Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Chemtrailers: Your time is NOW!

page: 14
34
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 29 2010 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by illusions
 


Where have I defended the emissions from planes?

You're just putting words into my mouth now.

I'm just pointing out that cars are just as bad, if not worse for your health, especially in a large city.

It's not really the subject of this thread anyway, it's about establishing a benchmark to compare chemtrails with.


aaaand I switched off after you started on about "The Elite"...sorry.
[edit on 29/5/10 by Chadwickus]


Oh, sorry. about when I said that the people who own and control the gigantic corporations of the world such as the airlines who spew this toxic stuff on us are the elite.

I'm sure that average people own these enormous conglomerate corporations that control the transportation of the worlds masses. It couldn't be the elite that control them. Yeah. That makes sense.

Those elite couldn't be clever enough to buy up the worlds transportation and control it, as well as the food supply and the news and information businesses too. That would be silly.

i was actually thinking I might buy one of these gigantic airlines myself. You know, since those who own and control them are not elite or anything.

Anyway...

So to clarify, are you stating that "contrails" are actually bad for our health, when you say that car emissions are just as bad for our health as airplane emissions, if not worse? Huh? Just as bad for our helath you say???

So not to put words in your mouth...

you did state that airplane emissions contained in the contrails are toxic and bad for our health, but appearantly you don't think the toxic contrails which you clearly stated ar bad for our health should be referred to as chemtrails? Just to clarify.

Also, what is the purpose of the 1996 test as a "benchmark"?
Can you clarify how the 1996 test can prove or disprove the chemtrails?

Do you think that the 1996 test represents a helathy amount of toxins to breath?
Do you believe that there were not what some refer to as "chem"trails in 1996
and therefore these tests could not have come from so called chemtrails?
If you believe there were what some refer to as chemtrails in 1996,
do you believe that these samples were taken from contrails that dissapated quickly, rather than contrails that stretch for many miles and linger for hours and thereby these tests could serve as an example of a normal contrail?
These are points that need to be clarified to prove or diprove contrails in your challenge here.

So far you have not presented a controlled scientific challenge it seems.

Also, you have presented a test that actually provess that contrails consist of toxins.

Interesting points you make.




posted on May, 29 2010 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
reply to post by illusions
 


Again you bring me back to my first point, about the increase of air travel.

Notice this graph



You talk about the early 60's where you didnt see many contrails, the corrssponding number of air passnegers per year is around 10 million. The figure as of 2007 is almost 250 million, which is almost 25 times more than those days.

Like I mentioned, the more air travel, the more water vapour injected into a cold envionment, saturating the upper air causing cloud. If contrails evaporated like you claim, then cirrus clouds wouldnt exist.

I would be happy to explain the meteorology behind it if you're interested



That is a nice graph.
Yes, I agree that airplane travel has increase greatly from the sixties.

Why, I wonder, did I not see one, not one, of those thick, dense,
miles long contrails lingering in the sky for hours in the sixties???

Were the conditions not right for cirrus clouds in the sixties?

Hmmm, nope, there were definately cirrus clouds in the sixties.

There just weren't those miles long contrails that hung in the sky for hours

Lets, see...
1960,
Cirrus clouds -yes,
short evaperating contrails in blue skys -yes,
Thick, dense contrails that stretched for miles and miles and lingered for hours until finally turning into a dirty haze, sorry -NO.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by illusions
So to clarify, are you stating that "contrails" are actually bad for our health, when you say that car emissions are just as bad for our health as airplane emissions, if not worse? Huh? Just as bad for our helath you say???


Do you get sick from being around cars and other ground based vehicles?

If the answer is no, then you have the answer to the above question.



So not to put words in your mouth...

you did state that airplane emissions contained in the contrails are toxic and bad for our health, but appearantly you don't think the toxic contrails which you clearly stated ar bad for our health should be referred to as chemtrails? Just to clarify.


I don't think I said toxic anywhere...

Yes they can be bad for your health, in high enough concentrations.

You better ask the chemtrailers as to what a chemtrail is, considering none of them claim that a plane with no visible contrail is spraying chemtrails, despite the fact that it would still emit the same particulates.



Also, what is the purpose of the 1996 test as a "benchmark"?


Every scientific experiment needs a control, a baseline to compare other results with, this experiment is a suitable candidate for this, as it replicates what a typical chemtrail is described as, ie, persistant (the samples were taken 22km behind the plane) and from a plane commonly identified as a chemtrail plane (Boeing 757).



Can you clarify how the 1996 test can prove or disprove the chemtrails?


This one experiment can't, but as I explain above, it can be used as a control.

The next step is to duplicate the experiment on contrails believed to be chemtrails.

Once a number of samples have been taken, the results can be compared with the control.



Do you think that the 1996 test represents a helathy amount of toxins to breath?


The amount of particles collected is minute, there are probably more particles up my nose right now.

If you check out the links I provided and the article Essan posted, you can read all about the amount of pollutants are in the air, aircraft emissions are only a small part of it.

Here's a tip, look into the amount and type of emissions paper mills spew out.



Do you believe that there were not what some refer to as "chem"trails in 1996


I don't believe there are chemtrails at all.



and therefore these tests could not have come from so called chemtrails?


Doubtful, the other plane that had samples collected from was from a DC8, which was also the sample collection plane.

It flew in a loop and overtook it's own contrail, so I don't see why they would sample their own chemtrails, then publish the results publicly.



If you believe there were what some refer to as chemtrails in 1996,
do you believe that these samples were taken from contrails that dissapated quickly, rather than contrails that stretch for many miles and linger for hours and thereby these tests could serve as an example of a normal contrail?


As the paper says, these chemtrails weren't quick to dissipate.

The 757 contrail was about 22km long and the DC-8's contrail was estimated to be 280km long.



These are points that need to be clarified to prove or diprove contrails in your challenge here.


Contrails don't need proving or disproving, they're very real and no matter if they last for hours or minutes, visible or invisible, they produce the same kind of pollutants.

Like I said, you'll need to take it up with the chemtrailers as to why they claim that only the visible trails are dangerous.



So far you have not presented a controlled scientific challenge it seems.


Yes, I have.

To prove chemtrails are real, samples need to be taken of these samples and compared with this benchmark.

OR.

Take samples of both chemtrails and contrails.

I can't tell the difference between the two, but apparently there is, so a chemtrail expert will have to define which is which, from the ground (easy to do apparently), and then collect the samples.

Compare results.

And finally show if near on 100 years of aviation and weather science is actually wrong.



Also, you have presented a test that actually provess that contrails consist of toxins.


No, I presented a test that confirms that ice crystals will attach themselves to particulates, particularly crustal minerals.

The toxins have been known about for a long time.

What? Are you actually suprised that there is soot in exhaust?
Or that an engine made out of metal will exhaust metal particulates?
Or that an engine that needs air to operate will exhaust crustal particulates (meaning that they're naturally occurring in the air)?




Interesting points you make.


Well I think so.

Can I ask you a question.

If this thread was presented by a pro-chemtrailer, with a title along the lines of "I can prove chemtrails once and for all"

Would you have responded differently?

You see, I don't think the likes of Cliff Carnicon or William Thomas would have the guts to put their money where their mouth is.


Would you agree with that statement?



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by illusions

Why, I wonder, did I not see one, not one, of those thick, dense,
miles long contrails lingering in the sky for hours in the sixties???


Presumably because you weren't looking. Plenty of other people saw them - and indeed studied them to find out why they occurred and what effect they might have on the weather.

Hence, for example, Peter Kuhn's 1970 paper Airborne observations of contrails effects on the thermal radiation budget which not only includes a photograph of one of those thick dense miles long contrails which you failed to notice, but also states:


The spreading of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent contrails exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet



I don't remember ever seeing a rainbow in the 1960s ........ does that mean they are a new phenomena?



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by illusions
Why, I wonder, did I not see one, not one, of those thick, dense,
miles long contrails lingering in the sky for hours in the sixties???

Were the conditions not right for cirrus clouds in the sixties?

Hmmm, nope, there were definately cirrus clouds in the sixties.

There just weren't those miles long contrails that hung in the sky for hours...

Well, like Essan said, I suppose you weren't looking. Here are some photos from people who were looking:
Contrail Photos Through History

I was just a youngster in the 1960s, but I remember the 1970s well. I grew up near a rural farm region and I remember watching the farm reports on TV where the farmers complained that the "jet age" was bringing with it cloudier days caused by contrails.

So the spreading persistent contrails that turned into clouds were DEFINITELY around in the early 1970s, and according to the photos in the link above, they have been around since the beginning of high-altitude flight. They are NOT a new phenomenon.

The only new phenomenon is the fact that people are making money selling books and web pages dedicated to the chemtrail hoax.


[edit on 5/29/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by illusions
Why, I wonder, did I not see one, not one, of those thick, dense,
miles long contrails lingering in the sky for hours in the sixties???


You probably did but the concepts of "chemtrails" didn't exist. Now that the concept exists it colors your bias.

I find that the biggest problem with chemtrail believers is the failure to employ critical thinking skills as well as their lack of proper research. Almost never is Occam's Razor employed and subsequently the inventions of imagination replace explanations that can be arrived at easily with basic scientific research.

Science is rarely a factor to the chemtrail enthusiast as this thread points out. Denialism instead replaces the arduous task of collecting samples and testing them with a sense of objectivity. Too bad, as this would be the best way to conclusively confirm the existence of chemtrails should they exist.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by mrgalleria
 


Anyone who claims the fibers in different fuels is the same fiber in morgellons has got to be paid to fabricate such a statement.

Since I am the one who suggested a scientific look into "fibers/fibres" of bee smoker fuel and those found on morgellon victims...you must be directing your comments to me (grandma bill is it?).

This was not a "claim", it is a challenge.

Researchers are NOT on the same page concerning the chemical make up of submitted fibers-fact.

Many citizens suspect/believe chemtrails are related to Morgellons-fact.

Jet exhaust contains sulfer...sulfer smoke kills bees-fact.

Honey bee smokers can use fiber fuel-fact.

The only thing ya know for certain is...ya never know


You seem preoccupied with people being "paid" to spread disinfo...do you have FACTS or is this an emotional vibe?



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


Wonder what you guys would do if you didn't have Chemtrailers?

Maybe, your jobs. Your the atmospheric experts, but haven't seen one of you offer up atmospheric samples done by yourselves. You still link to others work, others science.

Seen some of you say you send up balloons. Post your contrail samples. Post your lab findings.

Otherwise, your just a bunch of internet science wanna-bees, promoting government manipulated junk science.

Just like global warming, the atmospheric science is being manipulated, covered up for a reason.

Heck, the guy that made the Appleman Chart (Herber Appleman), was studying cloud seeding. That is why he came up with the chart.


www.dtic.mil...



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


Oh, it's still very active at YouTube. The first video I saw on it I thought it must be a spoof of something, but it was "real".

Then there is a third side.....the people who believe in "chemtrails" and "orgone" who think that using said "orgone" is NOT a good thing to do.

Of course, there is a video on YT where someone is convinced that there are chemicals coming out of the ground because she sees a rainbow in a sprinkler. True story, all should check it out.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Okay...I think (pretty sure) That have some of the best photos of chemtrails ever seen, or close to it...I just don't know how to post photos, so ...can someone help me? i'm new so I don't even know if I am allowed to post photos? but I'd be willing to email these photos to someone so they themselves could post the photos. When I say chemtrails....maybe thats not the right word? what happened was, several aircraft flew over the area that day, and then later when we were outside with the kids having a nice summer picnic, you could clearly see a haze over the sky. And , this wasn't due to weather...in the pics you can see...the sky is blue, and its sunny, there are nice white clouds here and there, and then all you see is this type of like...sheen? not clouds fanned out..but its like a sheen, like a screen effect? you would have to see the pics to understand what we were seeing.

[edit on 29-5-2010 by Nkinga]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by GobbledokTChipeater

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by GobbledokTChipeater
What a waste of time this thread was.


Yes, for someone who has twice claimed to have provided no information to the conversation.

I have found it to be quite constructive, and have added lots of links in my resource list. I've seen the same tired arguments, and some new ones. Met some people, at least the part of their personality that shows in their thought process involving "chemtrails".
To me it's been a good thread.
"Chemtrails" do not exist, no one can prove they do. Lots of people are convinced they do despite an appalling lack of evidence in their favor. While you might not see the harm in their "believing" fine. I do. I see a population looking to the internet for quick knowledge instead of learning how to think critically and research for themselves when something they know nothing about comes up. I see ignorance like this as harmful to society in general. It spreads unwarranted fear and distrust. This, in turn, spreads beyond the "chemtrail" theory and into other conspiracies.
I have seen other places a call for "disclosure". This is harmful because it causes a waste of our government's (therefore my tax dollars) time and money to answer back and investigate a myth. I live in the US, but I have seen calls from other countries to do the same.
So yes, "chemtrails" are harmful. Not in anyway that can be prosecuted. And the only way to make it stop is to try to inform people.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by OurskiesRpoisoned
Seen some of you say you send up balloons. Post your contrail samples. Post your lab findings.

Otherwise, your just a bunch of internet science wanna-bees, promoting government manipulated junk science.


I suppose you haven't read the OP? There's some lab findings.

I also find it curious that in order to counter what you call "government manipulated junk science", you constantly refer to a guy who wrote military manuals. Even more subtractive to your arguments, Appleman researched weather mods as a force multiplier for military operations and most of it involved experimental releases of gasses either from ground level or from towers. He was also concerned about aircraft wake effects and referred to certain seeding operations as "generally disappointing".

Still, weather modification is no secret and does nothing to boost support for an idea of a "chemtrail conspiracy" in which "they" are "spraying us". As usual, all you seem capable of is scientific denialism and denigration of established research while providing none of your own. You're going to have to do better than this.



[edit on 29-5-2010 by traditionaldrummer]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by illusions
 


As I am reading this thread, my husband is watching History Channel's "World War 2 in HD", specifically the time frame including D-Day. Lots of prop planes, making lots of large persisting contrails.
Other places in the thread are a lot of other instances such as this. Contrails have been in existence for almost as long as their have been planes in the sky.

And no one has yet to produce any credible test that shows anything but the by-products of exhaust in any trail they see.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by illusions
 


You do not remember what you do not notice. I remember them from when I was a child (I turned 49 in April). My father commuted by plane for most of my childhood. I noticed. The only difference now is the number of planes, just as the chart and common reasoning shows.

As to your other calims, insinuations, or whatever, your proof of any of them is.....? (And most are off-topic).
Please read the thread. The amounts sampled are very small and not indicitive of the entirety of the contrail.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by One Moment
 


"They" are spraying us and WE need to do something about it! Life expectancy for my children's generation is actually less! It has been on a decline for a while now. New diseases like Margellons, ADD, Autism, Increase in people getting cancer not to mention the treatment for cancer is to cut it out, give you poison(Chemo) or zap it with radiation which fries the inside of one's body. No sir, they are not helping a thing, they change people's moods, develop rashes and they certainly did not exist years ago. 2 links that I feel can put things in perspective:
The facts and a way to grow food that is chemtrail free:
www.warnthepeople.org...

and here's a link to someone running for office that wants them stopped:
www.nightingaleforgovernor.com...



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by standunited
 

Can you provide the data which says life expectancies are decreasing?
Life Expectancy







[edit on 5/29/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Chadwickus do you have ANY aviation training or background? Do you have any understanding about flight clearances, airspace rules, flight plans, or ATC procedures?

It doesn't seem like you do.

Anything above 18000 feet is entirely controlled by the FAA and ATC. One cannot simply go up there and follow suspicious aircraft without clearance.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

This thread is a lame attempt to close the book on this conspiracy.

Go get a pilot's license and then get back to me. Until then stop acting like you know what you are talking about.

There is no way ATC (which is government controlled) would allow sampling of any government operation in progress. So you see... this thread is pointless.

The proof and truth is all over if you are just willing to look...
ATS NEWS: US Defense Contractor Own Chemtrail Patent

Chemtrails: US Patent #5003186: Stratospheric Welsbach Seeding For Reduction Of Global Warming

Chemtrails Are "Small Reflecting Particles" In The Upper Atmosphere.

The Chemtrail Smoking Gun



[edit on (5/29/10) by AllSeeingI]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Nkinga
 


Those are cirrostratus clouds. Sometimes the are caused by contrails, sometimes they are completely natural.

You can find lots of pictures here:
cloudappreciationsociety.org...

Go to "photo gallery" then "browse". There are 282 cirrostratus cloud pictures. If you look through all the pictures, you will see lots of strange skies. But these guys are experts and they know a cloud from something else.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllSeeingI

There is no way ATC (which is government controlled) would allow sampling of any government operation in progress. So you see... this thread is pointless.


Then certainly the "chemtrail juice"; the source of whatever is being sprayed, would be available at ground level. This could be sampled and tested with minimal effort. Certainly one of the chemtrail enthusiasts could do a bit of legwork in locating some of this mysterious substance.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by AllSeeingI
 


So your reasoning is that in order to prove "chemtrails" exist, they must be tested, but "they" aren't going to let anyone sample, so there will never be a usable sample to test, so "chemtrails" must exist?

Circular arguments are not logical or reasonable. You could clearly say the same about anything.
Let's see:
I believe there is life on Mars, but we'll never know about it because the only to way see is to go there and we can't, therefore there must be life on Mars.









 
34
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join