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: 30
43
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 

Yes, it WOULD heat up the freezer!
I have canned and frozen A LOT of home garden vegetables, and you have to let them cool BEFORE putting them in the freezer!




posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
If you check here, here, here, here, and here you will see that radar can indeed see these CHEMTRAILS and its been noted since 2000.


Those images appear to show normal rainfall. Please explain why you think they show something else?


Apparently the person falls into the trap of thinking that computer images from radars are representing exactly what is going on with weather. anyone who had dealt with radar imagery and calibration knows that is NOT the case, and there is a lot that goes into radar calibration and setting it up.

Funny think, every time a chemtrail believer thinks those radar rings are the actual shape of precip there, I do not recall them every actually checking the weather in those locations. NEXRAD radars have different modes depending on the amount of precip, and if it is out of calibration, being worked on, or just something is momentary out of whack so to speak, you can get funny things. A computer program interprets the radar returns too, its not above failure or having bugs either. I have seen a radar program show storm cells, when it was a clear sky with ZERO precip or clouds.

Chemtrail believers always want to proclaim "AHA!" when they see those, and not go actually ask anyone who is knowledgable about precipitation radars. Maybe because they would actually learn a thing or two.

Here is one more tidbit. Radars do not show clouds. There is a specific reason why, and if you do not believe me, do you ever recall a cloudy day when the radar was just full, or a cumulous day with clouds all over a radar screen? NOPE.

Hint - If a plane dropped your magical pixie dust, (metals, viruses, oils, whatever your particular chemtrail belief is ) it would not show up for the same reason that the clouds you see outside are not on a radar either.


[edit on 20-3-2009 by firepilot]



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


I have no specific date that things were changed in science to allow for the formation of contrails at lower altitudes or for the ability of contrails to dissipate across a whole sky and thereby cover from horizon to horizon. But the evidence is there that our science has indeed changed and your website contrailscience is a good example of how they need to get the new information out.

As to me proving with logical reasoning.... Please tell me where in your contrail science it states that contrails will cause multiple visual anomalies in the sky. If you check this website which has been provided earlier, you will see that a multitude of visual abnormalities are present throughout them. You contrailers may say that these are just jet trails but without some type of foreign matter in the trail these observances would not be seen. Now maybe you can find me some like this that were taken before chemtrails were taken on worldwide, showing me that they have pictures of them doing this during some of their spraying tests etc before chemtrails were a DAILY occurrence.

Rgds



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
reply to post by Essan
 


Your research paper is not addressing the issue of why these chemtrails are being seen emitting particulates that are being found dropping to the ground...


No, because there was no evidence of such things - then or now. But do you now accept that in 1970 what you claim to be chemtrails were being observed, described and studied?



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 


"maybe they would actually learn a thing or two"
Discuss the subject, not the posters.
I happen to like learning about meteorology, somewhat.
I guess I'm not your 'typical' 'ignorant', chemtrailer'!
Because contrails can form doesn't mean that everything in our sky is only water vapor!



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
If you check this website which has been provided earlier, you


But they look exactly like the pictures of normal contrails I posted earlier .....

Are you saying that normal commercial airliners produce chemtrails which look and act exactly the same as contrails?

I've already explained the logical problems with that - and any other - explanation. And as no-one has addressed those problems I assume no-one can do so?



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 





What station is that at, and what is their WMO number/ and station number. If possible could I get into contact with them to discuss their reasoning?



These people have lives or pensions that may be put in jeopardy like most other met techs that have spoken their views on chemtrails.

My accounts from people I've worked with is much like your views and others being stated... I don't question your integrity because I don't see a paper stated Meteorologist...

My figures may be incorrect but the chemtrails that are being seen by the millions are not being guided by these figures.. That is what I've been trying to say about your OP, it leads people to not take into account many other variables that are being added and that are clearly being added.

Rgds



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


Maybe some of us are saying that chemtrails and contrails look similar!
But, do contrails fall down or seen through certain sunlight appear to have things falling out of them?



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 





What station is that at, and what is their WMO number/ and station number. If possible could I get into contact with them to discuss their reasoning?



These people have lives or pensions that may be put in jeopardy like most other met techs that have spoken their views on chemtrails.


So you won't tell us anything about these people, leading to the obvious assumption they don't exist. And why not? Because Oz might order a NWO SWAT team out there to kill them all ......



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by firepilot
 


"maybe they would actually learn a thing or two"
Discuss the subject, not the posters.
I happen to like learning about meteorology, somewhat.
I guess I'm not your 'typical' 'ignorant', chemtrailer'!
Because contrails can form doesn't mean that everything in our sky is only water vapor!


Because contrails are NOT water vapor. When you look at a clear sky, you are seeing water in vapor form, which is water as a gas. Water can be in clouds as either water droplets, or as ice crystals. Neither are water in a vapor form. There is lots of water in the air, even when the sky is clear of clouds.

Now, I do realize that people sometimes use vapor mistakenly in regards to contrails and have for a long time. But its inaccurate.

But if you are one that enjoys learning new things, that great. Aviation and meteorology are fascinating topics.


[edit on 20-3-2009 by firepilot]



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

Originally posted by Clearskies
Quit with the demeaning label "chemtrailers"!
We are a diverse set of people who believe some if not most of our air pollution is intentionally generated (Especially with our decline in Factories, pollution-causing jobs, etc.)!


Hold up! I started that, and it's not meant to be demeaning any more than "contrailers" is. It's just a convenient title to separate the people who believe in chemtrails from the people who don't. If there's another title you would prefer, fine, I'll use it. I just needed a way to indicate who I was addressing since I haven't made a list of everyone in the thread and which "side" they're on. I started to use "pro" and "con" but that wouldn't be clear to anyone who might happen to join the thread now or later on. So, what do you suggest?



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 


Sorry, water crystals.
But, do they then fall down as a shower of particles, (I'm not talking about rain, either)
but a fine drift of dust-like material. I've seen it.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 





Are you saying that normal commercial airliners produce chemtrails which look and act exactly the same as contrails? I've already explained the logical problems with that - and any other - explanation. And as no-one has addressed those problems I assume no-one can do so?


Yes normal airliners will have something mixed with the fuel to cause the chemtrails.... which look and act exactly the same as CHEMTRAILS... Not contrails... You have not explained anything in logical terms that shows that chemtrails do not happen. Almost every page on the thread has some type of proof that addresses your issues that you assume noone has addressed.

The pictures provided have shown that most air traffic is in some way tied to chemtrails..... I'd even suspect that for most commercial jets they would provide an additive to the fuel to make their contrails last as long or longer as CHEMTRAILS, thereby having it so that there is no argument about the difference... Would the PTB be smart enough to think that or do that? I thought of it and I'm sure they did. What better way, like the pictures in the book from the 70s showing their poisons being sprayed and called contrails, than to have the two SCIENCEs now become merged, thereby leading to confusion amongst the masses.

Rgds



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by Essan
 


Maybe some of us are saying that chemtrails and contrails look similar!
But, do contrails fall down or seen through certain sunlight appear to have things falling out of them?


It's called virga and whilst I don't have any pictures of my own to hand to post here, there are some examples here:

cloudappreciationsociety.org...

(not idea examples as none seem to be from contrails, but hopefully you get the picture. Maybe tomorrow I can find some better examples, but it's getting late here in the UK and the whisky is taking a toll!)



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Heike
 

Look at the context of the snide 'chemtrailers' label.
It's like 'twoofer'!
I don't call anyone,"contrailers".
or disinfo agents or psuedoskeptics.
We're all people.
BTW, I like 'pro' and 'con', better.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 





So you won't tell us anything about these people, leading to the obvious assumption they don't exist. And why not? Because Oz might order a NWO SWAT team out there to kill them all ......


Yes extremely funny.... I will not give out my identity like Oz will not give his or his resume... I respect that...

I hope that you do too... Since its T&C

Besides it has nothing to do with the topic at hand... and they would have nothing to add that hasn't already been..

rgds


[edit on 20-3-2009 by AllTiedTogether]



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether

Yes normal airliners will have something mixed with the fuel to cause the chemtrails.... which look and act exactly the same as CHEMTRAILS... Not contrails...


But they look and act like contrails .......



However, your argument seems to be that a fuel additive is used to make commerical aircraft produce contrails that look like chemtrails ..... so how long has this been going on since as shown, contrails that look like chemtrails were being studied in 1970?

And how come those studying these fake contrails to find ways of preventing them from occuring are unaware of all this, whereas you are? Shoudn't you tell them?

Perhaps you have some evidence that'll prove your assertion? Or are you afraid Oz's death squad will get you if you do?



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 





Perhaps you have some evidence that'll prove your assertion? Or are you afraid Oz's death squad will get you if you do?


Your comedy is getting quite ridiculous and maybe you should take a break from posting or maybe the intake of the whiskey....




But they look and act like contrails .....


Contrails do not follow this pattern... Chemtrails do and follow the science that has been provided to show that it happens.... Not your contrail science....

Rgds



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
I will not give out my identity like Oz will not give his or his resume... I respect that...


No-one asked for your name


But an anonymous person quoting anonymous persons as collaboration does not garner much credibility. If you believe you are right and wish to convince others, then sooner or later you have to bite the bullet. Or offer alternative collaboration.

(Personally I don't understand this obsession with anonymity but I accept others feel differently)



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether

Contrails do not follow this pattern... Chemtrails do and follow the science that has been provided to show that it happens.... Not your contrail science....



What pattern is this you speak of and why do contrails not follow it? And what science is there explaining the behaviour of 'chemtrails'



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join