Real Contrail Science, why they persist and why they spread out and why they are not chemtrails

page: 23
61
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 11:23 PM
link   
believer - Airplanes are REAL! I saw them in the sky!
rational person - Do you have any evidence?
believer - I know what I saw!!!
rational person - That's not evidence - that's your opinion. Human senses are easy to trick, and unless you know everything in the world and are 100% accurate in your perception, which no-one in the history of the world has been, that is open to debate






rational person - No, I just need evidence before I believe something. Just like I need evidence the computer I'm buying is an actual computer, or the drugs my doctor gave me will actually help.


To know if it is really a computer you would need to be a computer expert... otherwise you have to take it on faith that it IS a computer and hope it does wht it should when you plug it in at home

To know if a drug will actually help before you take it you would need to be a psychic


BTW the believer who saw the Airplanes has never been out of the jungle to a city to see an airport, but he knows they are real because he saw them




posted on Nov, 27 2008 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

To know if it is really a computer you would need to be a computer expert... otherwise you have to take it on faith that it IS a computer and hope it does wht it should when you plug it in at home

How do you know what it should do unless you know what it is?
You have to know how a computer behaves. You don't have to know how it works. You can see how it behaves at CompUSA (or something).



To know if a drug will actually help before you take it you would need to be a psychic


I'm pretty sure that if I take three motrin right about now, I won't have a headache tomorrow morning. I'm not a psychic.



BTW the believer who saw the Airplanes has never been out of the jungle to a city to see an airport, but he knows they are real because he saw them

He knows a dragon ate the sun then puked it back out a few months ago too.


[edit on 11/27/2008 by Phage]



posted on Nov, 27 2008 @ 01:40 AM
link   
I guess the compositions of colored smoke are just as safe as the white-washed ones left behind these alleged ‘chemtrails’ (or contrails)...

Addendum:
This means I am lead to believe that chemtrails are really contrails because we are told they are (for now).

For the sake of examples again, we didn't know that second-hand smoke are worse than previously thought. Why then should we believe that contrails are more than they appear to be and perhaps are not as safe either?


[edit on 2008-11-27 by pikypiky]



posted on Nov, 27 2008 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
He knows a dragon ate the sun then puked it back out a few months ago too.


Didn't know you believed in dragons



posted on Nov, 27 2008 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Didn't know you believed in dragons

Don't. Don't live in a jungle either.

(But I do believe in fairies because if I don't one will die and my daughter would never forgive me)

Wait! Just noticed you capitalized Airplane. I do believe in the Jefferson one.

[edit on 11/27/2008 by Phage]



posted on Nov, 27 2008 @ 10:28 AM
link   
www.scribd.com...

Not official but a good read and a seriously done piece of work.

www.chemtrails911.com...

Studys in geoengineering which would provide the academic backdrop to the chemtrail reality.

www.chemtrails911.com...

Looooooong list of supporting evidence to the chemtrail reality. Sure, not all of it will turn out to be valible, but I would wager a very large portion of it is.

This was all turned up with google in under 15 mins, counting the time it takes to filter out material which does not seem credible. So the "is no evidence" mantra is just that, a mantra, trying to doze off the people on the fence so they sleep through the issue. Honest effort shows up plenty of material, much of it credible.

Now, the massive academic backed studys on chemtrails won't be found, because they will not be paid for. The people with the power to print the money to pay for studys apparently are printing the money to pay for the chemtrails. So there is an obvious conflict of interest. Plus, Academia, hierarquical ship of fools that it is, has already put some of it's top guns on the "global warming" and "save the planet" bs, so naturally there is great official resistance to even undertaking such a study. I suspect Dave, or his bosses, know this, which is why they are so insistant on that angle.

And this whole post is redundant, because they can be seen. Anyone can verify these things are real with some effort and atention. This is not about science, or even belief systems. There is no ambiguity. People, just go out there and look, don't listen to the liars.



posted on Nov, 27 2008 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Just to add another piece of evidence that dosen't exist, here's a gallery of pictures taken at Sines, Portugal, according to the author.

www.realidadeoculta.com...

You can clearly see the trails spread out and form cloud cover, and they seem to match my own Madeira Island sightings. Pay special attention to the author's time stamps, because if true they negate the "it's just contrails" angle so often spewed by ad hoc debunkers.

Sines is on the western coast of Portugal, many miles from any major airport or flight paths, so I consider this gallery to have a high probability of being a genuine documentation of a chemtrail spraying black op.



posted on Nov, 27 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Zepherian
 


You still don't get it. Any reports of previous spraying activity (which is always by low-flying aircraft, because of how the atmosphere works) is not evidence that contrails are anything other than contrails.

If the chemtrailers would just take up a collection and take a direct sample from a contrail that showed strange chemicals, that's all the evidence they need.

But they don't. And they wonder why rational people aren't jumping up and down screaming about chemtrails.

This whole topic is a joke. It's a bunch of paranoid-fueled half-assed guesses. There is no rational reason to believe contrails are anything but contrails. Soil samples don't prove squat. Water samples don't prove squat. Direct samples of a contrail is what's required (you know - actual scientific evidence, not some crazed loon on a chemtrailer site making stuff up and drawing imaginary lines between incorrectly-interpreted reports and naturally-occurring phenomena). Until you chemtrailers can get that, don't expect anyone to even turn their heads. There is no evidence for ANY of this.



posted on Nov, 27 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


Your rebuttal is a joke. You cannot take 6000ft+ samples unless you have an aircraft and the specific equipment. So you need an official organisation to do it for you. That implies trusting them, but people like me are trying to tell you that is equivalent to trusting the criminal to do his own trial, as there is a high probability of someone along the line tampering with the evidence or altering the result to hide what is by now clearly an organised project of some official nature.

Abnormal flight patterns and abnormal trail behaviour is evidence. Atmospheric manipulation is evidence. Of what we would have to have an open and somewhat public investigation, that I can agree with, but this whole topic brings up massive trust issues, as the scale and nature of it points to government in the first place, so we have to be carefull who we trust to investigate it.

Remember the 911 comission report? That's the world we live in.



posted on Nov, 27 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by pikypiky
For the sake of examples again, we didn't know that second-hand smoke are worse than previously thought. Why then should we believe that contrails are more than they appear to be and perhaps are not as safe either?



you cant compare the smokes with chemtrails. smokes bring in profit for the companies that make them and taxes for the govt. they also bring a lot of money to the pharma and insurance industry (ppl get sick, medication to buy, premiums to pay, doctors to visit, life insurance is more expensive, etc)...

chemtrails cost way too much to manufacture and i think everybody agrees that smokes (or coca cola or hydrogenated oils or fast food) are much more effective in making ppl sick and thus feeding the pharma.



posted on Nov, 27 2008 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Zepherian
 


Contrails occur at altitudes much greater than 6000 feet.

Direct evidence of materials in contrails requires a sample of the contrail and nearby air. This would be true of any suspected emission from an aircraft flying at any altitude because background airborne dust and fine particulate materials must be accounted for. Materials found on the ground may come from many sources. Visual appearance of contrails and feelings of dread about them don't count as evidence. Perhaps that is what made you suspicious enough to want evidence, but so far you have none.

It might be possible to get qualitative spectroscopic evidence from the ground, but it would be a difficult task and any other compounds would likely be masked by the large amounts of CO2 and water that are coming from the engines.



posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by pikypiky

For the sake of examples again, we didn't know that second-hand smoke are worse than previously thought. Why then should we believe that contrails are more than they appear to be and perhaps are not as safe either?


Because, unlike smoking, people have been studying contrails since the 1950s - in particular how and why they form and what - if any - consequences there may be regarding them (in the 70s it was thought they caused global cooling, nowadays more research suggests the net effect is actually warming).

Some of the very many research papers that have been written on the subject over the decades can be found here



posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zepherian


Your rebuttal is a joke. You cannot take 6000ft+ samples unless you have an aircraft and the specific equipment.


Exactly. That was his point, which you missed.



Originally posted by Zepherian
Abnormal flight patterns and abnormal trail behaviour is evidence.


Define "abnormal flight patterns"?

Because Aircraft fly where they don't normally fly? Well, it's this amazing thing called weather. Aircraft can't fly through bad weather or they go byebye and crash. Not a good thing. So they have to take a different path they normally wouldn't go, to go around the bad weather systems.

But see, if this weather modification chemtrail bunk existed like you say, then they wouldn't have to fly around the bad weather systems, they could just modify the weather! Hmm.



posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 11:39 AM
link   
This thread still working! Wow! I thought it was old news by now.
Condensation trail=contrail
Chemical trail=chemtrail
Since there are several additives in the fuel leaving behind chemical residue in the exhaust, we see chemtrails. Not a matter of belief, it is a fact, pure undeniable fact, sympathies to the 420 guy, although you get props for being persistent and wanting so desperately to be taken serious. Sorry dude, but Dave’s not here.

The real issue is how does the chemical residue left behind in the exhaust impact the environment, if at all? And if there is an impact, is there a health concern, and if there is a health concern does someone already know about it? These are the real questions about chemtrails, not this trivial banter and rhetorical volley of nonsense by those who are simply stuck in denial mode.

This is the same song and dance the tobacco industry used for so many years saying there is no viable link between cigarette smoking and cancer or emphysema and any number of other health concerns. They used the very same tactics, every time there was medical evidence to support a link, the tobacco industry supplied another “professional” to deny the link or to misdirect or misinform.

The true fallacy of this OPs post is that he is trying to imply that since he can explain how a fluffy cloud is formed, that somehow trumps the existence of any chemical trails in sky. I submit to everyone reading these posts, that this isn’t logic, it is misdirection. Simply put, it is an undisputed, well documented and established fact that there are chemical additives in the aviation fuels and there are many different additives. Some of these additives are very expensive and there has been more than one occasion to question if they are really needed or if needed on the scale in which they are dispersed.

What this slight of hand, misdirection posts, and others like it are doing is distracting people from any real issues of what these chemical trails may or may not contain and how or if they are effecting the health of people. Why are these people doing this, why do they continue this misdirection, this disinformation? Some do it because that is what they get paid to do, some do it because they think it makes appear smart or special. Some do it because arguing is fun. Some do it because some one they admire is doing it. Some do it because, well, they’re misguided, or not quite the clear thinker as they could be. Some don’t know why they do anything, they just do. Regardless of the reasons, they are going to continue to try this misdirection as clearly evident by these posts.



posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
Because, unlike smoking, people have been studying contrails since the 1950s - in particular how and why they form and what - if any - consequences there may be regarding them


Hmmm so in that case it seems contrails are not such a simple thing as the debunkers would have us believe..

I mean if they have been studying them since 1950...
thats 58 years of study... Amazing... Perhaps a couple of the debunkers should call these scientists and explain it to them... save them time and money

And if contrails are simply condensation trails...what - if any - consequences could there be regarding them?


Would seem that the scientist do indeed think there is more to it





posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon


And if contrails are simply condensation trails...what - if any - consequences could there be regarding them?


That is exactly what most of the study is about. The mechanism and characteristics are pretty well understood. If and how climate may be affected by them, is not.

[edit on 11/28/2008 by Phage]



posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
If and how climate may be affected by them, is not.


Yeah but how would normal condensation effect climate


BTW I got a picture for your daughter... I bet she would see the faeries in it. But I doubt you would


Happy Turkey Day



posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Phage
If and how climate may be affected by them, is not.


Yeah but how would normal condensation effect climate


BTW I got a picture for your daughter... I bet she would see the faeries in it. But I doubt you would


Happy Turkey Day


Of more concern than the composition of the clouds is their effect on incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared. Can they cause: a) cooling, b) warming.

Her eyes (and ears) are much better than mine.

Same to you.



posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by eaganthorn
 


Trace amounts of uncombusted and partially combusted fuel and fuel additives in contrails are not evidence of purposeful spraying of the populace for conspiratorial reasons. Water and CO2 are "chemicals" and frozen water is what is visible as contrails. The discussion has to do with additional materials that are secretly being sprayed on the unsuspecting public, for reasons unknown, by generating fake contrails or including materials within existing contrails. There is no agreement on which it is or what is being sprayed and for what purpose. The theories are completely unsupported by anything but feelings about it, much like Santa and the Tooth Fairy have solid evidence by belief.
There is no evidence that there is anything in contrails that would have any effect on the public. Spraying anything from 30,000+ feet is generally a really inefficient way to deliver a secret formula to a target. Dilution effects of al compounds and solar photolysis of any organics dispersed at high altitude would require much larger amounts of materials than, for example, silent-mode helo spraying at night after a contrived power failure.
The people who advance this chemtrail theory do not understand much in the way of science, engineering, pharmaceutics, and simple logistics.
There is also an underlying financial reason for the apparent illogical denial of some posters as they are selling books and CD's to others and have a vested interest in a debate. Bad news sells. When sales drop, the threads are restarted with new claims.
References are disjointed and the posters are often unaware of the details of reference contents as they are just key-word links. Generally, if there are many references, the poster is either confused or is trying to confuse others with volume of references. In the references of legitimate but irrelevant material, such as patents and legislative papers, they will slip in references of dubious origin that merely fear monger without logical bases.
Posters who investigate and read their references are targets of childish rants when they analyze said references and state the truth. The attacks get personal and show the underlying desperation of the chemtrail proponent to feel important or possibly increase sales of his/her books and CD's.
The latest posts, having nothing else, are claiming barium and aluminum compounds are raining down from contrails. The amounts of these compounds one would have to disperse to show any effect on the population would be large enough to noticeably perturb the market prices of these materials. Likely, this tack will soon prove untenable to all but the most mentally unhinged of the chemtrailers.
As we move on, I look forward to hearing about the rest of the periodic table in posts by our amateur scientists as they surf the net. Their logic defies description and their scientific methodology is certainly an example. Of course, until a contrail is sampled or a secret plan accidentally posted on you tube is discovered, they have no case but, as we say,"that's entertainment."



posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

Of more concern than the composition of the clouds is their effect on incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared. Can they cause: a) cooling, b) warming.


Exactly.

Yes, they can cause weather changes. Contrails are indeed clouds after all, they are cirrus clouds, just instead of being shaped "naturally" they are shaped like a long trail. But they are the same exact thing as a cirrus cloud.

And yes, if there's lot's of air traffic making lots of cirrus clouds in the sky, then those clouds (as any clouds would) will block the incoming solar shortwave radiation from the sun, and also block the outgoing infrared infrared longwave radiation from the earth from escaping.





[edit on 28-11-2008 by AirTrafficController]





new topics
top topics
 
61
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join