It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Why the Chemtrail Conspiracy is Unplausible, and Meteorologically Innacurate

page: 17
43
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by MyNameIsNobody
Did good old Patton die of brain cancer? No. So these weren't "contrails" (as you define them...).

What?I don’t get the correlation."

Very hard to believe.





George C Scott died of a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm.

See? I knew it ...! (Clue for you: the remark about Patton was an obvious joke, as he himself couldn't be the actor...)




Originally posted by MyNameIsNobody


Actually this is a regular cloudy sky besides ONE alleged con/chemtrail, which proves ... NOTHING ((EDIT-REINSERT to match my original statement: )) Give me a break. This single trail could easily be photoshopped subsequently into a still. Or it could have resulted from an accelerating old plane engine (read my post on page 9 in this thread). Or it could be a smoke trail (as explained) "ordered" by the director to make the movie look more realistc. Or, above all, as it's not very dense/thick, it could be a very regular contrail caused by a plane passing a few seconds or 1-2 minutes before the take, hence already dissipating quickly - as all real contrails do.

I was asked to show ONE contrail that was in a movie pre-1990, which I did…So I guess it proves that they did exist back then as well. However as I predicted you all will find another excuse to continue on with this non-sense.


Now I have YOU. Just read my full statement on page 16 and then your dodging answer to it. I gave an exact explanation why that one contrail is no prove at all (see above, I reinserted it to match the original post).


PS I was being very polite refraining from using the word "nonsense" regarding your post. No problem for me to change that. But MOD don't blame me then...

[edit on 18-3-2009 by MyNameIsNobody]




posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   
I know I shouldn't feed a troll, but I suppose Nobody that you think this paper from 1970 is a fake - after all it describes contrails persisting and spreading across the skies and even contains photos thereof. Or maybe back in those days scientists were so stupid they thought smoke trails and drawings were really contrails?


Airborne observations of contrail effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget - 1970

You might also wish to comment on why these scientists were issuing papers discussing a phenomena which you claim did not exist


Measurements of the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persisting Contrail - 1972



A Statistical Exmination of Sky Cover Changes in the Contiguous United States - 1987


Multiple Contrail Streamers Observed by Radar - 1974

Midwestern Cloud, Sunshine and Temperature Trends since 1901: Possible Evidence of Jet Contrail Effects - 1981



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   
This is getting ridiculous....(although defcon5 had a good point about 'chemtrailers' spinning to bring traffic to their sites...)

There seem to be two distinct camps in this argument. One camp claims that contrails are 'sprayed' in order to alter climate. Since it's been well-shown that high altitude 'spraying' would simply be untargetable, the second camp, which alleges some nefarious chemical contamination, is literally blown away (couldn't help that one!).

As to Camp One: Let's see....increasing cloud cover increases the albedo (as the theory goes) thus preventing the Climate Change, some say is warming, others say is cooling, still others say it's all a Chicken Little argument. Analyize that notion, for a moment. 75% of the Earth's surface is water. Water absorbs heat energy from the Sun. If you really want to affect the albedo, shouldn't you be doing it overwater?

Now, for Camp Two: The icky 'chemicals'...well, a far better approach would be to 'spray' them into cumulus and cumulo-nimbus, so they would precipitate out as rain (or snow/sleet/hail) thereby having better targeting ability.

Of course, this already happens due to industrial pollution.....but, if it were increased by the 'PTB' (cue scary music...) how would THEY keep themselves and their families safe?

(rant)...this hysteria reminds me of something. Early Humans, based on eyewitness testimony (everyone) thought that, obviously, the Earth was at the center and everything rotated around it. I mean, you could see it!

Also, the Earth just HAD to be flat, or else you'd fall off the bottom.

Weird thing is, seemed 'logical' at the time.....(rant over)



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
.... Are you accusing me of altering the photo? I don’t think I much care for that accusation, sir. I have a track record here on ATS of telling the truth, and presenting facts...

Not at all, sir. There is no reason to understand I meant you, really. I was only referring to the many disinfo sites/pages on the web sometimes often doing such. I declare that I do not believe you are somebody who would alter a photo.

Btw, you know for instance the "alien/ufo footage/debunking" threads on ATS. They're very often talking about photoshopping, and as I remember, they're always/generally/automatically referring to third persons, which I also did in this case.

[edit on 18-3-2009 by MyNameIsNobody]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Chemtrails are Real!!! I lived under them 7 years in Chicago. I would watch them for hours..they are not innocent water vapor.

Chemtrails made me sick, before I even knew what they were. I had adult onset asthma in Chicago and was hospitalized b/c of it.

Chemtrails caused dimming of the sun there and they also caused rain and storms.

I lived in St. Louis MO and would see them, but not like Chicago, and now I live in Florida and there are even fewer here...no asthma thank God.

Chemtrails are real and Oz ....I noticed you make a post like this every few months just to rile people up.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Missing Blue Sky
Chemtrails are Real!!! I lived under them 7 years in Chicago. I would watch them for hours..they are not innocent water vapor.


That's what they want you to think



Chemtrails made me sick, before I even knew what they were. I had adult onset asthma in Chicago and was hospitalized b/c of it.


Obviously it wasn't all those noxious vehicle fumes you inhaled every single day


But have you ever seen a rainbow?

How do you know it's not rainbows making you sick? Or maybe there are less rainbows now and before they kept you healthy? Yes, in fact I used to see a lot more when I was a kid. The govt have taken away rainbows by chemically altering the sky and this is what is making people sick!

(You see how easy non sequitur reasoning is
)



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Missing Blue Sky
 


MBS....go look up adult onset asthma on wiki...

Simply living in a metropolitan city, such as Chicago or St. Louis can be shown to create the condition.

I can guarantee you that contrails from 6 miles above you were not to blame. Or else, there would have been an epidemic, and THAT would make the 6 o'clock news!



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by MyNameIsNobody
 



Are these the same dis-info sites that re-subtitle a German show talking about chaff to make it look like they were talking about chemtrails?

The same sites that proudly pronounce that contrails last for a few minutes and chemtrails last for hours?

The same sites that provide lab results saying they're from chemtrails but don't tell us the time or location of the tests, nor do they ever provide tests from before to compare results?

Oh...wait a minute these are from chemtrail sites!

Who's spreading disinfo again...?



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
I just found out that the opening scene of the 1962 Western “lonely are the Brave” has contrails ..So does John Wayne’s 1972 movie “The Cowboys”:

From IMDB ... Anachronisms: Jet contrails near the beginning.

"Jet contrails"? The issue of this thread isn't jet contrails, but the strange prodigy of THICK, DENSE, EXPANDING, LINGERING "contrails". Thus the mentioning of just "contrails" is meaningless. We should know what those movies actually depict. And I doubt they do that.




... Maybe you can explain this:

Originally posted by Chadwickus
Nice find, I found a trailer for the movie, have a look at around the 58 second mark.
"

I did read Chadvicus' post and watched the video then. Now I additionally downloaded it (the HQ/MP4 version, “Patton_movie_trailer.mp4”) and watched it in slomo.

- The sky at about 0:57-1:00 is well within the scope of a regular cloudy sky, just with some longish clouds. There is ONE trail-like objekt near the upper right corner, which can easily be explained, as in my 1st post on page 16.

- The same goes for the sky at 1:23.

Terribly sorry, but this video ain't no evidence.


[edit on 18-3-2009 by MyNameIsNobody]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
Are these the same dis-info sites that re-subtitle a German show talking about chaff to make it look like they were talking about chemtrails?
The same sites that proudly pronounce that contrails last for a few minutes and chemtrails last for hours? The same sites that provide lab results saying they're from chemtrails but don't tell us the time or location of the tests, nor do they ever provide tests from before to compare results? Oh...wait a minute these are from chemtrail sites! Who's spreading disinfo again...?


That’s a nice one. I will gladly explain: Because of “accidental” mainstream media reports (won’t happen anymore today, the mainstream media are fully under control again…), the German military was obliged to admit having sprayed huge amounts of some stuff. To divert the public from the truth the military then alleged (towards the media) those were “only huge amount of chaff” which was of course super ridiculous. Some time later they made up a second “explanation”, which was even more stupid (I don’t remember what it was exactly but I could find out). So, on whose side was the disinfo?

Now, I know Chadwickus you're shocked to hear that story about Germany. Your thoughts are: "How can a government/military lie to its population in such a nasty way? Glad to live in the US under a honest and caring government!"

[edit on 18-3-2009 by MyNameIsNobody]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Why can't the debunkers show me a still from a pre-1998 film, TV program or commercial with a background that looks like this?

I provided quotes to where you can find these types of bloopers in movies, that is sufficient.

Quotes? BFD. If you're gonna spend half your life trying to debunk chemtrails, let's see a screen shots from ANY pre-1998 film, TV show or commercial that shows these "persistent contrails" in the background. NOT a Hollywood SFX sequence.

Is that really asking too much? Put up or shut up.

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

[edit on 3/16/2009 by maria_stardust]


Now this I find very amusing. Once proven, the poster fades away into the sunset while the next guy jumps on a completely different bandwagon.

Since scientific evidence won't do, and pictures won't do, what would it take to at least have evidence that maybe there were con trails in the sky pre 1988?

I looked in the sky to day and saw a plane very far up with no con trail at all. Also no clouds. So in eastern NC I would venture to guess that there will be no spraying today. It is a holiday for the chem spraying pilots right? manbearpig is real folks. and he will eat your children.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by MyNameIsNobody


That’s a nice one. I will gladly explain: Because of “accidental” mainstream media reports (won’t happen anymore today, the mainstream media are fully under control again…), the German military was obliged to admit having sprayed huge amounts of some stuff. To divert the public from the truth the military then alleged (towards the media) those were “only huge amount of chaff” which was of course super ridiculous. Some time later they made up a second “explanation”, which was even more stupid (I don’t remember what it was exactly but I could find out). So, on whose side was the disinfo?



You actually believe they were talking about chemtrails?

Why don't you ask a German ATS member?


German:
sn00daard Send U2U
D0MiNAT0R 1OOO Send U2U
chris_stibran Send U2U
The_Modulus Send U2U
pause4thought Send U2U
exteel Send U2U
Benarius Send U2U
Armin Send U2U

Taken from here.



Now, I know Chadwickus you're shocked to hear that. Your thoughts are: "How can a government/military lie to its population in such a nasty way? Glad to live in the US under a honest and caring government!"


I'm not shocked at all with what the US government is capable of, I just don't believe chemtrails is a viable method of distribution of whatever it is you chemtrailers believe they are distributing.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


I don't know where Goldenfleece is. Maybe he works.
Anyway, these screen shots don't PROVE that EVERYTHING is a contrail.
Piston engines, Actual contrails in heavy traffic from those films......
Have you seen 'fallout' of particulates from heavy spraying chemtrails?
I have.
Stuff (Not vapor) in a low humidity, DROUGHT, drifting it's way to Earth!
Sometimes it smelled like seven dust.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by MyNameIsNobody
I will gladly explain: Because of “accidental” mainstream media reports (won’t happen anymore today, the mainstream media are fully under control again…), the German military was obliged to admit having sprayed huge amounts of some stuff. To divert the public from the truth the military then alleged (towards the media) those were “only huge amount of chaff” which was of course super ridiculous.


Actually it would have been ridiculous had they said anything different since

a) this spraying was never seen from the ground
b) it was only ever seen on radar
c) chaff is intended to show up on radar
d) chemtrails do not show up on radar

In other words, it was known right from the very beginning what had happened - but a German meteorologist was a bit p*ssed off so he demanded an apology. Chaff messes up radar - and it's not easy issuing a weather forecast if you don't know whether or not that's heavy rainfall or a military exercise on the radar!

Pleased to say we don't have any such problems in the UK



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz

Either exhaust smoke caused by loads of burnt fuel of old plane engines, especially when flying very fast or when accelerating skywards.

Sorry, I'm lost.
Can you explain in some more detail? I ask because water vapor is formed from the fuel itself burning and has nothing to do with engine burn efficiency. The Thiokol XLR99 does not produce 'smoke', but it does produce water vapor by virtue of the fuel burned, which explains the contrails. Could them contrails be condensation from the fuel tank?
[edit on 18/3/2009 by C0bzz]


For the “breaking” of the “sound barrier" it was necessary to “overload” the plane engines. Under such special circumstances the combustion becomes an ‘unclean’ combustion, producing more smoke than usually, consisting inter alia of not completely/cleanly burnt carbon particles. It can also occur under such extreme conditions that a considerable part of the (jet)fuel gets projected backwards without having been burnt (‘incomplete’ combustion). Such “deficiencies” were typical of non-modern engines.


[edit on 18-3-2009 by MyNameIsNobody]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by MyNameIsNobody
For the “breaking” of the “sound barrier" it was necessary to “overload” the plane engines. Under such special circumstances the combustion becomes an ‘unclean’ combustion, producing more smoke than usually, consisting inter alia of not completely/cleanly burnt carbon particles. It can also occur under such extreme conditions that a considerable part of the (jet)fuel gets projected backwards without having been burnt (‘incomplete’ combustion). Such “deficiencies” were typical of non-modern engines.


[edit on 18-3-2009 by MyNameIsNobody]


No, it wasn't. The ACTUAL first aircraft to break the sound barrier used a regular old jet engine, and broke Mach 1 in a shallow dive. The OFFICIAL plane to break the sound barrier, the X-1 and other X planes of the time, were rocket powered aircraft. The X-1 used an XLR11 liquid fueled rocket motor. It was the first liquid fuel rocket put into an aircraft. It used ethyl alcohol and liquid oxygen to generate 6,000 pounds of thrust.

[edit on 3/18/2009 by Zaphod58]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by MyNameIsNobody
 


MNIS....you don't have any idea what you're talking about, do you?

IF you're referring to the X-1, with pilot Chuck Yeager....that was a rocket engine, providing the thrust, as the subject of the 'sound barrier' was being studied.

Modern fighters use the after-burner to accelerate past Mach 1. Essentially, it pumps a heck of a lot of extra fuel into the already hot exhaust from the engine, providing that extra 'oomph'. It also is an incredible waste of fuel, so staying in AB for any length of time means you'll exhaust your fuel rather rapidly.

The Concorde SST did not have ABs.....they climbed to the appropriate altitude, higher than, say a B747 or B767 and just accelerated, under normal max power settings, because the airplane was designed to make it through the 'sound barrier' without experiencing the 'mach-tuck' characteristics of conventional jetliners.

A conventional airliner CAN exceed Mach 1.....but not recommended, and likely to result in disaster. It has to do with the CG and C/L...and aileron reversal....and the buffeting from the shock wave...

Sorry, this drove the thread WAY off topic, but I thought it important to point out a poster's misconceptions, lest they lead to others'.

Again, digging myself out to the topic at hand, it is simply the heat of the exhaust, and the environmental conditions of the airmass, that result in contrails. They do not always form, of course. I have personally, many times, been 'in trail' of another airplane (10 miles in RADAR contact, 20 miles when not) and have seen the contrails persist, as we follow the same course. I have flown through contrails, I have seen them spread out to form wispy cirrus-like clouds.

It isn't 'rocket science'.

EDIT...as always, Zaphod beat me to it!!!






[edit on 3/18/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

see below


reply to post by defcon5
 

see below


reply to post by C0bzz
 

see below


reply to post by Essan
 

see below

reply to post by Chadwickus
 

Thanks for the posts, I’d be happy to answer, but must leave now. I’ve been posting for about 9 hours. I am NOT backing out, I really must leave.


[edit on 18-3-2009 by MyNameIsNobody]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by MyNameIsNobody
No evidence either. Do we always have to explain the basics to the "debunkers" ... ? Pilots very early (already in the 20s/30s or so) had technical equipment/apparatus to provide extra thick smoke for demo, artistic show purposes. Have a look at this: www.youtube.com... Such 'SMOKE TRAILS' are what we see in some old/historic pictures (feverishly sought out by the "debunkers"...), and certainly not the CHEMtrails the skies are filled with today. TYPICAL of such demo/show flights is the circular flight path depicted in the photo above.


Right, you seem to have this ludicrous idea that unclean burning produces white smoke. You'll have to go burn some coal and put a video on youtube of all the white smoke, because I've never seen a large volume of white smoke come out of any internal combustion engine like those on a B-17. I mean, if it doesn't completely burn, then the fuel which comes out which hasn't burned will freeze, becoming whatever colour petrol or similar is when it freezes (bets on white), but that would be the same as all the water vapour. And then the unburned carbon, I'll give you a hint. Coal, and Graphite, are unburned carbon. So no prizes for guessing what colour that is a few miles up. So it is all water, since the chances of unburned fuel in supercharged engines is low.

Rocket engines, especially liquid ones, usually produce large amounts of water vapour as an exhaust, hence a massive white contrail. It has nothing to do with demonstration purposes, and especially with things like the X-1, there were such things as RADAR and clear visibility to see where it went.

Now, as to a curve, there are plenty of reasons. Turning to head to a runway (always helpful), to an area it is cleared to go supersonic, towards a test range, to avoid restricted airspace, anything could be the reason.



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join