Chemtrail Inactivity - Personnel on Holiday Vacation?, page 5

privacy

Pages: << 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times

reply posted on 12-1-2009 @ 01:07 PM by ziggystar60

Originally posted by SuperSpark
I make the simple observation that there were no persistent contrails prior to the 90's. The skies were filled with puffy clouds and jets with 30 second contrails.

Take a look at this footage from the 1940s:

YouTube Link

reply posted on 12-1-2009 @ 01:09 PM by defcon5

Originally posted by SuperSpark
I know that my voice of reason will get drowned out by at least three posts for every one I make.

I find this statement very telling as to why your here. First off it sounds as though you are more concerned with selling your point of view as the truth, rather then finding out the actual truth as you originally state you're here for. If not, you would not be worried about your message possibly getting drowned out. Second thing is that you all took the time I was off ATS to go on an all out attack over my other posts, and I felt I needed to respond to those posts. If you were all so concerned with me coming back and replying to all those posts at once, then you should not keep throwing out posts to knock mine while I am offline. You even went so far as to accuse me of being beaten simply because I did not reply fast enough. Now I reply and you complain that it was too much all at once...

Make up your mind.

reply posted on 12-1-2009 @ 01:57 PM by GenRadek

reply to post by SuperSpark

You debunkers crack me up. You simply want to drown out OBVIOUS, common sense observations and deduction with loads and loads of cra_.

I make the simple observation that there were no persistent contrails prior to the 90's. The skies were filled with puffy clouds and jets with 30 second contrails. And you respond with posts of climatology technical papers that say otherwise, which would of course exhaust or overwhelm most people.

What are you doing then?

And where is your proof? We ask you for this every time and still we get nothing. Or are you just trolling along?

So when bomber and fighter pilots during WWII were complaining about heavy contrails blocking out their view of the bomber streams, they were imagining it? When they started asking the weather stations to give them an idea of where and when persistant contrails will form, they were lying?When meteorologists and aviation officials began studying persistant contrails during the 50s, they were all mistaken or lying? You seriously crack me up with your assumptions.

Doesn't it bother you to know that during the 1950s is when the Appleman Chart was created to figure out the conditions for PERSISTANT contrails?
adsabs.harvard.edu...

AMS Contrails

Here is a picture from the 1950s. A B-36 Peacemaker left it.

contrailscience.com...

oops oops oops! Sorry looks like persistant contrails are nothing new and have been around since WWII.

[edit on 1/12/2009 by GenRadek]

[edit on 1/12/2009 by GenRadek]

reply posted on 12-1-2009 @ 02:20 PM by SuperSpark

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by SuperSpark
I know that my voice of reason will get drowned out by at least three posts for every one I make.

I find this statement very telling as to why your here. First off it sounds as though you are more concerned with selling your point of view as the truth, rather then finding out the actual truth as you originally state you're here for. If not, you would not be worried about your message possibly getting drowned out. Second thing is that you all took the time I was off ATS to go on an all out attack over my other posts, and I felt I needed to respond to those posts. If you were all so concerned with me coming back and replying to all those posts at once, then you should not keep throwing out posts to knock mine while I am offline.

WOW!

1) I stand corrected. It looks like I'm being smothered with FIVE debunking posts for every one of mine. That's more than the two I quoted above.

2) I thought the people who believe in a chemtrail cover-up were thought to be the paranoid ones! I don't post to any other chemtrail threads. I created this one. So I'm not the one "attacking" you eslewhere.

3) The few pics you are able to find from WWII intrigue me, but they don't explain why passenger jets were not leaving persistent contrails prior to the 90's. Were you alive and looking around back then? 100's of millions of Americans were. Try hypnotizing all of them into negating this fact.

As I said, the effort and passion and resources being put into convincing the world of the global warming myth is involved. The very same organizations from whose research debunkers use are the ones supporting global warming (see my last post). Ultimately, chemtrail spraying will be disclosed and spun as our "secret weapon" to defeat it (the patents have been approved for the use of aerial spraying in this very fashion).

So it comes as no surprise... All of you debunkers have way too much time and energy put into your effort for it to be a hobby. It seems convincingly like its your job. The legitimate scientists disproving global warming deal with the same kind of fanatical attacks.

*************************
All that I know is that I know nothing -Socrates

[edit on 12-1-2009 by SuperSpark]

reply posted on 12-1-2009 @ 02:43 PM by Essan

Originally posted by SuperSpark

3) The few pics you are able to find from WWII intrigue me, but they don't explain why passenger jets were not leaving persistent contrails prior to the 90's. Were you alive and looking around back then? 100's of millions of Americans were. Try hypnotizing all of them into negating this fact.

contrailscience.com...

contrailscience.com...

contrailscience.com...

All photoshopped?

You don't remember seeing contrails because a) you were less inclined to look at the skies* and b) there were, in any case, less commercial aircraft so less contrails.

* until I started serious meterological photography I didn't pay much attention either. I bet few people ever see the mammatus, sundogs, irrdescence etc that I now frequently photograph. Likewise contrails. People just don't look at the sky!

But those who were looking at the skies back then report seeing exactly the same as we see today. Liars?

reply posted on 12-1-2009 @ 03:03 PM by SuperSpark

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by SuperSpark

3) The few pics you are able to find from WWII intrigue me, but they don't explain why passenger jets were not leaving persistent contrails prior to the 90's. Were you alive and looking around back then? 100's of millions of Americans were. Try hypnotizing all of them into negating this fact.

contrailscience.com...

contrailscience.com...

contrailscience.com...

All photoshopped?

You don't remember seeing contrails because a) you were less inclined to look at the skies* and b) there were, in any case, less commercial aircraft so less contrails.

Laughable... again, trying to hypnotize the world.... or maybe more like the "Jedi mind trick"? Its not working.

1) There is a big difference between noticing small artifacts, rare events, etc. in the sky and things of the scale of chemtrails (the whole damned sky in many cases) with their frequency (practically 95% of the time).

2) I did spend a lot of time looking up at the sky and always have. Astronomy, Astrophysics and Aviation has been an important part of my life since I was a child.

3) If you think this picture you provided is of the skies in 1970 and that this was common place and we all just don't remember... LOL!

(yes, I believe your images are either current, photoshopped or rare exceptions.. you cannot change people's memories)

*************************
All that I know is that I know nothing -Socrates

reply posted on 12-1-2009 @ 03:12 PM by ziggystar60

Originally posted by SuperSpark

(yes, I believe your images are either current, photoshopped or rare exceptions.. you cannot change people's memories)

I am honestly not sure if you are being serious or not, but just in case you actually think that essan's images are all hoxes...

I was born in the 1960s. and I saw plenty of contrails in the sky when I was growing up. I always thought they were beautiful - like someone drew lines in the sky with a piece of chalk.

reply posted on 12-1-2009 @ 03:18 PM by SuperSpark

Originally posted by ziggystar60

Originally posted by SuperSpark

(yes, I believe your images are either current, photoshopped or rare exceptions.. you cannot change people's memories)

I am honestly not sure if you are being serious or not, but just in case you actually think that essan's images are all hoxes...

I was born in the 1960s. and I saw plenty of contrails in the sky when I was growing up. I always thought they were beautiful - like someone drew lines in the sky with a piece of chalk.

Well OMG! If you vouch for him, I suppose my memories and photo's and those of all my friends and family must be wrong after all.

Thank you for clearing that up.

I grew up next to an AFB and one of the largest airports in the World, so nice try.

***********************
All that I know is that I know nothing -Socrates

reply posted on 12-1-2009 @ 03:25 PM by ziggystar60

reply to post by SuperSpark

An AFB without a single contrail in sight?

Obviously you and I are living in two entirely different realities.

And by the way, you don't have to quote all of the post you are replying to, if it is just above yours. Just click the "reply" button.
Good luck.

reply posted on 12-1-2009 @ 03:48 PM by defcon5

Originally posted by SuperSpark
I stand corrected. It looks like I'm being smothered with FIVE debunking posts for every one of mine. That's more than the two I quoted above.

I see three posts between yours, and mine is not even technically about contrails, but rather about your previous post.

Originally posted by SuperSpark
I don't post to any other chemtrail threads. I created this one. So I'm not the one "attacking" you eslewhere.

Which is why I said posts and not threads. You guys went on the attack about my posts in this thread on Saturday, while I was gone.

Originally posted by SuperSpark
The few pics you are able to find from WWII intrigue me, but they don't explain why passenger jets were not leaving persistent contrails prior to the 90's.

There are thousands of photos of aircraft leaving persistent contrails from before the 90's. Google up the footage from Chuck Yeager breaking the sound barrier or the X-15 flights. Here you ever seen this one before?

Another WWII photo from a bomber group.

Originally posted by SuperSpark
Were you alive and looking around back then?

In the 70's & 80's, I grew up within a few miles of a major northern international airport in a big city. I was always into aircraft, so I was always watching the sky. I saw persistent contrails all the time up there.

Originally posted by SuperSpark
All of you debunkers have way too much time and energy put into your effort for it to be a hobby.

Not really, I just have a job that involves my having long periods with nothing to do but serf the internet. I also work a 12 hour shift which gives me extra days off each week.

reply posted on 12-1-2009 @ 04:01 PM by SuperSpark

reply to post by ziggystar60

Well, sure there are chemtrails all over here near the AFB and the airport.. now (not before late 80's).

Thanks for the tip but it helps to quote at least partially when I am debunking one of several debunkers at once.

In WWII the nazi's used "wolf pack" tactics with their subs. I can see why the allies belated it so.

**************************
All that I know is that I know nothing -Socrates

[edit on 12-1-2009 by SuperSpark]

reply posted on 12-1-2009 @ 04:08 PM by SuperSpark

Originally posted by defcon5
Google up the footage from Chuck Yeager breaking the sound barrier or the X-15 flights. Here you ever seen this one before?]

Chuck did leave a trail...because the x-15 was a ROCKET not a jet.. the powerplant was a Thiokol XLR99-RM-2 liquid-fuel rocket engine. The space shuttle launches leave one too.

I don't know, maybe this thread should be on the metaphysics category because its becoming clear you guys all are panicked at the prospect of people not buying your version of reality.

************
All that I know is that I know nothing -Socrates

[edit on 12-1-2009 by SuperSpark]

reply posted on 12-1-2009 @ 04:35 PM by Essan

Originally posted by SuperSpark

I don't know, maybe this thread should be on the metaphysics category because its becoming clear you guys all are panicked at the prospect of people not buying your version of reality.

I agree. When all empirical evidence is dismissed on the grounds it doesn't accord with your personal memory then we are indeed in a different reality.

On a different track: is there any evidence that you would accept?

And do you agree that for many decades all those involved in Meteorology and Climatology and responsible for books on the subjects are involved in a conspiracy and have written false accounts and produced doctored pictures?

reply posted on 12-1-2009 @ 06:00 PM by SuperSpark

reply to post by Essan

I don't think all meteorologists and climatologists agree with you in regards to chem-trails any more than I think they agree with each other in regards to "global warming". BUT it is just as likely in chem-trail threads that you will hear a claim that there is a consensus opinion as it is in global warming threads. Al Gore and Nasa and the UN keep repeating that the discussion is over over OVER, that all scientists agree. Everyone reading this has seen those headlines, right?

Nothing could be farther from the truth. It was almost true. Scientists who disagreed with Global Warming were so persecuted, demonized, ridiculed, threatened with loss of gainful employment, threatened with fewer or no options for higher and different degrees.. that they kept quiet. They were quiet for a long time... until recently.

December 13, 2008 -United Nations Climate Change Conference in Poland surprised by 650 leading scientists who call man made global warming a HOAX
(In fact, the total number of scientists represented in the report is 12 times the number of U.N. scientists who authored the official UN Global Warming report)

Be patient, the next shoe will fall. These same (now majority) meteorologists and climatologists are opening their eyes at all the dogmatic "givens" over the past few decades of bunk.

They were all being conditioned to ratify Global Warming.

Their next step was to back-up the governments upon disclosure of chem-trail spraying, as absolutely necessary to save the planet from Global Warming.

Looks like that plan is falling apart.

**************************
All that I know is that I know nothing -Socrates

[edit on 12-1-2009 by SuperSpark]

reply posted on 12-1-2009 @ 11:54 PM by defcon5

reply to post by SuperSpark

The B-29's, the B-52's, and the chase aircraft were not rockets though.
Especially in the X-15 footage, you see them all leaving contrails.

By the way I have nothing to panic about, because I know this is a hoax. If anyone is sounding desperate its you guys. You ask for stuff, then when its given, you never respond to it, and would rather change the subject or downplay it.

[edit on 1/12/2009 by defcon5]

reply posted on 13-1-2009 @ 12:35 AM by SuperSpark

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by SuperSpark

The B-29's, the B-52's, and the chase aircraft were not rockets though.
Especially in the X-15 footage, you see them all leaving contrails.

By the way I have nothing to panic about, because I know this is a hoax. If anyone is sounding desperate its you guys. You ask for stuff, then when its given, you never respond to it, and would rather change the subject or downplay it.

[edit on 1/12/2009 by defcon5]

to the contrary! I always took notice that B-52's (not B-29's) left contrails, however, I have no memory of watching how long they took to dissipate. I took note of this starting in about 1990 when I would watch films showing the heavy contrails.

I don't have the answer to that one at all. Although they lay HEAVY trails, I highly doubt they have the characteristics of the hugely persistent, metallic "shimmering in the sunlight" quality of chemtrails at all.

Is it so strange to suggest fabricated data by debunkers of chem-trails? Not any more strange by our tax-money paid scientists at Nasa falsifying and selectively picking data and observations that support their global warming agenda.

Desperate? No. But the fact that you completely ignored my portrayal of the shift in "your scientists" just encourages me.

Those 650 scientists that just DEBUNKED Nasa's and the UN's global warming myth are our best chance to DEBUNK your debunking.

Stay tuned. You guys are losing ground fast.

reply posted on 13-1-2009 @ 02:15 AM by Essan

reply to post by SuperSpark

I fail to see what 650 scientists (out of millions worldwide) disagreeing with IPCC predictions regarding AGW has to do with persistent contrails being observed and studied for decades.

(For the record, I question their predictions and methodology as well, and I know of many prominent scientists who do likewise)

But are you suggesting that 30 years before chemtrails started to be laid, atmospheric scientists were made to study them and pretend they were normal contrails in order to protect their jobs? Perhaps WWII pilots were forced to write false accounts as well? How far back does this conspiracy go?

Notwithstanding which, the issue (as ever) is whether what you claim to see are chemtrails, not whether chamical spraying for whatever reason is happening. IMHO were such activities taking place we would be unaware of them from the ground.

reply posted on 13-1-2009 @ 12:12 PM by musselwhite

i was just talking with a friend the other day and the lack of chemtrails and weather engineering had come to a halt and we were wondering what's going on.

we are from georgia.

reply posted on 13-1-2009 @ 01:06 PM by Kandinsky

That was an excellent thread to read. Even exemplary for a forum discussion. I've been reinformed of a few things relating to debating etiquette too...

1 Always remain polite
2 Always stick to the evidence of your contention/ argument
3 Attacking the opposition rather than their evidence undermines you AND your argument
4 It's good grace to concede defeat with dignity because it allows you to return for another debate

Not all these things were done by all involved which reinforces why they are true

One side did stick to good form and nailed the debate. Excellent stuff, really interesting. Thanks

reply posted on 14-1-2009 @ 02:34 AM by defcon5

Originally posted by SuperSpark
Desperate? No. But the fact that you completely ignored my portrayal of the shift in "your scientists" just encourages me.

If it is encouraging you, then its because you are reading something into it that is not there.

I have no specific knowledge of whether Global Warming is real or not , nor if it is man made or not. That is simply not my area of interest. I’ll leave that argument up to the people with a professional weather background. If Essan or OZ feel that it is real, then I would be inclined to believe, or seriously consider what they have to say on the topic.

From the bit I have read on the topic, my personal opinion, as of the moment, is that it may be related to something about either our sun or the region of space that our solar system is passing through. You do realize that Earth is not the only planet in our solar system that is going through a warming trend atm, right? There is no argument between any scientists that I have read as to the fact there is global climate change occurring, so far the only argument I see is to exactly what is occurring and why.