It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 35
<< 32  33  34    36  37 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 03:11 PM
reply to post by Zepherian

No sir. What we were doing is demonstrating how even the most experienced with aviation can be decieved when it comes to trying to tell the altitude of an aircraft from the ground. This is important when dealing with contrails, as all it takes is a few hundred feet up or down to determine if a contrail is formed or not. This is why if you think you see two planes flying side-by-side and one is producing a contrail and the other isn't there could be an imperceptable distance seprating the two aircraft, which can be all the difference in creating a contrail. If this can give weedwhacker a pause as to what is going on, how can someone with zero knowledge of aviation be able to understand?

posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 04:22 PM
So this is only about YOUR sighting? I don't think so. I've had more than just you say "They were flying at the same altitude."
If you don't like the posts then alert the mods and let them deal with it. But they WERE relevant to the chemtrail debate and proving that you CAN'T judge spacing from the ground looking up at a plane.

posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 04:23 PM
reply to post by GenRadek

And who is this mythical creature with zero knowledge of aviation? Even some of the cargo cults had some knowledge of aviation. Everyone has some insight into it. And I think I have demonstrated that I have slightly more than average, and I do believe average, slap bang in the middle of the bell curve, is enough to recognise chemtrails.

No sir, what you, among others, are trying to do is fabricate ignorance.

[edit on 17-12-2008 by Zepherian]

posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 04:32 PM
reply to post by Zepherian

MANY people in chemtrail threads have no clue about aviation. And even being knowledgable about aviation doesn't mean that you can tell spacing from the ground looking up. Not without something to help. I have 25 years in aviation, and if I hadn't read the article the first time I saw that picture I would have thought they were going to hit. And I STILL haven't seen anything suspicious in the sky.

posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 05:06 PM
reply to post by Zaphod58

Maybe that's because you're not as good a witness as I was? I mean, if you're so eager to bang on the negative, can't you, out of honesty, acknowledge at least the possibility of the positive, regarding my sightings and others like mine?

Or are you just a dishonest, lieing, ad hoc debunker?

I eagerly await your answer.

posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 05:15 PM
I'm not as good a witness as you are?
Good answer.

I've never denied that chemtrails are POSSIBLE, but I have never seen one, and I have never had anyone that I know with the aviation experience I have see one. And I've never seen more evidence than "I can see the difference." All of the supposed sprayer planes, with the exception of one, have been easily debunked as nothing to do with spraying. And the one that actually WAS a sprayer is the only one that does that mission, and sprays other planes to test icing characteristics.

posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 05:22 PM
reply to post by Zaphod58

Then, if you admit they are possible, and I am telling you, and everyone else, that I have seen them under unambiguous circumstance, whilst also passing your airliner photo tests, then, by logic, you should do some serious thinking about the implications of me being entirely honest about this.

Because, guess what, I am. There is definately something going on. It's not like I am the only witness.

posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 05:34 PM
reply to post by Zepherian

There is ALWAYS a possibility of anything. There is a possibility that our observable universe is nothing more than a molecule in some other universe. There is always a possibility that we are all the figment of an alien's dream sequence from the Andromeda Galaxy. There is a possibility that this site is actually an NWO front that is spying on us all and is preparing a list of who is to be dealt with that may be a threat.

You see? By your logic anything and everything is possible and nothing can be incorrect. 1+1 equals 1,000,000. Why? Why not? Its possible, prove me wrong.

Sure it could be possible they are spraying us, but that alone is not proof of it happening, nor is it evidence that it IS happening. And there is no hard proof of it happening on a small scale, much less on a global (NATO) scale.

posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 05:40 PM
reply to post by GenRadek

Hypothesis < Hypothesis + Testimony + Evidence.

Nice try at rhetoric there, but chemtrails are a bit more substancial than the alien dream thing. Which is not to say they are more true, just easier to verify as true.

But of course you guys want to stay with the idea that chemtrails are just a silly idea, a schizm, a manifestation of paranoia. But you see, the popular opinion is starting to see past ad hominem, because if you use a technique too much it loses it's effectiveness.

I'd go on, but I have little interest in teaching the debunkers how to debunk.

posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 05:40 PM
And eyewitness accounts prove nothing. You can take 4 eyewitnesses and show them the same event, and get four different recollections. There has been NO hard proof that there is anything going on, other than people saying they see something odd, and saying "look up and you'll see it." Well I look up every day, and have seen NOTHING odd.

"Understanding is a three edged sword. Your side, their side, and the truth."

posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 06:14 PM
reply to post by Zaphod58

Sure, you can end up with 4 varying account on a certain phenomenon. What you cannot do however is throw out the phenomenon without investigation, you have to be honest and go investigate. Go fetch.

There are far more than 4 witnesses regarding chemtrails, there is much evidence, there is everything from recorded sightings to legislative indication to aviation companies like evergreen aviation converting the planes and advertising them. So... somethings faulty with your logic, because you, and others like you, seem awfully eager to trample on the likes of me and make the, wrong, view that there is nothing regarding chemtrails worth noticing, the dominant meme.

What are you guys hiding I wonder.

posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 06:28 PM
You mean the legislation that was written by a special interest group? There are many bills that get introduced that mention things that don't exist yet, but have been talked about.

You mean the Evergreen firefighting plane that can be used for cloud seeding? I never knew that cloud seeding is the same as a chemtrail.

You mean "recorded sitings" from people saying "look up" as proof? Or mistranslating a newscast to say something different?

There isn't real honest to god proof of anything going on, except people adding 1 and 1 and getting 4.

And since when has it been up to the person with a differing viewpoint to prove the claim wrong? The person making the claim has the burden of proof, not the other way around. And what I've seen about chemtrails is far from proof.

[edit on 12/17/2008 by Zaphod58]

posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 06:41 PM
reply to post by Zaphod58

Stop using the word proof. Proof is a mathmatical concept that does not lead itself well to describing complex real phenomenons, because quite simply you can't quantify all the variables and calculate them. If we are to be extreme, in the "real" world, there is literally nothing proven. Yet everything is.

As for evidence, yes, there is plenty of evidence, if not to definately make up the mind of the non witness, at least to warrant much deeper investigation before the premature cogitation of a negative opinion. The incessant rambling that there is not such evidence, mixed in with the seeding of some faux evidence thrown in for the easy rebuttal, will not fly.

posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 02:35 PM
reply to post by Zepherian

Well then provide the evidence that disproves what we are saying. You keep claiming there is ample evidence of it, well please for God's sake show it. Bring it forward. Because so far there has been no proof or evidence of anything chemtrail. Just some really bad guesses and looking up and saying, "Well thats peculiar," and that constitutes as "evidence". No its not.
We have proven and shown plenty of evidece to the contrary and so far not a single thing we have said has been disproven by anything valid. Its been already over 30 pages so far? And I have yet to see anything that provides a shred of "evidence" of chemtrails.

The incessant rambling that there is not such evidence, mixed in with the seeding of some faux evidence thrown in for the easy rebuttal, will not fly

Well are you talking about the chemtrailers? Because what you have just said puts the pro-chemtrail arguement right in the middle of it.
If its us that are providing "faux evidence" please provide any instances of this. It shouldn't be hard as you should be able to find some instances of this. Please be prepared to back up your claims.

[edit on 12/18/2008 by GenRadek]

posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 03:20 PM
reply to post by GenRadek

What threads have you been reading? Discarding my personal testimony given on Oz's debunking attempt, there has been reams of external links to credible material which all of you lot have, out of hand and dishonestly, rejected.

As far as I can tell, the MO of the debunk crowd is: overwhelm a thread will bs so as to hide the evidence, then claim it dosen't exist.

Sorry, that will not fly in the face of an awakening populace. I don't have to link anything, it's all been done. If anyone wants to read it, just put the 4 or 5 habit debunkers on ignore. And you can put me on ignore too, I've posted too much on these threads countering these folks.

posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 09:49 PM
reply to post by Zepherian

Zeph....rather than impugning my 'screen-name' you should focus on the subject at hand.

(Not that it matters, but when I first discovered ATS and all of the likely screen-names I could think of were taken, I was watching TV and saw an advert for a, THAT IS where my name came from...not thaty it's any of YOUR business!!!)

Nevertheless, here I am...and I bring opinions and experience to the discussions at hand.

Back to the photo that has been in contention, showing a near-miss (apparently) between an Airbus 320 (or 319) and a British IS an interesting photo, but anyone who understands how a telephoto lens works will realize, the depth of field will vary greatly depending on focal length and aperature setting.

IF it were to have been 'Photo-Shopped', then it failed the test of observation.

(Side note to Zaph...I got your U2U, but could not respond...there are only TWO horizontal stabilzers....the 'four' you refer to would be the TWO horizontal stabilizers and the TWO elevators....)

Anyway, this particular photo seems to have nothing at all to do with the so-called 'chemtrail' argument at all.

I wish I knew how to get this thread back on the rails....except, it's intial premise seems to have been flawed from the outset, in my opinion. BUT, I will try....

According to my memory, the OP opined, sarcastically, that there is "Nothing in chemtrails... yeahhh riiiight", which I attempted to quote correctly.

Well, sarcasm aside, the Op is correct --- at least as based on my nearly 30 years in Commercial Passenger aviation. One would think that I, an ATS member, who had knowledge of such a thing, would be jumping up and down to tell about it....but, alas, it just does not exist.

posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 07:14 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

"Look at meeeeeee, I'm an expeeeert! You believe me right? Let me define your reality so you don't have to experience stuff and think for yourself!"

Who do you think you're fooling? Your position in this debate is untennable in the face of truth, and I trust more and more people will begin realising this.

It's time.

I've held this debate open long enough now, I'm going to unsubscribe these threads and let you guys derail them all you wish. My judgement is very few people are reading them now, they've served their purpose.

We may meet again when the next chemtrail thread hits the frontpage or if I stumble upon anymore evidence from my neck of the woods. And I will discard your positions again, for which I apologise in advance, but it has to be done.


posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 08:31 AM
Geez what are we still discussing about here...

- They have admitted they do tests on weather manipulation by spraying stuff in the atmosphere. It was on discovery channel
- They are not telling what is exactly in it
- They are not even telling when and why they want to manipulate the weather.

It seems plausible that they are doing stuff that they don't want us to know.

posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 01:44 PM
reply to post by vasaga

vasaga....all you say or imply MAY be true....

AND, Zeph....(and vasaga) all I am trying to say is: IT IS NOT being done by scheduled commercial passenger airplanes!

That's it! Can't be done by passenger airplanes, ain't happening by them...nor by the cargo airlines either.

Not cost productive....

Wish to investigate this concept further? Look to the militaries....

Good Luck!

posted on Dec, 31 2008 @ 10:47 PM
Ok. Here goes:

Sprayed Aerosols Could Ease Climate Woes
Irene Klotz, Discovery News

Dec. 29, 2008 -- It won't solve global warming, but a group of scientists are calling for a focused research program to investigate ways to seed the atmosphere with chemicals that would let the heat out -- literally.

Geoengineering is not a new concept. Governments have changed how and where water flows, filled in lakes and other wetlands for construction, even attempted to control the weather. A project to counter climate change, however, would take geoengineering to an entirely new level.

Leaving aside what may be insurmountable political, cultural and ethical issues, scientists meeting at the American Geophysical Conference in San Francisco earlier this month focused on the practical aspects of releasing gases into the stratosphere that could open Earth's greenhouse.

Scientists are concerned that Earth is growing increasingly warm due to "greenhouse gases," such as carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere that inhibit the planet's ability to radiation heat into space.

Human-related activities, such as burning fossil fuels, are believed to be accelerating the planet's accumulation of greenhouse gases, even though naturally occurring phenomena such as volcanic eruptions and fires account for 97 percent of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

"Even if we stopped emissions instantly today...we still have enough CO2 in the atmosphere that it is possible we would have unacceptable levels of climate risk," said David Keith, with the University of Calgary's Energy and Environmental Systems Group.

"While we may be lucky and find climate only warms by a degree or so, we may be unlucky and find it's more like five or six (degrees)," he added. "We're not going to know until we've put enough CO2 to make an irreversible decision."

Keith and colleagues want to investigate putting aerosols, such as sulfur, into the atmosphere to chemically unlock the greenhouse effect and allow more of the sun's reflected heat to radiate back into space.

"This brings up the question of who would make that decision," said Alan Robock of Rutgers University. And what temperature the world should be.
"A ski slope operator and someone running a shipping company in the Arctic might have different opinions about what's the ideal temperature for the planet," NASA's administrator Michael Griffin told Discovery News in an interview last year.

From an engineering standpoint, scientists have looked at a variety of systems to deliver the goods, including high-altitude aircraft, such the military's KC135 tankers used to refuel fighter jets, balloons, artillery, even a space elevator.

Other options include lacing commercial airlines' jet fuel with sulfur-containing particles, though this likely would give rise to a host of new problems, including engine contamination and safety concerns.
"No one has actually looked at what would happen if you tried to put these materials into the stratosphere," said Richard Turco, with the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of California in Los Angeles.

Scientists disagreed on whether atmospheric seeding to change the climate could be successful on a regional level, or if any initiatives must be globally based to be effective. They were united, however, in calling for a focused research effort.
"There's very little funded research (about) managing the risks of climate change," Keith said.


You guys happy now? They say they are gonna research it but i kinda get the urge to say they have been testing that for a loooong time already... And if they were, you think they would say it? No.. They would just say they're gonna start to do it now.

new topics

<< 32  33  34    36  37 >>

log in