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.

 

The Chemtrail Phenomenon

page: 11
20
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by wonderworld
 


Looks like typical chemtrails, but it could just be flightpaths near the airports of a metropolitan area on a cold day. Much like UFO's, I don't expect proof from images. Plus the lighting is a bit surreal, making the image look like cgi.

Any chance you have some time lapse videography of chemtrail activity?




posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Mindmelding
 


I can probably prove a UFO better. You didnt see the chem tracks, they leave gaps. I have a better image of the chem tracks. I'll look for it.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   
What the Hell are these chemtrails supposed to be anyway? Or represent? Or signify? I see contrails all the time, but chemtrails still escape me. In eight years of black comms I never heard any references or allusion to such things, but chemtrails still remain one of the hottest conspiracy subjects out there.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ConserVet
 


Yes, no one hears about them. It a cover up. Some call it poison,



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   
What about the New Cloud Formations discovered, named "Asperatus"?

I find it odd that there is a new type of storm cloud "just" discovered.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by wonderworld

Any opinion on this one??



Probably taken over western Europe or the USA, it shows the results of heavy commercial aircraft traffic - probably early morning or evening - with a weather froont likely to be within a few hundred miles of the location. In other words, bog standard common or garden contrails as observed and studied for 80 years.

Bit like these:






btw no new cloud has been 'discovered' the CAS simply want a fairly little known, but quiet spectacular, type of altostratus formation classified as a separate sub-species. That's all. Don't beleive everything you read in the media *






* actually, if you're clever, don't believe anything you read in the media!



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 03:36 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



So, we're 11 pages into this thread, and I've yet to see anything of actual substance whatsoever, save for a few explanations of cloud formations.

I see rumour, photos and videos that prove nothing and a picture of an aircraft that has nothing to do with chemtrails at all. I see things presented and discussed as "fact" when actually none of it past theoretics.

So where is the substantiated, corroborated and tested evidence?

There is more proof of UFO's, with pilot sightings, radar and visual traces.

I am not skeptical of UFO's. I am skeptical of chemtrails, and nothing presented here is doing anything to change my mind at all.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


Two points I'd like to make:

One is that the pictures you link, especially the second one, are dead ringers for chemtrails, much more so than most of Wonderworld's efforts. Just because you say they're not dosen't mean they are really not. You could be fooled like almost everyone else.

Second is that you're spelling is a bit off: Misanthropist You can go back to "hating humankind" confident in the knowledge that you're under the right label now.

Thank me later.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


You see what you want to see. I have the exact same opinions about most UFO sightings that you have about chemtrails. A lot of them seem fabricated and far fetched. And I have actually seen UFO's too.

I've followed the chemtrail issue for a bit, and there's tons of good evidence out there, from documental, to technological to anecdotal. But likewise there is always tons of disinformation and outright lieing, which is par for the course in conspiracy theory.

As those reading my posts know I talk a lot about ponerology, which basically talks about psychopaths in powerstructures, and as such I put no conspiracy beyond the realms of possibility, because I know from personal experience and scientific theory that we're run by the mad hatter. Those among us still using rosey glasses, or perhaps using the mad hat itself, will naturally disagree with us about chemtrails and other conspiracies.

Still, saying "I didn't see anything of substance" is not really adding anything of substance either as most people are not that interested in a subjective viewpoint on the subject and more on some nuggets of information that will help them make up their own mind.

As for me, I've seen chemtrails and know they're real. I know they're part of a bigger and historical conspiracy. I think people like Icke have a general idea of what is going on. So while I'm not going to go on an anti chemtrail crusade I do know something is very wrong above our heads and I'll tell it to whoever wants to listen.

If you don't, well, your loss.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 07:46 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



Originally posted by Mindmelding
But likewise there is always tons of disinformation and outright lieing, which is par for the course in conspiracy theory.


There are more lies and obfuscation anything else.

See - a picture of a contrail does not make it a "chemtrail". It just makes it a picture of condensed water vapour.

A picture of iridescence via water droplets or ice crystals in the atmosphere is just that. There doesn't need to be anything else present to cause it. You can get the same effect shining light through a glass prism.

Likewise, putting pictures of aircraft up that have perfectly reasonable and legitimate purposes and explanations and claiming they are to do with chemtrails without knowing their real purpose is downright lieing and obfuscation, and relies on ignorace to perpetuate a myth.

And taking about "scalar technologies" like all the world understands what they are and they are a common thing - when actually its all theoretics - thats just obfuscation as well.



Those among us still using rosey glasses, or perhaps using the mad hat itself, will naturally disagree with us about chemtrails and other conspiracies.


Thats basically an insult. What you are saying is that anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint is either mad or not facing up to reality. Not going to fly with me.



Still, saying "I didn't see anything of substance" is not really adding anything of substance either as most people are not that interested in a subjective viewpoint on the subject and more on some nuggets of information that will help them make up their own mind.


But the "nuggets of information" have no substance. Its only opinion - see when you say;



As for me, I've seen chemtrails and know they're real. I know they're part of a bigger and historical conspiracy.


Then all you are doing is stating "I'm right and thats it". You are ignoring the science and the weather and aviation professionals and proclaiming yourself better than them, just because you can. Thats embracing ignorance, not denying it.

What I'm asking for here is fact. Not obfuscation.

You say you've seen these things. You say you can tell the difference. So tell us what you have seen, and tell us how you can tell the difference. But do it with science - because when you say this,



I do know something is very wrong above our heads and I'll tell it to whoever wants to listen.

If you don't, well, your loss.


...all you are doing is telling. You aren't substantiating.

I could tell you that Mars is actually made of red marzipan. Would you believe me? After all, I'll tell it to whoever wants to listen and if you don't, its your loss...


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 07:57 AM
link   
It absolutely amazes me how I can live over 50 miles from a major airport yet the sky above me will have so many "contrails" that it looks like 100 jets have flown over in a perfect grid pattern that hangs there for hours. I grew up in Detroit and saw jets fly overhead all day long and the sky never looked like it does here.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mindmelding

One is that the pictures you link, especially the second one, are dead ringers for chemtrails, much more so than most of Wonderworld's efforts. Just because you say they're not dosen't mean they are really not. You could be fooled like almost everyone else.


In that case it means chemtrails are made by normal commercial airliners on normal commercial airline routes but only on days when atmospheric conditions are suitable for persistent contrails to form. They also act exactly the same as normal contrails have been observed to act for the past 80 years.

Unless, of course, they are all just contrails ....... but nah, that's be silly wouldn't it? If it looks and acts like an elephant and all the elephant experts say it's an elephant then clearly it must be a mouse




Originally posted by Mindmelding

Second is that you're spelling is a bit off: Misanthropist


It's a silent 'h'


[edit on 3-6-2009 by Essan]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


You're basically right of course, I have done little more than give my own opinion on this thread. I did it to counter the opinions of the skeptics and debunkers, that I firmly believe are wrong. In a sense to make this a zero sum thread.

The truth is out there and I urge people not to make any decisions based on the inane arguments on the internet but actually observe, correlate and investigate for themselves, there's a lot of noise on the web, yet the truth is quite easy to observe in our skies, if one observes atently and dosen't jump to conclusions, yet keeps an open mind.

If I insulted you it was not my intention. I do however totally disagree with you and find your position totally unsubstantiated by my life experience, as I suspect do many others, as many users trickle in with chemtrail reports and we have the same core group of people denying them, which in itself is odd and dosen't give the impression that your view is the majority. What I suspect happens is that most people can't be bothered to argue the topic with people that have such closed minds and who keep defending the negative position (both because of the negation and imo because of the erroneous nature).

I'll agree to disagree, good enough for you?



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


Err, no, I've not been alive for 80 years but the trails we see today most definately do not act in the same way as they did in my earlier years. They are heavier, more persistant, browner, have light orbs in them sometimes and end up in a pasty grey thick cloud cover that obscures the sun. They also leave a sooty texture in the sky.

Chemtrails could also happen under normal air routes, they don't have to be an "or" situation.

Pffft, silent H indeed... only if by H you mean "H"umanity in the face of elitist posioning...



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by azureskys
 


The trick with chemtrails is they cause clouds to take a different form. There are no new clouds, unless manmade. Creepy!

This was recognized as official clouds in Geneva. Take a guess why? It is against the Geneva Convention do use chemtrails.

This is a cover-up big time.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Chemical mixture of dibromide and ethalyne can cause the clouds to appear as horizontal rainbows.








We all know what a natural rainbow looks lke. These defy nature.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by scraze
 


Cloud seeding is NOT chemtrails. First off you need a cloud to seed. Why? To create rain. Cloud seeding has nothing to do with chemtrails.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Don't believe in chemtrails? Watch this!

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 3-6-2009 by wonderworld]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by wonderworld
 


Umm no, no, and no. What you have posted is cloud iridescence. This occurs from the sunlight being refracted in the cloud ice crystals and or water droplets creating the effect. Chemicals wont do this. But ice crystals and water droplets do and this is nothing new or sinister. I really do wish people would start doing some actual meteorological research before posting pictures of natural phenomenon and claiming it to be "chemtrails".

www.atoptics.co.uk...
www.astrophys-assist.com...



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


I appreciate you adding some photos. I admit some of mine can be ruled out; although some cant be.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join