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.

 

Chemtrailers: Your time is NOW!

page: 6
34
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by sandwiches
It's easy, if it's above -35C contrails cannot form. This is based on legitimate contrail formation science. (NASA appleman chart)

First off it has to be the correct temperature AND the correct humidity levels or they cannot form.

Yes, of course. But it's easier to just say -35C is required and worry about the rest later. (Which would take the formation altitude higher, lolfail) Where I live -35C happens at upwards of 8km high, so if I see low-altitude trails I know something is up.

The appleman chart is good for most purposes. With some of the newer engines contrail formation might be more or less likely, but I'd bet money that around -35C is still required. ;-)




posted on May, 28 2010 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Point of No Return

Open the window mid flight and hold out a bag?




That appears to be what is being suggested.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Point of No Return
Off course a normal jet, with normal fuel, or without a spraying system will leave a normal contrial.

Who is flying these abnormal planes, and where are they flying from to cover so much area? After all we even have folks on here claiming its happening over foreign nations, so is it supposedly the US military flying over these countries as well?


Originally posted by Point of No Return
The test showed that two planes, 12 years ago, where leaving a normal contrail, how this represents all of today's planes is beyond me.

757’s were some of the first generation of the new aircraft designs that are in currant use today. As I showed in the picture above, their more efficient engines create more contrails over a wider set of atmospheric conditions.


Originally posted by Point of No Return
Just because the same planes are flying doesn't mean stuff isn't added to the fuel now, or that some planes aren't specifically used for spraying.

JP is the same as it has ever been, and you can go buy some at your local private airport and test it yourself. Your private airports buy it from one of your local tank farms that store gas for the larger airports. There is usually one or two companies in an area that provide all the distribution for that area. I used to work for the company here that distributed to more then half of my state, and I worked for them fueling commercial aircraft. Point is that the same gas goes into the big planes as goes into most of your small planes (minus the few that use AVGAS, but that comes in 55 gallon drums anyway, its not tanked)


Originally posted by Point of No Return
Like I said, you need permission from the government, and there are costs. The fact that there are planes available for research, doesn't mean anyone will be given premission.

You do not need any special permission to fly anywhere in the sky other then into a restricted area or military operations area. Even then you can skirt the edges of those areas to your hearts content.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 06:44 AM
link   
Right here your lack of comprehension is showing.

Either that or you're deliberately being ignorant to derail the thread.



Originally posted by Point of No Return
Yes you can hire a jet and then? Open the window mid flight and hold out a bag?


I have posted links to a group who owns a jet fitted out with the appropriate testing equipment.



You need specialised equipment and a modified plane. You can't just rent these as far as I know.


READ THE BlOODY LINKS I GAVE YOU!

Look I'll make it easy for you with a direct link to THE BLOODY APPLICATION FORM!

I'm done with trying to discuss this with you.

You've obviously got a vendetta from that Skunk Works thread still.

Build a bridge and all that jazz.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


No my point was that you all were claiming it was terribly expensive, a “jumbo jet” had to be chartered, and special permits had to be submitted. Neither of these things are the case.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 06:56 AM
link   
So wait, what is being said is that those long white lines in the sky are mixtures of exhause and/or various chemicals to affect the people below? I've just spent a while looking at videos on YT and I can't believe I share a planet with such people.

For goodness sake, they are contrails (incorrectly called vapour trails) and they are engine exhaust. What on earth could you possible imagine can come out of those engines that isn't natural exhaust?

Some, no, every single video I have seen proclaiming to show chemtrails is utterly ridiculous. How can you be so ridiculously delusional?

I'm happy to realise I live in a fictional world with conspiracies left right and centre, but this one just takes the biscuit and is absurd. I don't know why it even needs to exist on ATS to be honest.

Anyone, please, provide genuine visual proof of your claims. Until then, you're in the loony bin.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by DB340

Anyone, please, provide genuine visual proof of your claims.


If chemtrails exist, then perhaps they would look like contrails? Then WTF is "genuine visual proof"? How do I distinguish "genuine visual proof" from (assumingly) "non-genuine visual proof"?



Originally posted by DB340

Until then, you're in the loony bin.


You shouldn't have to resort to questioning somebodies mental health to make a point
If you do have to, it shows that you don't have a point.

[edit on 28/5/10 by GobbledokTChipeater]



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by mrgalleria
 

Oh please. I, for one, am not paid for doing this. Never have been never will be. It's really a egomanical paranoid delusion to think anyone would be. No one really cares what you say or think. Or post.

We can say what we do with confidence because there is 70 years+ of scientific study which has over the years become more details (all science has done this in the same amount of time) with tests that show the contrails are exhaust and atmospheric water as ice crystals. It's been quantified as well as qualified. It's not a matter of belief, or suspicion, it's testable with the correct equiptment, by qualified people from samples taken with exacting standards.

As has been said many times before, the OP provides a standard. If a "chemtrail" is a "chemtrail" it wil be chemically different, therefore can be tested. It doesn't matter who or why or what, just show something not expected in a good sample. I've yet to see such a test done, and looks like others here on the contrail side hasn't either. So provide it. Prove something concrete.
Carnicom is paid, I am not. I'm a housewife and grandmother who can is a cloud and weather watcher. I just know BS when I see it. And if there is even one thing wrong with Carnicom, I'll look for more to check his credibility. I do the same with every site I visit.
And, as on every forum about "chemtrails" I've ever seen, no one refutes the science involved. You might not believe it, but you cannot debunk science.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by stars15k
 


Yes but nobody's saying that all contrails are chemtrails. Therefore, even if some contrails have been tested, it proves nothing.

Also nobody is saying that contrails don't exist, so the science which shows how they form, etc proves nothing. No matter hold old the science is.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


If they really cared they would pool their resources. It's not that hard, they speak together often. Surely Alex Jones could gain a lot of points if he did it. Or Will Thomas, or Carnicom.
There are planes outfitted to sample and test air at that level. You probably have seen them misidentified as "spray planes".
When people still have to be told contrails cross only because planes fly in different directions, they really need to do something different than what they are doing to sway the me to their side.
And a 12 year old test is fine, because similar tests done since that time show only expected exhaust. There are lots of studies about it. Just google "chemical composition of contrails-chemtrails". There are 35,800 hits right now.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by stars15k

If they really cared they would pool their resources. It's not that hard, they speak together often. Surely Alex Jones could gain a lot of points if he did it. Or Will Thomas, or Carnicom.



So because they haven't, chemtrails aren't real? That appears to be what you are implying.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by GobbledokTChipeater
reply to post by stars15k
 


Yes but nobody's saying that all contrails are chemtrails. Therefore, even if some contrails have been tested, it proves nothing.


It proves the composition of contrails. Now chemtrail enthusiasts have a baseline by which to compare suspected chemtrails. That is, should someone take the initiative to do the testing. Note: should this happen we'd have to rule out known expulsions from aircraft such as military chaff, cloud seeding, cropdusting, fuel and latrine dumps, etc.

Again, the burden of proof of "chemtrails" lies on those making the claim. This requires irrefutable scientific evidence, not youtube videos, webpages with photos, claims that contrails look different than in the past, nor the unsupported claims of various people in positions of authority.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Again, the burden of proof of "chemtrails" lies on those making the claim. This requires irrefutable scientific evidence, not youtube videos, webpages with photos, claims that contrails look different than in the past, nor the unsupported claims of various people in positions of authority.


You act as if this is a legal matter. This is the internet. Not everything said or claimed on the internet requires "irrefutable scientific evidence".

Especially not to simply satisfy you and a few other people on the internet.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Point of No Return
reply to post by defcon5
 





He can charter a private jet with a pressurized hull that will have no problem reaching that altitude from around $2300 per hour: www.executivejetmanagement.com...


Yes you can hire a jet and then? Open the window mid flight and hold out a bag?

You need specialised equipment and a modified plane. You can't just rent these as far as I know.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Again, the burden of proof of "chemtrails" lies on those making the claim. This requires irrefutable scientific evidence, not youtube videos, webpages with photos, claims that contrails look different than in the past, nor the unsupported claims of various people in positions of authority.

Read the rest of the thread where I teach you how to prove chemtrails using NASA's appleman chart. A little triangulation and you're done. All you need is the altitude of the trail and the temperature to discover chemtrails conclusively. I hope you learn from this and start promoting good science.

Peace



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by GobbledokTChipeater
reply to post by stars15k
 


Yes but nobody's saying that all contrails are chemtrails. Therefore, even if some contrails have been tested, it proves nothing.

Also nobody is saying that contrails don't exist, so the science which shows how they form, etc proves nothing. No matter hold old the science is.


The onus is on the "chemtrailer" to prove a difference. It's been claimed thousands of times before (evey single video and picture of a supposed "chemtrail") that they are some how different chemically. Science shows contrails are contrails. How would you determine that a contrail is a contrail and the other is a "chemtrail"?
So differentiate and determine the difference. Please explain how you would do that. There are "chemtrailers" who insist that evey persistent contrail is a "chemtrail". There are even some who believe all clouds are now fake.
That is the standard among "chemtrailers", persistence. Now you say it is not. So which is it? You opinion or some others? Haven't you noticed that their grand "must-be-real-because-we-see-them-laying-trails-eveyday"theory?
So prove your side. Produce something concrete.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by GobbledokTChipeater
You act as if this is a legal matter. This is the internet. Not everything said or claimed on the internet requires "irrefutable scientific evidence". Especially not to simply satisfy you and a few other people on the internet.

Yep. It seems to be the best some of these regular aggressive deniers can do these days. "PROVE it".
Even I could have come up with something to beat the "appleman chart" by now... well, maybe not.


Good lookin' out for objective analysis and investigation, G. Keep seeking truth.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by GobbledokTChipeater

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Again, the burden of proof of "chemtrails" lies on those making the claim. This requires irrefutable scientific evidence, not youtube videos, webpages with photos, claims that contrails look different than in the past, nor the unsupported claims of various people in positions of authority.


You act as if this is a legal matter. This is the internet. Not everything said or claimed on the internet requires "irrefutable scientific evidence".

Especially not to simply satisfy you and a few other people on the internet.


How about for the general well being of people everywhere? Wouldn't you rather be certain that the information you disseminate is actually factual before we end up with countless drones believing paranoid nonsense?



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by stars15k

The onus is on the "chemtrailer" to prove a difference. It's been claimed thousands of times before (evey single video and picture of a supposed "chemtrail") that they are some how different chemically. Science shows contrails are contrails. How would you determine that a contrail is a contrail and the other is a "chemtrail"?
So differentiate and determine the difference. Please explain how you would do that. There are "chemtrailers" who insist that evey persistent contrail is a "chemtrail". There are even some who believe all clouds are now fake.
That is the standard among "chemtrailers", persistence. Now you say it is not. So which is it? You opinion or some others? Haven't you noticed that their grand "must-be-real-because-we-see-them-laying-trails-eveyday"theory?
So prove your side. Produce something concrete.


I don't understand why anybody has to "prove" anything. I don't understand why I have to prove my side or produce something concrete. After all, this is simply the internet. People say all sorts of thing, usually without a troupe of people screaming for "irrefutable scientific evidence".

I also don't understand why you try and place somebody else's theories with my own. Can't people have two different theories on the same thing?

[edit on 28/5/10 by GobbledokTChipeater]



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by sandwiches
Read the rest of the thread where I teach you how to prove chemtrails using NASA's appleman chart. A little triangulation and you're done. All you need is the altitude of the trail and the temperature to discover chemtrails conclusively. I hope you learn from this and start promoting good science.

Peace


The Appleman chart is designed to locate aircraft from the persistent contrails the aircraft leaves. You know, the exact contrails that are commonly attributed to "chemtrails". You're going to need to do better than this.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join