Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 33
38
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by welivefortheson
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.

Maybe you should check your sources, some chemtrail websites are known to lie and distort.

Life Expectancy Hits Record High in United States


www.washingtonpost.com...

[edit on 12/13/2008 by Phage]

[edit on 12/13/2008 by Phage]




posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
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.

I don't mind if you have explanation for those stuff. I hope it isn't true but i tend to doubt everything. Anyway..

Here's a fact for you:


And how do you explain this one?:


And what about this?:


The last one is poorly filmed and you need to turn the volume up, but this is actual proof they ARE spraying stuff. They say it's for stopping hurricanes, but who knows for what else they are using it. And besides, they might add chemicals and just test it in our skies without us knowing ANYTHING about it.

[edit on 14-12-2008 by vasaga]



posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


That picture is, most likely, of the approach to San Francisco International. So the seperation is roughly the distance between the two parallel runways plus a slight diagonal. At a guess I would say 300-500mts. But even if I'm wrong, it proves nothing, because one thing is a random photo, another is the sky where I live, which I know well, and the local flightpaths, which I also know well.

Essan: I didn't get the exact height of the first sighting, it wasn't given to the person who got the information out to me. It was just confirmed that it was two jets out on the holding area (and no, they did not need to be there in any way), lower than cruise altitude. Thats the information I got from a trusted source. I'll play "name that cloud" with you later, maybe, when it's relevant.



posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


First video:

FYI those subtitles were a terrible translation of the german. And if all the trails you, and other believers, see are chemtrails, then this would be a very common phenomenon, highlighted by every single meteorological radar site around the world. But they are not. You are focusing on one particular event and extrapolating it to global proportions, ignoring the fact that no-one else (apart from a German TV show) is saying it's happening.

Second video:

The person doesn't understand what contrails are. He doesn't know about how highly-localised weather conditions affect contrails. Those planes are flying at different altitudes, using different jet engines. Please read the PDF I've linked numerous times in this thread to understand this phenomenon. It's not strange in the slightest, no matter what the narrator claims. He's arguing from abject ignorance. Like how thousands of years ago people thought solar eclipses was a dragon eating the sun. They simply didn't know better. Unfortunately you don't have the luxury of that excuse, as the information is out there (and has been linked to in this thread many times).

Third video:

We know planes modify weather. As you can see that plane was not causing a trail that looked anything like a contrail or acclaimed chemtrail. Not even close.

In summation:

Seriously - is that all you have? Youtube videos? Get a grip! I'm asking for actual evidence, not some half-understood guesswork spewed on youtube by people who clearly have little-to-no understanding of meteorology or aircraft-induced condensation. Show me where a direct sample of a contrail has turned up exotic chemicals. I'll wait. Until you have that, you have nothing. What part of "scientific objectivity" don't you undertstand?

* snip *

Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 12/14/2008 by maria_stardust]



posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


You are asking for that because you know that no one can provide that, and so you can stay in your little comfort zone. Well, believe what you want to, I'm gonna post another youtube video here, whether you like it or not. It's a document which explains that there are trails being formed at lower altitudes than they're supposed to, and that chemtrails were even mentioned to be a weapon in government documents in the year 2001, but were removed after that. What you do with it, is your choice. You probably won't see it as proof, but i think it will be proof for a lot of other people here.


And if you tend to believe that video is false, look here. It is the space preservation act of 2001:
www.fas.org...

There it says:


To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons.


And at the end:


(B) Such terms include exotic weapons systems such as--
(i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons;
(ii) chemtrails;
(iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems;
(iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons;
(v) laser weapons systems;
(vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and
(vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons.


In 2002, it was removed. You do the math.



posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   
You should do research on that "bill". It's supposedly written by Dennis Kuchinich, but he didn't even read it before it being submitted. It was written by a group that thinks that if we ban all weapons, and keep weapons out of space, everyone will suddenly be best friends and get along. They wrote it, and it was submitted as a favor to one of the heads of the group. Chemtrails were removed in 2002 during a resubmit, along with several other supposed weapons that don't exist.



posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   
This thread has got to be the most hilarious thing I've ever read in my entire life. While chemtrail theories might be ridiculous, they really keep one entertained!



posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

That's interesting.
Unlike some people think here, I am open to think chemtrails are not true. I still don't really know what to believe, and since most people here are in for debunking it, the best way to get most info out of it is to post what people see as "proof", so that we can see the counterarguments. If i come here and only yell "chemtrails are bull****" blabla, we learn nothing.



posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


No, I'm asking for that because that's how science works. That's it. Not because it suits me, but because that's what a rational mind needs to know that something is going on - actual evidence.

Read the PDF I linked to. It explains how contrails can form at any altitude provided the conditions are correct, which is entirely feasible practically anywhere in temperate and colder regions.

And no, that video is not proof. It's not even evidence, apart from the lack of fundamental knowledge of whoever made it.

(iv) also mentions plasma weapons, and (vi) mentions extraterrestrial weapons - those don't exist, yet somehow you think everything on that list actually exists - it doesn't. You are seeing what you want to see, and nothing more.

Please understand what evidence is, and more importantly - what it is not. YouTube videos are not evidence.

reply to post by vasaga
 


There is nothing to debunk. Chemtrail believers haven't been able to demonstrate chemtrails exist.

You seem to have a strange, illogical double standard when it comes to evidence. I don't - if it stands up to scrutiny, it stands.



posted on Dec, 15 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


That first video from the German news has a MAJOR flaw. Its translation is flawed. There is nothing about chemtrails in it. The story was about CHAFF which the German AF was using causing false radar readings on Doppler weather radars. In other words, the chaff was doing its job: confusing radar operaters. Nope, no chemtrails here.



posted on Dec, 15 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Zepherian
 


The first picture I had wasnt there anymore I apologize.
Can you tell the height difference between these two?





posted on Dec, 15 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


That was a DHL A310 and a JAL 777, iirc they had a near miss over London a couple of years back, but i'm quoting out of memory. Again, the 777 is much bigger so it seems closer than it is, I would guess they are 300-500mts apart and they never actually crossed flightpaths, although this particular incident probably made some ATC'er pee his pants. And again, this has nothing to do with an eyewitness account on the ground, because that is zoom photography, and even if I do get some of the above wrong, which is probable, it means nothing.

I do not know what you're trying to prove.

Edit: news.bbc.co.uk... Quick Google says they kept their seperation of 1000ft (aprox 300mts) and that the photograph was deceptive. Even if there was some ass covering it's apparent that the planes were'nt that close.

[edit on 15-12-2008 by Zepherian]



posted on Dec, 15 2008 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Zepherian
 


Nope. No near miss. In fact, they were both very safe and no one at the FAA or airlines said there were any problems ever reported.

However, can you tell the distances between the two aircraft? They look pretty close to each other.
This is what i am talking about, trying to determine the distances an altitudes of aircraft. It can all be very deceptive and plays tricks on you.

also layers of air can be very different and one layer can be more conducive for contrails, and one just a 1,000ft higher, cant.

[edit on 12/15/2008 by GenRadek]



posted on Dec, 15 2008 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


I gave a more or less accurate estimation of the seperation of those two aircraft, if you read my previous post, so yes, I have a reasonable idea.

I know what I'm talking about. Chemtrails happen. Get over it. The atmospheric conditions for contrails have very little to do with what I am seeing happening more or less regularly over my head.



posted on Dec, 15 2008 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Zepherian
 


Did you look into the ship trails I mentioned earlier?
How can a ship create a cloud? Same way a plane can.



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Zepherian
 


You say that with all conviction, but you can't demonstrate the difference between a chemtrail and a contrail. You can't even describe the difference.

Why do you have such a disdain for rational thought? Why do you think so highly of your senses and perception? Surely you can't be that arrogant.



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


It's a matter of context, the flight paths, the aircraft, the secrecy, the ATC data, more than the actual trails, although chemtrails tend to be longer lasting, on average if not always. I've described the difference on several previous posts. You're essentially making the same post over and over again, I get you're point, I reject it, please now, go away.



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zepherian
I get you're point, I reject it, please now, go away.


"I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and skip about, chanting "la la la la la la la la la"......

No, you don't get the point. The only thing you're rejecting is the pondering, the reasoning, and the understanding. I feel sorry for you.......'cause if you could read your words from this perspective......you'd be rightfully embarrassed.



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Zepherian
 


Could you do us, and this thread, a favour and elaborate on the following points?


  • Context? Context of what?
  • What about the flight paths leads you to think chemtrails exist?
  • The aircraft? What's strange about them?
  • Secrecy of what, and by whom?
  • What does the ATC data show that makes you think chemicals are being sprayed?


I'd really appreciate it. I just can't see how you'd possibly have complete, perfect knowledge of all parts of your explanation (aircraft flight paths, aircraft types, aircraft registration, meteorology), especially when there are gaping holes in your knowledge that are evidently present (such as contrails being able to last for hours).

I won't go away until you either admit that you are being irrational (to protect other gullible people who might read your opinions-phrased-as-facts and think them the truth), or take your shtick somewhere else. We are now 33 pages into a discussion and you still can't even give rational people enough evidence to actually believe something you think is true. If you can't prove it to us, you can't prove it to yourself, and yet you still believe. Irrational behaviour.



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by MrPenny
 


No, I have countered Dave's points over 4 or 5 threads now. He is dogging around me and essentially comes down to an ad hominem, assuming for no good reason I am not intelectually equipped to interpret what I see. I have in no small measure over said threads, proven that to not be true. Sure, I am giving a warning semianonymously, and I admit people not believing me, however I do not admit the indoctrination through repitition process which Dave, and others, are atempting regarding chemtrails.

I have heard his arguments repeatedly, I have considered and rejected them. Unless he evolves his position I am not interested in his ramblings, because, as much as it's not politically correct to say these things in such wishy washy deconstructionist times, I know I am right and that he is wrong regarding this issue.

I have looked at the sky all my life. I have followed aviation all my life. I know what I am seeing. So I warn you folks. Accept the warning or not, that's your choice. The definition of rationality is standing up for truth, even in the face of the loudmouthed naysayers, that I suspect are paid for their trouble. All I gain from this is defense of truth, which sadly is less of a communal virtue than it should be.





new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join