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: 28
43
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 07:33 AM
link   
www.carnicom.com...

And this one just begs additional investigation, because when the insurance companies don't cover something it's because they know there is a high risk of it happening.

I'm sure they're just overprotecting themselves against contrails, right? Right?




posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


I suspect that barium is a result of the oil extraction process, and if so (one to confirm as I'm not 100% sure) you may have just found the source of the barium used in the chemtrail activity... another vector for investigation.

Even if barium was used the result of the oil activity, why is it widespread in the area, to the point of becoming a dust on the back of someone's truck? I think you're raising more questions than you're, as per usual, are attempting to dispell.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Zepherian
 


I'm glad he's on your side


Speaking of the German vid, as has been mentioned several hundred times now the subtitles are faked:

contrailscience.com...


Goes to show what some chemtrail believers will do to get the supposed truth out there, even if it's with blatant lies.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 07:45 AM
link   
I love exploring how people filter the information their senses provide and then arrive at conclusions about the world. This stuff is fascinating. I especially love the argument, all you gotta' do is look up......I may be in the wrong line of work.

How does that work as a means to gather information about the composition of some "thing" or material? Clearly, there are some situations where simply looking at an object provides enough input to classify its composition within some group or set. Yet, a person may still not get enough information to make a reasonable attempt to determine the detailed structure of the object...ie, its chemical or atomic structure.

Two clear tumblers of water. Exactly the same containers, exactly as much water in each, at precisely equal temperatures, lighting, etc.....except one of those tumblers has had a few tablespoons of table salt dissolved into it. How are you going to tell which it is? A good guess has a fifty/fifty chance. Sampling that small of a control group can increase the odds of success to 100%. Just taste one; you'll know immediately which is which. If you never taste one, you'll never convince anyone that either of them has become a bit briny.

Now, put out thousands of tumblers, all nearly identical in appearance, with 5 salty tumblers, out of a hundred pristine tumblers, randomly placed in the group. All you have to do is find one salty tumbler. Now the odds dramatically shift away from the likelihood of a "good guess" being right on the money. However, there is a method by which you could reduce the odds. Again, sample a representative group.

So you start sampling.....and after about 10 samples, you find a *bleh* salty tumbler of water. What would you conclude from this?

The correct conclusion is that you have "one" salty tumbler. No more than that. You'll need to keep sampling to acquire enough information to judge a percentage of salty tumblers. Of course, if the original ratio of 5:100 were increased....to say 20:100, you may have to sample a far smaller set to find the "one" that was stipulated. If salty tumblers were ubiquitous, it shouldn't take long to find the minimum of one.

All of that to lead up to this......it takes one chartered aircraft, with some relatively simple to engineer collection equipment, a documented process, and a "control" for comparisons.

Back to the salty tumblers. Say we're arguing about the existence and quantity of salty tumblers. Let's imagine I'm willing to concede the existence of multiple instances of salty tumblers; all you have to do is find one and document it. By documenting of course I mean, making a face and spitting out the salty water. And if you find one, I'll help tell the world there are salty tumblers, make you King of the Universe, and hand you a winning lottery ticket.

If "chemtrails" were salty tumblers, ya'll would stifle it, charter some aircraft, and prove it. Your proof is right there, floating around in the atmosphere. If you aren't violating any military air space, you're free to flit around up there pretty much all you want. The time spent writing Internet hyperbole, money spent on domain names and server space, could have gone towards proving this vast conspiracy.

Instead, this vast conspiracy, threatening the health of everyone on Earth, has about the impact of a hobby.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Fine, ignore that video. The reason I linked so many is because I realise there is a probability of disinformation in the sources. The people faking these things, if that indeed is the case regarding this specific video, are probably on your side of the debate.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zepherian



I suspect that barium is a result of the oil extraction process, and if so (one to confirm as I'm not 100% sure) you may have just found the source of the barium used in the chemtrail activity... another vector for investigation.


It's not a result of oil drilling, it is part of the oil extraction process.

It gets mixed with the mud and rock and where does all that mud go? Into a tailings dam.

Do I need to explain further?



Even if barium was used the result of the oil activity, why is it widespread in the area, to the point of becoming a dust on the back of someone's truck? I think you're raising more questions than you're, as per usual, are attempting to dispell.


What a stupid question, why do you think higher levels of barium is found in the town?? Dust blown in from the drilling? or evaporated from the tailings? Have a look at the map provided..The town is surrounded by oil wells, where oil has been extracted, with barium.

See what I'm getting at here?



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Kenneth John Parsons
 


Please take the time to read the thread. That has been raised three times already, as has the subsequent explanation that the overdubbing has been falsified



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zepherian
www.carnicom.com...

And this one just begs additional investigation, because when the insurance companies don't cover something it's because they know there is a high risk of it happening.

I'm sure they're just overprotecting themselves against contrails, right? Right?


Yeah, because all pollution comes from the skies and your cars and factories are clean as a baby's bottom
Although in this case it looks like it probably relates to pollution from previous landuse - certainly nothing to suggest it refers to airborne pollution.

Anyway, what makes you think that letter to Rense wasn't more disinformation put out by 'our side' to discredit you believers?
(well, you started that one!)



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by QBSneak000
 


Con-trails, chem-trails, whatever you wish to call them, exist. What they are is not known to me, but I know what I see in the skies over Amarillo with my own two eyes. Some days, we have a grid of 40 or more at a time overhead. They disperse into clouds, then more planes spray more grids. What is it? Point me to your version of the truth and I will be happy to examine your evidence. I cannot discount what I see in the skies, however.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by michael
Point me to your version of the truth and I will be happy to examine your evidence. I cannot discount what I see in the skies, however.


No-one disputes they are there. Nor do they dispute there are more now than 20 or 30 years ago. This is what meteorologists think they are:

www.wrh.noaa.gov...



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
reply to post by Heike
 


Thanks Heike, I certainly wont be suspicious until all the birds drop dead out of the sky from an unknown source....might have to invest in a canary, lol

Still no questions about my information?


If dead birds are what you are looking for you may want to check these out if you haven't already.



Here is an article that talks about it also...

Recent bird kills have been reported in Idaho, Texas, New York, New Jersey, Australia, Turkey, SE Asia and Africa.
Idaho Observer Article 2007

Here is another story.
More dead birds

Here is a link about 2,500 ducks dying at the same time.
proliberty.com...

Time to start getting suspicious yet?

[edit on 20-3-2009 by Valdis]



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 09:01 AM
link   
My video link doesn't work.. here is the URL.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Valdis
 


Maybe the chemtrails are to protect us from whatever is killing the birds? That's why they've been found in places like Africa with few chemtrails but not Europe which is covered in them?

Now there's a thought, eh?



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by Valdis
 


Maybe the chemtrails are to protect us from whatever is killing the birds? That's why they've been found in places like Africa with few chemtrails but not Europe which is covered in them?

Now there's a thought, eh?


And that explains... Austin, TX.. New York, Austraila and Boise, ID?

Your right, population control has NEVER been an issue in Africa... what was I thinking???

"Chemtrails are here to protect us" .... LOL, Just like the FEMA prison camps are here to protect us??


[edit on 20-3-2009 by Valdis]



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   
I have heard of birds, bees and bats dying off recently, through threads here at ATS. Could any of it be related to the activity in our skies?

Also, I think I might start calling chemtrails Artificial Cloud Cover.

But anyway, yesterday I took pictures of the lingering spreading trails, and thought, more rain. But today, my sky is crystal clear, and no rain for a day or two is expected!

Now I am confused. Why did the trails linger? If the atmosphere is conducive to rain trails will linger. So why did it not rain, and why is today's sky crystal clear?

These are questions I appreciate our weather guys answering!



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Interesting as long as your looking at water.Now lets discuss viral encapsulated crystals.The virus of course is the danger.The question remains,what is the carrier or delivery agent.It would have to be a fluid which does not freeze at high altitude,or at a much lower temperature than water.Something like deicing fluid used on commercial aircraft? Seems like there would be a bunch of that stuff at most cold weather airports. Glycol based,but with many additives.Mix the crystal virus, and just like magic,you have a chem trail. Better do a little more research as chem trails do not exhibit any characteristics of condensation trails.Mainly rainbow color effect when sunlight shines through them.Definitely chemicals here.Ever see spilled gasoline in a puddle of water ? Also dispersion rate.Condensation trails grow into a puffy cloud and then disappear.Chem trails do the the same but get much larger, and leave that faint glow or rainbow effect I mentioned earlier.The real danger here is complacency of the public.Since this aerosol is basically breathed by every living creature,and those aforementioned crystals are sitting on your air sacks in the lungs,the question remains,when will the activator be sprayed.That would then brake down the crystal encapsulation and allow the virus to enter your blood stream via the air sacks.
Good Luck,and Good Hunting



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Milton the Geek
Better do a little more research as chem trails do not exhibit any characteristics of condensation trails.


Well actually they exhibit all the characteristics of condensations trails and no others - which is largely the point



Mainly rainbow color effect when sunlight shines through them.


Like this:




Definitely chemicals here


Ever heard of refraction?

(I guess you didn't do physics at school?)



Ever see spilled gasoline in a puddle of water ?


Yes, and I've also seen loads of iridescence



Which is something different - another optical effect of light passing through water droplets.

Surprised you've not claimed halos and rainbows to be proof of chemtrails as well?

Then again ........... www.youtube.com...


[edit on 20-3-2009 by Essan]



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Valdis
 



Can you provide links to the dead bird stories in Australia for me?

Cheers!



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Valdis
 



Yes right up there with FEMA camps,And it's been proven that they don't exist either. The truth is out there if you choose to ignore it so be it. Fema camps , Chemtrails and no planers yep all go together.

mikell



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by reconpilot
reply to post by firepilot
 


Dude . nobodies really arguing about contrails from ww2 bombers . I would suggest that at altitudes lower than around 2o thousand , fighters running on full boost in a combat situation may blow a little smoke because that supercharged pressure would be fairly hard on piston ring seals . Merlin engines did burn oil and we all know what happens when the rings go on your car .

Running a merlin 'through the gate' for any length of time would certainly cause it to crap out under the strain.

But with so many variables its only a moot point really . The operational cieling of radial engines was lower than liquid cooled .


Actually yes there were several messages on here, people claiming those WW2 contrails were engine smoke, and thats not correct. Also not correct is your idea that radial engines have lower ceilings.

Ever heard of the B-36? It could fly at 50,000 ft. DC-7C and Super Constellation were the zenith of Piston airliners and were radial powered.

And a previous message from someone that chaff is "particulates". Come on, cant you chemmies get anything aviation related correct? Chaff is not powder or something you spray, even though many chemtrail believers insist it it. It is reflective metal, of a certain length, or reflecting back radar signals. It is used more as a last minute decoy against radar homing missiles, it was dropped in bundle from bombers previously to confuse radars.


[edit on 20-3-2009 by firepilot]



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join