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.

 

CLOSE-UP VIDEO: Pilot filming plane spraying into the air

page: 22
129
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   
The tile of this thread is CLOSE-UP VIDEO: Pilot filming plane spraying into the air.

The subject is not each other.

Posters should also be mindful when making a post that this is in The Skunk Works forum. Specifically keep this in mind as you post:


We certainly do not want to discourage the involvement of helpful critical analysis and skeptical thought, this will always be a very important part of collaboration on ATS. However, we will be strict in managing the tone and style of such exchanges. Please keep your critical involvement to helpful focus on issues, facts, and analysis of possibilities, and do not engage in disruptive character attacks, snipes, and insults in any way. Any such activity will result in a warning and removal of your post.


Thank You.


[edit on 19-7-2010 by Ahabstar]




posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


Any unknown is a possible risk, but your other reply to me was that they were only proposals, on methods to be used, which was rather singular, given what you have added above, also from the PDF and, of which I have already read.


I'm sorry, I have no idea what that means. But I didn't say anything replying to you about any proposals and even if I did I don't see how it implies that the CFR document shows that actual testing of stratospheric geoengineering has been or is being done. Doesn't calling something an unknown imply that trials have not been done?

Claim what bounty? From whom? For what? With the discussion at CFR in mind, it seems like if there were any real evidence that large scale unilateral geoengineering were going, other nations would be up in arms about it. Remember "chemtrails" are global.
(except that I live in the tropics and they seem to be avoiding me)

[edit on 7/19/2010 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by smurfy
 


smurf, again my advice to you, as I've advised others who post sources like the CFR .pdf...you should read it fully, first.

It is obviously an abstract of a DISCUSSION of possibilities. Spells it out quite clearly....and it was just last year. They are STILL STUDYING the scientific viability, and possible effectivity....

Here, you might have missed this bit on page 11:


What Could be Done?

Clearly there is a lot more work to be done on the engineering and scientific aspects of geoengineering. Better particles and lofting schemes will likely be developed; more research is badly needed on identifying and assessing possible negative consequences and all the ways that geoengineering schemes could fail.


ETC, ETC, ETC......


The PDF on global warming is from 2008. Weed, why did you say it was last year? and I thought both you and Phage just gave straight-up anwers, now I know I was wrong. As for your advice, I always asked for it.

[edit on 19-7-2010 by smurfy]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Who are flying the jets leaving chemtrails in our skies?


*SNIP*


Mod Edit: ATS And Activism – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 19-7-2010 by Ahabstar]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by DCDAVECLARKE
Who are flying the jets leaving chemtrails in our skies?

Airplane pilots?
But they are not "chemtrails", they are contrails.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


That's a good image, to teach kindergarten children.
I am not in that category, anymore :-(



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 


Ground level 35º Celsius.

Cloud below 500 meters.

About the daytime noctilucent cloud it was a joke.

There are no noctilucent clouds in full noon.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Where does this 500 meters figure come from?

Are you still scared of that rainbow effect from clouds? its not noctilucent, its just refraction of light from water droplets. Whether its from rain, or cloud drops, or ice crystals, there is nothing sinister about it.

I guess we have to add refraction to the long list of sinister occurences to be concerned about.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot
While showing a fire fighting aircraft as what they would probably think is a chemtrail plane is funny, its closer to the mark than you think.

How many dozens of times have chemmies used the video of the Evergreen 747 firefighting aircraft test video, as chemtrail proof. LOTS..and no amount of telling them what it actually is, dissuades them


[edit on 19-7-2010 by firepilot]

And to thicken the plot (maybe with borate slurry?) there is now a firefighting DC-10 in proving trials. And down at the old Grayson County Airport in Denison TX, there is an Ilyushin Il-78 being converted to a borate bomber.
We can look forward to seeing pics of these soon.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by smurfy
 


Any unknown is a possible risk, but your other reply to me was that they were only proposals, on methods to be used, which was rather singular, given what you have added above, also from the PDF and, of which I have already read.


I'm sorry, I have no idea what that means. But I didn't say anything replying to you about any proposals and even if I did I don't see how it implies that the CFR document shows that actual testing of stratospheric geoengineering has been or is being done. Doesn't calling something an unknown imply that trials have not been done?

Claim what bounty? From whom? For what? With the discussion at CFR in mind, it seems like if there were any real evidence that large scale unilateral geoengineering were going, other nations would be up in arms about it. Remember "chemtrails" are global.
(except that I live in the tropics and they seem to be avoiding me)

[edit on 7/19/2010 by Phage]


No, the unknown does not imply anything, as an unknown can be in the immediate, short or long term. I apologise if I interpreted your use of the words, "notes for conference" as proposals, as a long time conferencer, my conference notes were always about proposals. At least, I'm glad that you and Weed looked at the PDF and that maybe you both sign up to the Global Warming agenda, and what it will entail. Well, maybe or maybe not.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 07:14 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Climate change mitigation through artificial increased atmospheric albedo?

"Abstract
It has been suggested that large-scale climate changes, mostly due to atmospheric injection of greenhouse gases connected with fossil-fired energy production, should be forestalled by internationally-agreed reductions in, e.g., electricity generation. The potential economic impacts of such limitations are obviously large: greater than or equal to $10[sup 11]/year. We propose that for far smaller - less than 1% - the mean thermal effects of greenhouse gases may be obviated in any of several distinct ways, some of them novel. These suggestions are all based on scatterers that prevent a small fraction of solar radiation from reaching all or part of the Earth. We propose research directed to quite near-term realization of one or more of these inexpensive approaches to cancel the effects of the greenhouse gas injection. While the magnitude of the climatic impact of greenhouse gases is currently uncertain, the prospect of severe failure of the climate, for instance at the onset of the next Ice Age, is undeniable. The proposals in this paper may lead to quite practical methods to reduce or eliminate all climate failures."

www.osti.gov...



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by firepilot
While showing a fire fighting aircraft as what they would probably think is a chemtrail plane is funny, its closer to the mark than you think.

How many dozens of times have chemmies used the video of the Evergreen 747 firefighting aircraft test video, as chemtrail proof. LOTS..and no amount of telling them what it actually is, dissuades them


[edit on 19-7-2010 by firepilot]

And to thicken the plot (maybe with borate slurry?) there is now a firefighting DC-10 in proving trials. And down at the old Grayson County Airport in Denison TX, there is an Ilyushin Il-78 being converted to a borate bomber.
We can look forward to seeing pics of these soon.


The DC-10 is not in trials, its under contract for Cal Fire, sitting in Sacramento right now actually, and it has seen work on fires The IL-78 is apparently more with aerial refuelling, I do not see it ever being contracted with firefighting. Evergreen gave up and put their 747 back in cargo airline service

[edit on 19-7-2010 by firepilot]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by crustas
reply to post by firepilot
 


Sorry to say, but what it is sinister and scary is the emptiness of your arguments and your questions if there were any.



Wow..well if my arguments are so empty, then it should be able to factually refute anything.

If you disagree that clouds can refract sunlight (and moonlight too) and make a rainbow effect, then just say it. You never did say where there 500 meter number came from.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by crustas
 


I took another look at your pic....


Ground level 35º Celsius.

Cloud below 500 meters.


OK....I just walked outside after a short downburst...we've been averaging ~95F for several days...so that's pretty close to 35C...

Since it was late PM, Sun was setting, and low...and lo and behold, a huge rainbow in the East (storm cells were moving west-east). Arcing, horizon to horizon (give or take) as they usually appear.

Edges of clouds, in your example, regardless of altitude probably just display the same prismatic effects. OzWeatherman or Essen can be more exacting in their descriptions.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by __rich__
 



Fascinating.

Proving? smurfy offered up a similar document, again it would be dereliction NOT to investigate and study various propasals and techniques, IF they should be deemed necessary to implement in future...

From your source, a snippet:


"Abstract

>SKIP<

.... The proposals in this paper may lead to quite practical methods to reduce or eliminate all climate failures."



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Maybe this can be one thing that can help it is called project blue beam.. www.youtube.com... www.youtube.com...



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by __rich__
 



Fascinating.

Proving? smurfy offered up a similar document, again it would be dereliction NOT to investigate and study various propasals and techniques, IF they should be deemed necessary to implement in future...

From your source, a snippet:


"Abstract

>SKIP<

.... The proposals in this paper may lead to quite practical methods to reduce or eliminate all climate failures."



True enough, and to add my unbiased research I will also include the fact that Edward Teller did not personally believe anthropogenic CO2 was/is a climate modifier:

www.osti.gov...

"Introduction. It’s not generally realized that the Earth’s seasonally-averaged climate is colder now that
it’s been 99% of the time since complex life on Earth got seriously underway with the Cambrian
Explosion, 545 million years ago. Similarly, it’s not widely appreciated that atmospheric concentrations
of carbon dioxide – CO2 – are only very loosely correlated with average climatic conditions over this
extended interval of geologic time, in that it’s been much colder with substantially higher air
concentrations of CO2 and also much warmer with substantially lower atmospheric levels of CO2 than at
present; indeed, the CO2 level in the air is observed in the geologic record to be one of the weaker
determinants of globally- and season-averaged temperature."


However, whatever the determining factor of climate-change is, Teller is right that is does happen, and sometimes catastrophically.

So, the real question is: Just how much research implementation has been going on?

To gain any sort of gage or measure of efficacy such a proposed program , even in the infancy research stages, would still have to be quite large?



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by __rich__
 


My understanding is that they've mostly been doing the research using computer modeling...collecting a LOT of data, and then strategizing as to the best course of action to undertake...AGAIN, IF and when it is thought to be critically needed...AND it will be an International consensus, no doubt.

But just the barest WHIFF of such programs of study has the "chemtrailers" up in arms....even though they don't understand any of it.

THAT is one reason the "chemtrail" hoax has flourished...unsophisticated viewers see the airplanes that are equipped to conduct the atmospheric sampling (there is the ubiquitous Gulfstream I that has its photos platered all OVER the "chemtrail" sites).

HERE is a recent news release form the company that operates the airplane.

This has been pounced on SO MANY TIMES by sites like "Carnicorn", and the like...they claim it has "spraying" equipment poking out all over...as you can see, they are sampling probes.

The other favorite photo is the interior of a B-747-400 undergoing flight testing...with the big kegs of water that are installed for those tests --- to shift the water between barrels, to alter the CG inflight.

ALL of these misconceptions get picked up by the "khemtrail krowd", and it's "Off To The Disinfo Races" we go.....

[edit on 19 July 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Oh, no argument, there.

But, I do sometimes have to wonder about the status quo.

Change doesn't come easily, and (just for the sake of argument) if Man-made CO2 emissions were causing global warming, and the choices to stop it were:

A: reduce CO2 emssions immediately

or

B: Come up with a way to cool the Earth without having to reduce emissions


I wonder which method the Corporations would choose?

OK, not really, it's obvious it's much cheaper to spray the Earth with "sunscreen" rather than stop burning all that Black Gold.



new topics

top topics



 
129
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join