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: 24
43
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Like I said pages back there Chad, we as well as others have been doing what you are saying, so thank you for the suggestion that we do... All the information that we've provided proving that the 'Chemtrails' are real have come from government sources and from people who are aware what's going on. Now if we can only get some others to see the error of their ways then we can have some actual discussion...

Rgds




posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Mason mike
 


I think I addressed this issue a few pages back there Mike but I'll try to get through again....

The trouble with your theory is that we have people nowadays going to take pictures the same way they did a long time ago and these people now will go to take the pictures and look up and say "WTF.... look at that mess up there... what are they doing to us... must get a picture...". They then take pictures and then load them up on a website like here, here, or send them to a researcher here for further research and to get the word out.

Here's a good example of how a 'CHEMTRAILS" can spread out and cover the sky, mimicking a cloud... IF someone with a camera in the 50s or 60s would have seen that first picture in the sky they would have had the camera going or phone the local news agency.


So, if they noticed things like this during the 40s to the 90s, sights like what GoldenFleece and others have been asking for, then I don't see a problem why they wouldn't be evident in a large amount of pictures. I've also noticed that most pictures you have are low level that show lots of smoke. Please remember that contrails occur at altitudes of 30k usually... The new type that are seen at lower levels are called engine emission or "chemtrails'.

Rgds



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by AllTiedTogether
 

Contrails can form at any altitude if the temperature is low enough and the humidity is high enough.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Like I said pages back there Chad, we as well as others have been doing what you are saying, so thank you for the suggestion that we do... All the information that we've provided proving that the 'Chemtrails' are real have come from government sources and from people who are aware what's going on. Now if we can only get some others to see the error of their ways then we can have some actual discussion...

Rgds



But you've not provided any evidence that what people see and claim to be chemtrails are chemtrails


Most of these govt sources have been shown to be misinterpretations or misunderstandings - and absolutely none suggest in any way that chemtrails would be visible from the ground!

The illusionist pulls his trick by making you look the other way.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether

So, if they noticed things like this during the 40s to the 90s, sights like what GoldenFleece and others have been asking for, then I don't see a problem why they wouldn't be evident in a large amount of pictures.


They are
Obviously less pictures are available on the interent because, for some bizarre inexplicable reason, people didn't post so many photos on the internet on the 60s.

But I've given up posting links to such pictures that do exist (including those accompanying scientific studies of the impacts of persistent contrails) because people like you steadfastly refuse to look at them and accept they exist!


[edit on 19-3-2009 by Essan]



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Your talking the new science that has taken over for 'contrails'... they've incorporated the data that occurs with the "CHEMTRAILS" and that is now the info they use...

Like I said earlier... I don't have to know science about TNT or bombs to know that if I see a stick of dynamite I shouldn't touch it. I don't need to know that a barking and snarling Pitbull, pulling on a large chain is a dog I shouldn't go around.. I don't need to know that the science behind contrails has changed and is being changed around the world to allow for the chemicals being dropped from aircraft without people suspecting they're doing it. I know this because I have the ability to rationalize the data that is presented and sift through that which the governments have provided in error, on purpose.


Someone was looking for the odds of a FIVE leaf clover... there's someone who grows them... almost as common as CHEMTRAILS if you ask me...

Rgds



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


I've provided numerous links that prove what I and others have stated about CHEMTRAILS. It's been proven again and again throughout this thread as well as many others. As to your comment about no pictures being available on the internet because it was the 60s... try doing a search for pictures of the 1960 etc and you'll see that although the internet wasn't available to us at the time, there still are pictures... Hell, there are even pictures of the 1800s in there and I don't think the computer was invented to even surf the internet yet... So I think that kind of makes little sense but you keep going...

You have posted pictures that show some trails in the sky, as well as others, but most of what you show is either smoke from an old engine with particulates coming out or contrails from aircraft that have the picture being taken from directly behind the plane. These types of pics can not help you explain away chemtrails let alone contrails. If the Field of View of a photo is only about a couple thousand feet then you can't use that to say that the trails was evident for 10miles and lasted 20minutes. You can't even say that the trail later turned into a cloud, which usually is SHOWN in "chemtrail' pictures. Which is evident here in the pictures. If these types of trails were so persistent during these days and acted the same way back then don't you think that the average human would have wondered like he is now about them and taken some pictures? I know they would have because if you check out any other anomaly that was noted in the sky back then someone tried to get pictures.... And they weren't as persistent as your supposed contrails.

Rgds



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Weird, isn't it? The denial and rejection of what is put right in front of people's faces.

Mystifies me.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


Thank you for trying to find the pictures for us.... I don't want you to spend your entire looking for something that really isn't there. I understand that you want to show that they are possible but to use a movie clip that has them in a scene is utterly ridiculous... It would be like seeing a Cola ad in a movie and then assuming that it was not intentional. It would be like having someone say that there is no subliminal advertising here, or here...

I'd spend my time looking for actual pictures that have a couple of planes in them from those eras and then look for one that has multiple trails like GoldenFleece showed that would be good proof of contrails during those times. I've yet to see one picture that would lead me to believe they saw the same thing back then.... Even talking to some of the people that lived in the world as we know it during that time, parents, relatives etc, they don't remember seeing anything close to that. Most of them state that had they seen anything like that they would have taken many pictures.... My parents took lots of pics of my family during the 50s and 60s as we grew up and I don't see one picture with anything but clouds, normal clouds in them. Alot of our pictures are outside and at the beach...

Rgds



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by MrPenny
 


Yes I have to admit your right mr Penny... I can't believe it either how some can say that the governments admittance to dropping chemicals over the population of the world is now not true because they now deny it. They have their own documents showing they did it to us and now they say they don't do it and people believe it. I'm awake and I know they told the truth earlier because it came out in major newspapers and they got nailed for doing it. Would the government get in trouble for doing something if they really didn't to it????

No sense...



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by AllTiedTogether
 


1967:

contrailscience.com...

There's a picture on here from 1972 that has several criss crossing contrails as well:

contrailscience.com...-7

Now go ahead and tell me why those aren't good enough for you.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
reply to post by Essan
 


I've provided numerous links that prove what I and others have stated about CHEMTRAILS.[/.quote]

None of them priove what you see and claim to be chemtrails are chemtrails. Indeed, you do not even seem to know what you think chemtrails are, let alone why they should be visible and appear to meteorlogists to be normal contrails.


As to your comment about no pictures being available on the internet because it was the 60s... try doing a search for pictures of the 1960 etc and you'll see that although the internet wasn't available to us at the time, there still are pictures... Hell, there are even pictures of the 1800s in there and I don't think the computer was invented to even surf the internet yet... So I think that kind of makes little sense but you keep going...


I've posted links to photos of persistent contrails from the 1960s. You have ignored them


You have posted pictures that show some trails in the sky, as well as others, but most of what you show is either smoke from an old engine with particulates coming out or contrails from aircraft that have the picture being taken from directly behind the plane.


How can you say that when the pictures I have posted links to are identical in every respect to pictures of alleged chemtrails taken today?

By your argument, no modern picture is valid as evidence either.


If these types of trails were so persistent during these days and acted the same way back then don't you think that the average human would have wondered like he is now about them and taken some pictures?


Well first of all, they weren't considered unusual, secondly there were rather less weather geeks around those days, thirdly they were much less common anyway (because odd as it may seem there were less people flying from Chicago to NY every day back then) and fourthly they were noticed, photographed and extensively studied - as I have shown in the links to scientific papers on the subject from the 1970s which I have posted and which you have ignored.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Check out this site... It can open your eyes to whats going on there Zaphod.... You probably won't like the site because you believe contrailsceince.com... Kind of like going to a website that's title is WeAreNotSprayingYou.com and then finding out its owned by the UNs military planes that do the spraying. You can't use a site like that to prove anything on this thread. That would be like having a discussion on the Holocaust and then using a website that's called ItDidntHappen.com to get a unbiased view. That site was set up to take down those that know what is going on. Therefore it is propaganda...


Thanks



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by AllTiedTogether
 


If you even bothered to look that picture was taken from a picture in a book. But of course that doesn't mean anything since it's shown on that website right?
Of course not. They just faked it and made up a date. Of course contrailscience is propaganda, but chemtrailcentral isn't, despite having no clue about some of the pictures they post of the aircraft. I like how that works.




[edit on 3/19/2009 by Zaphod58]

[edit on 3/19/2009 by Zaphod58]



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


Good on ya mate . your gonna love working for the ADF . It will open your eyes to a whole new world if you get selected for special duties .

word of advice . get your ego in check , value team work above self engrandizement and you will start to understand what the big picture is .

Biggest problem US forces have is that they encourage fighter pilots to be ego driven Jocks. Thats NOT how the royal airforces work. That crap is frowned upon .

So forget all that top gun ,big wank crap and learn to value mateship and team work . Cos you wont get to see the really sexy stuff until you do.
Good luck .

Cheers


Recon



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


What you have posted is pictures of trails of smoke and some of them could be contrails... unfortunately you are unable to prove otherwise because they are not the same as you'd see nowadays.

I have friends that are in their late years, 70s 80s and they don't remember a time before the 90s where these types of chemtrails were seen. They would have noticed them because they look up... just like all of us, its an instinct to look up and check the sky from time to time. That's why we notice them now and that's why you get the multitude of pictures today.... because they are there. Just like that picture of the smoke trail over the Whitehouse earlier in the thread, not a contrail because it would have dissipated and not remained. That is contrail science and always has been. That's why when someone saw that smoke trail above the WH it was a picture that someone had to get; he hadn't seen it before.

Rgds




[edit on 19-3-2009 by AllTiedTogether]



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Moon Knight
 


Oil consumption during missions was always a factor for both merlins and radial engines . They do burn oil mate ,sorry. They also used lead oxide , a white powder , as a cheap octane booster . It also had the bonus of acting as an upper cylinder lubricant .Some radial cylinder engine cylinder sleeves oscilate making that additional lubrication even more important . Its actually really cool to watch a static cut away display of a bristol hercules engine turning over and seeing how it combines the porting of a two stroke engine instead of overhead valves . If anyone ever gets to the NZRAF museum in christchurch there's an excellent display .

Pilots were always nagged by ground crew to avoid running their engines to low to avoid the lead fouling the plugs .

So while its not a huge factor neccesarily the fact remains that those engines do pump out particulates . Its still just a contrail but you know....

This debate is way to polarised for common sense to prevail unfortunately .



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Books lie also mr Zaphod... Some pictures from books are on the web too. Like I stated earlier I know how to sift through the crud and find the gem... Like most others on ATS and those that just stop by for some interest and are not members. This is really who I talk to and provide the data for. I know that most of you who say that "CHEMTRAILS" are not true will not be following any links to a real data site and will follow and provide links that will benefit the military and those that are doing the spraying. Just common sense...

As to contrailscience being propaganda, you are correct in that and I applaud you for admitting it. The ChemtrailCentral website is full of valuable info that has been proven time and time again to be sincere and not spout dishonest data.

People can see with their own eyes what is above and they do not need some misstated website to tell them that they are seeing chemicals being emitted from these planes. The government has already told them this is occurring and they don't need to see false data showing that those UNID planes that are not logged as being on a flight path are doing a job. They are crisscrossing the sky and leaving chemicals that will perform their function to the PTB, whatever that function might be; be it Wx manipulation, viruses, blocking our view of the stars etc...

Rgds



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Just to make a point there guys... Some of you keep saying that we ignore you pictures and ignore your data that you provide and why isn't this any good etc...

Just to let you know that I follow the links and read but I still don't see anything of intelligence that supersedes what I've come to know about how science works. Most of the links you provide seem to be made for the person who would believe just about anything they read on the web. I am not one of the those people and I can't speak for the others that seem to be understanding my side of the argument but I think they may be of the same thinking. I mean its all been debunked in the numerous websites that have been proven throughout this thread. When you see one major flaw in their thinking it sort of knocks out most of the rest of their false data. That's contrailscience for ya...

Rgds



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
......made for the person who would believe just about anything they read on the web. I am not one of the those people.......


Just as gently as I can......yes, you are in fact, one of those that would "believe just about anything they read on the web".

You would be absolutely clueless about the existence of alleged "chemtrails", if it weren't for the Web. You read it on the Web.....and fell for it.

OzWeatherman, Essan, Zaphod58, et al....are telling you about phenomena that existed before the Internet was even a gleam in Al Gore's eye. You, on the other hand....are arguing the existence of a conspiracy that did not exist until the Internet made it possible to snag the unsuspecting.

[edit on 19-3-2009 by MrPenny]



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join