, it's the only way.


Your reply was borderline insulting, I hope you didn't mean it, because manners matter.

I find the chemtrail hypothesis neither overly complicated or impossible. You obviously did not look at the snowmelt photos from Colorado...because my good friend, I suggest we enter those slides as evidence.

I spent way to much time with my grandfather, who was an aviation enthusiast and pilot, skywatching to not know the difference between a contrail and and a persistent aerosol trail. When I moved to Chicago I had sudden adult onset asthma which hospitalized me, searching for answers, I started questioning air quality. Haze pollution was the first topic I looked into. That led me to chemtrails. I have an advantage many others here do not, I have hours available to me to spend outside skywatching. Have you ever spent several days in a row watching the planes leave their tracks, photographing them and keeping a log? I have, and until to take the time to sit and watch it and see how it affects the cloudcover and pollution you will not understand our point of view.

And if "naive" paranoid ideas bother you so much, why to log on to threads like this and hang around at ATS? There are many topics I find ridiculous, so I avoid them. I don't log in and insult people. I hope you find more satisfying threads for yourself in the future.



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Missing Blue Sky
 


I too have had time to watch the sky extensively. These folks either don't or just prefer to read a book about it. The difference in results is staggering, with them being unable to accept reality.

And don't mind Dave, he just dosen't know any better, yet thinks he has the method to know everything, in theory, without experience. His scientific father figures tell him how it is. Less work that way, eh?



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Missing Blue Sky
 


I didn't mean to be insulting, but if I touched a nerve, maybe the problem isn't my choice of words, but your choice of beliefs.

Chemtrails are of course overly complicated and impossible. How on earth is anyone spraying chemicals at tens of thousands of feet going to ensure where they land? There are far more accurate, stealthy, cost-effective ways to pollute specific areas with chemicals. It's like the plot of a bad James Bond film.

I'm here to learn. I challenge shoddy logic wherever I find it, usually in chemtrail threads. There is no evidence for chemtrails. All the photographic 'evidence' is nothing of the sort. We need a direct sample taken from a contrail that shows suspicious chemicals. That's it. Without that no rational person can say for certain that this happens. You are entitled to your opinion, but to phrase it as fact without substantiating evidence is insulting to everyone else's intelligence.



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Zepherian
 


You can't tell what's in a trail by looking at it. That is the most preposterous position I've read in these threads, and it seems to form the entire crux of your argument. Your argument is based on shoddy guesswork, massive assumptions, and illogical connections.

So yeah - don't mind me. Continue to run around in circles never knowing anything. It's more fun and easier than actual study, I guess. For some, at least.



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 11:51 PM
link   
Dave, and Zeph....as an outsider looking upon your last few posts it SEEMS to me that you two actually agree, and just don't realize it!!

I realize that we are now on page "blah, blah, blah" of this thread (I'm not computer-savvy enough to see where, now that I've decided to opine) but I CAN say this: AND I have said it before, passenger commercial jets are NOT 'spraying' any alleged 'chemtrails'...!!!

Will try one last time to dispel this notion....

I will, as a former Airline Pilot, explain how it works.

Every Airline must desiginate each airplane with its OEW (Operating Empty Weight).

((The particular terms may vary, but the principles remain the same))

The 'OEW' of, say, a B-737 is determined by actually weighing the real airplane....three scales, one for the nosegear and two for each main gear...and this is calculated as the 'basic' empty weight.

"Empty Weight" is an aviation term to describe the initial condition of an airplane (or 'aircraft') before the weight of fuel and payload have been added.

The 'OEW' in the Airline BIZ means....the actual airplane HAS been weighed, THEN the estimated weights of the required crew (in the case of a B-737, two pilots, estimated at 170 lbs each, and their equipment, which has NO SPECIFIC weight allotment) AND the required Cabin Attendants, which ber USA Federal Regs require at LEAST one F/A for every 50 passengers. These Regulations are further enhanced by the number of Exits on the Passenger jet, irrespective of the number of seats....but these rules are further complicated by FAR Regulations...meaning, if you own your OWN JET, you may operate under FAR Part 135....but, of course, all Airlines operate under FAR Part 121....but it gets even MORE complicated, and I have not the time, here, to explain.

Back to the point....as I've said, no airliner can be 'dispatched' without first meeting strict criteria. Maybe I forgot to mention that bit, but it is true, and no one will say that I'm wrong about that.

The 'strict criteria' I refer to are: A proper 'Weight and Balance', which, to non-aviation types, simply means....all of the paperwork must be spot-on, or else we don't take-off!!!!

To summarize: The OEW is the starting point (it is the basic weight of the empty airplane, plus CREW, plus potable water, plus all catering needs, on average...)

So, OEW PLUS the ACTUAL fuel load (again, by weight....you see, we KNOW the Flight Plan, and how much fuel we will need....and we guage our fuel by pounds, in the USA...some countries use Kgs, of course....but that's up to the airlines that BUY the airplanes to equip their machines with guages that their pilots are familiar with...and, let me tell you, pilots are smart enough to get familiar...we're pretty fart smuckers!!!

(HINT....when we monitor the fuel burned by our engines, we don't use MPG!!! It is 'pounds per hour'.)

(Second HINT....Jet Fuel weighs, on average, about 6.7 pounds per gallon. This 'weight' depends on temperature, so is an average for 'Jet-A')

(Third HINT....Water weighs a bit more....about 7.5 pounds per gallon.)

Nothing that I have written will be shown to be untrue....I have provided a lot of information in order to, hopefully, educate some who happen to read
this thread and to, perhaps, inspire some aspiring pilots....or even astronauts.

I may be too old to wish to go into space....doesn't mean a new generation can't dream!!!!



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I hope I didn't confuse everyone!!

Each airplane, by ship number, has an OEW.

(The funny part is....the OEW (assumes) a fantastical weight of the crew, based on Federal Regulations written in the 1950s)

Regardless, don't be alarmed....the Aircraft Manufacturers build in a 'fudge factor'...I mean, wouldn't you???



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Well, if by your reference to me in the post you're saying that I don't think that it's normal passenger airplanes doing this, then you would be right, all the instances I have seen appear to be converted planes or at the very least passenger planes chartered for this specific task, not normal airliners on normal flight paths.

While I don't have optical equipment to tell for sure, I think the spraying is done with specific equipment, not additives to fuel. They seem to have the capacity to lay down the trails at a specific location, and that requires some sort of hardware, even if it is mixing with the jet exaust.

That said, it's a complex phenomenon from an even more complex agenda, and I would not put anything past these people.

But on a broader note, all Dave is saying is "look, that's a contrail, see, there cannot be chemtrails", which is borderline moronic. Chemtrails have not only been proven but officially admitted too, as has been linked on these threads. And because of this reality I have little more than contempt for anyone who says otherwise, because at the very least they are ignorant and haven't done their research and at the most they are liars.

As for you, you just add unrelated crap and confuse the issue. Sorry, but it's what you do.



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Zepherian
 


You have shown that some governments have experimented with airborne spraying. Which obviously they have - we all know about agent orange in Vietnam.

What you haven't shown is that anyone is actually doing it now. You have not shown that the trails you've seen are anything other than contrails. I'm sure you believe it, but that is not a belief based on facts. You can't demonstrate your claims, you can only point to isolated facts and try to connect the dots in highly illogical ways.

You are approaching this with a stubborn arrogance that you can never ever be mistaken about what you've seen. That you know everything about aircraft and the atmosphere. That is clearly not the case, but it doesn't stop you from thinking it's true.

You are being irrational.



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Ok, to any of you skeptics out there, does this seem like a normal airplane route to you???




posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420

Chemtrails are of course overly complicated and impossible. How on earth is anyone spraying chemicals at tens of thousands of feet going to ensure where they land? There are far more accurate, stealthy, cost-effective ways to pollute specific areas with chemicals. It's like the plot of a bad James Bond film.


And more to the point Dave (in my opinion anyway) is why would they make these chemtrails look and behave identical to normal contrails and only produce them when atmospheric conditions dictate that normal contrails should form and persist?

It would be easy to spray chemtrails that are invisible from the ground. It is many magnitudes more difficult to spray chemtrails that masquerade as contrails so well that even the worlds leading experts in contrails are fooled.

Unless, of course, what you see in the sky are only contrails after all? Nah, but that's too obvious innit



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga
Ok, to any of you skeptics out there, does this seem like a normal airplane route to you???



Looks like aircraft have been circling. I believe they sometimes do that?

But regardless of that, it also looks exactly like a normal contrail with background cirrostratus. A fairly common occurence.



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 



Couple that with the fact that craft like the B2 actually uses chemicals to make their contrails invisible and also rear facing LIDAR to detect contrails forming so they can alter altitude to a height unfavourable to contrail formations.






[edit on 11-12-2008 by Chadwickus]



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by vasaga
Ok, to any of you skeptics out there, does this seem like a normal airplane route to you???



Looks like aircraft have been circling. I believe they sometimes do that?

But regardless of that, it also looks exactly like a normal contrail with background cirrostratus. A fairly common occurence.
I suggest you rewatch this video then, and tell me if it's normal that so many airplanes cross that exact same spot in less than 3 hours:

www.disclose.tv...

And besides that, explain how some of them just stop. If it was a natural occurence, they wouldn't just stop in mid air. Pause at 0:24 and you'll see an example of one that just stops. Not even a trail of it dispersing, while the rest is not even beginning to disperse.



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


The airspace over europe is very, very busy. Here's what happens over Switzerland in one day:
www.skyguide.ch...



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


Read this PDF. It'll show you how a contrail can just stop being formed, while the rest of the contrail persists.

Clearly you don't understand contrails as well as you think you do. You might want to rectify that before engaging in a discussion of contrails.






top topics



 
38
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join