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

page: 32
38
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Zepherian
 


Zeph....oh, Zeph...I don't ever bring in 'unrelated crap' as you so eloquently phrased it. I just tell the truth....which is science.

If it APPEARS as if I have to explain to the audience basic facts that they should already know, then I stand here, guilty, of doing just that.

You see, in order to explain the basics of how things work, one must attempt to lay the 'groundwork' to ensure that there is an understanding of what is trying to be conveyed, in this limited environment that we call the 'Internets'....

EDIT here, rather than deleting, but attempting to stay focused on subject:

This thread is NOT about a discussion, back-and-forth, between two ATS members. It is, instead, a thread posed by the OP in a not-so-subtle attempt at sarcasm.

NOW, in order to educate the lay audience, I admit I must use information and examples that 'believers' of 'chemtrails' may wish to not be laid bare, for all to see.

You see, unless people begin to understand, through study and education, the technologies that are rapidly being placed before them, the PEOPLE will succomb, and be "run-over" by that technology.

THIS is what I am proposing, by responding to these ridiculous 'chemtrail' threads! This sort of non-scientific mind-garbage (chemtrails) is only a way to dumb-down Humanity.

Get enough of the lemmings to agree with you, and you can all run off the cliff together.

Please read my tag line, at the bottom of my username....and ponder it. Carl Sagan was a wise man...........





[edit on 12/11/0808 by weedwhacker]




posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Science is not truth. Science is two things. One, it is a method of consolidating knowledge, of working yourself up to truth. Since physics does not have a Global Unified Theory, we don't have Truth(tm) in science. It is not the ultimate authority. Second, it is an establishment, a hierarchy, with the academic professors at the top. At this level it is corruptable, like any other human organization.

So, while it might get some people, the scientific authority handle, dosen't work with me, although I am open to any cogitations using the scientific method, just as long as they are pigheaded debunk exercises that selectively exclude information to come up to prechosen ends.

To the best of my ability I applied the scientific method to my sightings and came to a high degree of certainty of what they were. I will reject any theorectical frameworks that don't fit the observed event. Which, sadly, includes most of what you, Essan, Dave and Oz claim to be Truth(tm).

Besides, Sagan knew it's impossible to prove a negative, and he also knew that, in an extreme sense, everything is improbable. Sagan, if the pneumonia had not got him, would probably, in the face of the evidence presented, had accepted that there was a real event and he would be in the theories of what it was by now I expect.

Contrary to what you guys insinuate, it is not illogical to reject theory in the face of experience. It's the other way around folks.



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Zepherian
 


*BZZZT!* Incorrect. Science is a methodology. To quote Carl Sagan:



There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong. That's perfectly all right; they're the aperture to finding out what's right. Science is a self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny.


Contrails survive scrutiny. Chemtrails do not.

You are lying to yourself if you think you have applied the scientific method to your observations. You used incorrect apparatus to make a measurement. You don't know what's in the trails you've seen, unless you actually took a direct sample. Which you didn't. "I looked up in the sky and saw something I didn't understand, so I ignored the evidence that suggests they are benign, for no apparent reason, and instead concocted a ridiculously-complicated, inefficient, nonsensical explanation, which I will stick by regardless of the intrinsic flaws in my observations and knowledge" is not the scientific method. It's pseudoscience at best, and ridiculous superstition at worst.

Please stop trying to elevate your hypothesis to a theory. It's nothing of the sort. It is a guess, and not a very good one at that. Clearly you don't understand contrails, so your ability to discern a currently-unknown phenomenon (chemtrails) from one you don't know (contrails) is laughable.

Keep telling yourself you are being rational. By all means. It's a great indicator to rational people to steer clear of the nonsense you and other chemtrailers have been spouting on these threads.

Edit: Carl Sagan didn't espouse "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", but quite the opposite:



This phrase was Sagan's summation of the attitude of many who continue to believe something even when they know there's no evidence to support their belief or claims. He was criticizing what is known as "An Appeal to Ignorance"


Read Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit

You'll see your claims fail nearly all of those steps.

[edit on 11/12/08 by dave420]



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Zepherian
 


Zeph....your claim that 'science is not truth' is, actually, quite correct!

You seem to be on to something...except the idea of 'chemtrails' allegedly sprayed from 30,000 feet isn't a great subject to grasp onto.
The logic is flawed, and most educated people acknowledge that.

Back to my first sentence...'science is not truth'...UNTIL the scientific hypothesis is borne out by SCIENTIFIC procedures in order to form a THEORY, which, once introduced into the scientific community will undergo a rigourous review by peers who understand the subject....THAT is how science works!!!

So, Zeph....you should realize that REAL scientists actually do research, and earn the respect of their colleagues....even when those colleagues might disagree....because if a person wishes to stand up for their beliefs, and can provide scientific evidence to support that stand, then BY ALL MEANS, stands up!!! And be noticed!!!



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


It's easier for him to just say those who don't agree with him are corrupted, and to ignore the scientific method when it gets too hard. Instead of simply saying "I don't know", he's continuing down this arrogant path where he knows everything, and everyone else knows nothing.

It's ridiculous. Wasting logic on this guy isn't going to make him go away - it'll simply prove to him (and other believers) that you/me/rational folks are part of the vast evidence-devoid scheme to kill people by haphazardly slinging chemicals around in a part of the atmosphere where their eventual contact with the ground will not be accurate within hundreds or thousands of miles.

If someone's made up their mind, and is willing to ignore contrary evidence, they have willfully left the realm of the rational. Logic won't bring them back.



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


First: You are dishonest, because, due to the extensive exchange we, or at least someone under your handle, had, you would know that, in my case, the altitude is much lower than 30k feet. That's just another bit of dishonesty the debunker crowd always inject, to muddy the waters.

Second: As I have stated, just how are you going to do science on a conspiratorial scenario? It's not easy. It's like the science of 911, where explosives become "thermal expansion". Science cannot survive liars, and there are plenty of them around the chemtrail debate, which I have found out much to my sadness but little to my surprise.

It's obvious the rhetorical trick you guys are glued to. First, you setup a largely imaginary authority, a father figure in science. Second you claim that it has destroyed the chemtrail hypothesis, the conspiracy of mass spraying. And all this to keep the sheep from thinking for themselves, for watching for themselves, for making their own worldview and seeing past the bullcrap blitzkrieg.

Sorry, I know what I saw, and none of you are authoritive enough to give me a valid alternative hypothesis, because, over the several threads we have had discussions on, it has become blindingly obvious to me that there's this little gang of people that have little respect for the truth of the chemtrail conspiracy, which of all the NWO facets is the easiest to see and prove, so much so it has been proven already, several times, always to be hidden behind the false reality people are being fed.

More and more people are waking up, when it hits 51% of the population the charade is over.


[edit on 11-12-2008 by Zepherian]



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


Reread my post, I talked about the method. Your hunger to debunk whatever I type has come to the point you cannot even read right anymore.

Slow down, do it "right".



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Zepherian
 


You mentioned the words, but then decided to take a proverbial poop on the methodology. That is a disgusting approach to science, and one that illuminates your entire stance on finding the 'truth'. You ignore evidence, concoct explanations that suit your claims, and misrepresent the truth.

Get some evidence and get back to us. We'll be waiting. If you can't, then why on earth do you believe it? If you can't demonstrate it to rational people, then you can't be being rational yourself. And no, eye-witness accounts of remote chemical reactions in an environment unknown to said witness don't count, for obvious reasons.



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Zepherian
 


Only because somebody "starred" your post, the one I am responding to....

Zepherian, IF YOU KNEW anything about aeronautics, or aviation, THEN you would possibly begin to believe to understand, but I seemed to have failed in my abilities to teach ANYONE about aeronautics, or aviation....or even, meteorology.

I've been accused, on this site, of writing too many letters....the equilavent, to my ears, of saying "You Talk Too Much".

Well, I say "Guilty as Charged"!

Sorry if people think that my explanations cross some imaginary line...I did NOT achieve the skill level I have by basking on my 'good looks'...

Perhaps a person who can.....well, I was going to say can write, and express himself....but I concluded it was anathemical to the subject.

I know, I know!!! Putting this into a 'public' forum might stretch the boundaries of the ATS 'rules'...but, I did this in ORDER to show how any and all 'internet' discussion boards cannot be monitored all of the time.

Now that I've laid that foundation....I only wish that others you stumble accross this little missive will learn, and by the word 'learn', I mean 'LEARN'...and improve the species by continuing to 'learn'......



posted on Dec, 12 2008 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Missing Blue Sky

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by Missing Blue Sky
 


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.

Just out of curiosity, where did you live before?
And if you got this sudden onset of asthma after moving to Chicago, let me ask you, have you looked out your window and looked at the street? Not at the sky, but the street. You move into a city with more than 2.8 million people living in it, with maybe just as many cars/trucks/buses/trains going through every day, and you develop asthma. Hmmm. What could have caused it, what could have caused it?
Listen, no offense, but, I think what ails you isn't something from 33,000ft up, but more like something that is about 1ft-8ft off the ground and goes by you everyday. Chicago has pretty bad air quality, no denying it. I remember plenty of ozone alert days during the summers here. Just one of the "perks" of living in the city.
Pollution. And believe you me, it ain't chemtrails you should be worried about. Its your basic smog, exhaust pollution from cars, trucks, buses, trains and planes.

I live in Chicago too. No asthma, and i've lived here for 23 years. My folks don't have asthma either. Were we given the NWO antidote?
We live near O'Hare and hey, I'm still alive and well.

Unfortunately for you, you got suckered in by the chemtrailers. You took the bait: hook, line, and sinker. You went onto their site which has plenty of pretty pictures of contrails or strange cloud formations, and big red letters that say "No to chemtrails!" and stories and "reports" and "evidence" of "chemtrails". However after actually reading and going through the muck of their "evidence" you soon realize how thin and flimsy the case is. I'll be frank: anybody can get sick, look up, see a contrail, and go, AHAH! They are making us sick. But then you ignore all the earth bound sources that have been all around you all this time.
I do believe you you got asthma and got sick, and sucks totally but it definitely wasn't chemtrails. You just got caught up in our city pollution. I'd rather you investigated more into city pollution and health effects of living in big cities, than being suckered in to the chemtrailer nonsense. Plus, I don't recommend you going to Mexico City or LA. Now those are hazards to your health!


[edit on 12/12/2008 by GenRadek]

[edit on 12/12/2008 by GenRadek]



posted on Dec, 12 2008 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Zepherian
 


Did you take samples of chemtrails directly from the source, and have them tested by a reputable independent organization that will do it correctly?

Did you research every aspect of contrail production and the meteorology behind the information, and after exhaustive research by which you managed to disprove the meteorological explanations, come to conclusion these were in no way contrails?

Did you get an accurate reading of the altitude of the aircraft?

Did you track the appearances of contrails existing and forming and then check the meteorological observations and reports from satellite and weather balloon data from that day? Did you crunch the numbers from the weather balloon sounding data on temperature, relative humidity, pressure, wind speed and direction? (found here: weather.uwyo.edu...) Did you then take these observations and calculations from the data and cross reference them with the "Appleman Chart " (asd-www.larc.nasa.gov...) which was created to predict contrail and ice formation? Did you also cross reference with the "contrail formation forecast" website: (www-pm.larc.nasa.gov...)?

Are there any weather fronts within 500 miles of your location inbound or outbound? Is there a storm system approaching? Is there a powerful low pressure system over you? Is there an upper-level disturbance in the atmosphere approaching? Is there an upper-level low pressure system? What season is it?

If you did all of this, and if the appearance of the "contrail" occurred when meteorologically speaking it shouldn't have, you may just very well have a bonafied chemtrail sighting.

You see: THIS is the scientific method.

Not looking up, saying, "Oh that plane is definitely lower than 30,000ft, so it shouldn't be making a contrail. Plus it's too dry and warm down here so no way there could be a contrail forming." And no, looking up at contrails and labeling them chemtrails is not experience. And by the way, if you want to disprove our explanations, by all means, please do so. If you can provide actual data that is not flawed, and has been tested thoroughly by the scientific way, which can disprove any of our explanations or facts, please bring it forward.

here, I'll even give you a headstart on where you can begin to disprove what we say. You can begin by explaining to us why this site is flawed/lying/manipulated and how that is so.
asd-www.larc.nasa.gov...

[edit on 12/12/2008 by GenRadek]



posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Obviously I did not get a reading from the chemtrails, we probably don't even have capable equipment on the Island, without even getting into the whole "independent that will do it correctly" can of worms. I did observe them over many hours and saw them turn into heavy cloud cover.

I did however confirm the aircrafts positions via ATC, through a second and trusted person, and yes, it was not 30 000ft. Besides, a lot of people know enough about aviation to distinguish between cruise altitude on a modern jet and something flying lower. When it's lower it's bigger. I did identify them as twin engine passenger jet frames, they were just a bit too far off on the horizontal to identify exactly which type. FYI I can identify most aircraft types and models and know a fair bit about routes and procedures.

Do you need a veterinarian to tell you if chickens lay eggs? This whole stupidification agenda is getting on my nerves tbh. People are, for the most part, capable of finding out things for themselves, without authority figures. It's the information age. If anything, more often than not, authorities will hide and hinder before they actually help.



posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zepherian
I did observe them over many hours and saw them turn into heavy cloud cover.


Altostratus or cirrostratus?


I did however confirm the aircrafts positions via ATC, through a second and trusted person, and yes, it was not 30 000ft.


So what altitude were they at?

Obviously persistent contrails can and do form at altitudes below 30,000ft. And if we had the date as well it might be possible to check back on meteorological data to see what conditions were like. Was there a nearby weather system, for example, which would explain the persistence of the contrails and, especially, the development of cloud cover?

[edit on 13-12-2008 by Essan]



posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zepherian
reply to post by GenRadek
 


I did however confirm the aircrafts positions via ATC, through a second and trusted person, and yes, it was not 30 000ft. Besides, a lot of people know enough about aviation to distinguish between cruise altitude on a modern jet and something flying lower. When it's lower it's bigger. I did identify them as twin engine passenger jet frames, they were just a bit too far off on the horizontal to identify exactly which type. FYI I can identify most aircraft types and models and know a fair bit about routes and procedures.


As it is officially stated, that contrails can even form from around 26,000ft and lower. As long as conditions are right for it they can occur.

Plus looking from the ground and estimating the height can be misleading. Remember this photo?



Here is another aircraft illusion, can you tell the distance between the two? (Oh its real, not photoshop)



These are just two instances of illusions of distance and perception playing tricks on you.

And another important question, were there any storm fronts, low pressure systems, or upper-air disturbances that were in the general area that would foster cloud growth?

Just for clarification, have you heard of ship tracks? They are another phenomenon that occurs over oceans. Clouds created by ships. Now, if a ship can create clouds over the ocean, why not aircraft?
earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

[edit on 12/13/2008 by GenRadek]

[edit on 12/13/2008 by GenRadek]

[edit on 12/13/2008 by GenRadek]



posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Zepherian doesn't seem to care about how intrinsically flawed his observations are - he's convinced they are 100% correct. Trying to point out how obviously untrue that is won't yield any results. He's deciding to believe in chemtrails not because of evidence, but because he wants to. Pure and simply - he just wants to believe, regardless of evidence. It's a religion.



posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 09:05 PM
link   
So what is this:










Lemme guess.. Drunken pilot? You need to come up with something better than that.



posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 09:13 PM
link   
i like this bit




LIFE EXPECTANCY DROPS TO 69.3 YEARS IN THE USA HOW MUCH IS 8 YEARS OF YOUR LIFE WORTH? In 2003 life expectancy in the USA was 77.6 years. The drop to 69.3 years since 2003, a drop of over 8 years is startling information. This period of time just happens to coincide with a time when there has been non-stop spraying of chemtrails coast to coast on an almost daily basis. There is plenty of scientific research proving that any increase in airborne particulates causes a corresponding increase in the death rate of the exposed population so imo the chemtrails are a glaringly obvious factor in this significant drop in expected life span.


there you go,as ive said we are being depopulated by our own future,and as ive also said,it aint the usa or any humans doing it,why would the usa depopulate thier own people with such an obvious and detectable method?.....they simply wouldnt.....no cia,nsa military industrial complex...non of them are responsible,they are all being framed by future ai,
who are also pretending to be aliens,hence the big alien conspiracy and propagands which has filled our minds for 50 years.
you never hear about the future do you?.

this is just the tip of the iceberg,if you knew what theyve done to us,by god you would be furious,so much evil,i dont want to tell you the crimes theyve done thier so bad...and some of them are right here,spewing thier filth before our very eyes.

wake up and act,there everywhere pretending to be humans.



posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


It's an aircraft on a normal flight path that's taking spacing from an aircraft in front of it, or is taking spacing before entering controlled airspace.

If there's an aircraft in front of it, it could be at a slightly lower altitude. They're required to keep vertical spacing of 1000 feet now, and horizontal spacing of several miles (I don't remember what it is off the top of my head but think it's 2 miles). He's most likely getting too close, and ATC is having him do S turns to slow him down.



posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by welivefortheson
 


A complete lack of evidence. Fantastic. Connecting dots which don't even exist. Brilliant.

Science is your friend. If you can't even prove it to other people, why do you believe it? Just because a site tells you what you want to be the truth doesn't automatically make it so. Not one single study has shown that contrails contain any exotic chemicals not expected. Not one. And yet you, and other chemtrailers, believe this stuff. It's irrational behaviour.

It's kind of insulting to rational people to have this unsubstantiated rubbish thrown in our faces as fact, when there are so many obvious holes in the argument.



posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


If you are going to suggest contrails are not what they seem, why don't you perform some basic research into maneuvers planes perform before leaping to conclusions. I can see why overactive imaginations coupled with a dangerous lack of understanding of the phenomena at play, and the inability to think you're wrong can cause people to believe in anything they want to.

I didn't know about S-turns until Zaphod58's post (and a google search to get more info), yet I didn't instantly leap to the conclusion that it was anything nefarious.

If you stick to the facts, you'll learn a lot more than simply letting your imagination run amok and conjuring up these fanciful, unsubstantiated schemes of epic theatrical proportions. It's demeaning to everyone involved, yourself included.

ATS's tag line is "deny ignorance". It's not being sarcastic - it's the only way to learn.





new topics
top topics
 
38
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join