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.

 

Is ATS Supporting Ignorance Concerning Chemtrails? I think so.

page: 43
131
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by bekod
 


Too bad nothing of what they keep trying to pass off really has any quality non-bias evidence to substantiate what their contrailscience handbook says. They will try to quote and link the other obvious co-conspirators sites.

Whenever someone wants to step up to the plate and openly examine the documents I supplied for evaluation..Maybe then we'll get to actually see a real discussion on this topic. Until then I'll be waiting


I operate under the assumption that all studies are biased. Who paid the bills for the study that you are referring to? Do they have a reason to be biased? Can you repost the link and only the link to the document that you are referring to? I am lost in all of the countless pages of mile long posts that you make.

I would be glad to be labeled the resident spammer...
...I am working on it....I have along way to go.




posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot
Even chemtrail central, admits that contrails can persist.

www.chemtrailcentral.com...



Disinformation: Contrails don't last longer than 30 seconds.

Normal jet traffic can leave trails that persist for quite some time given atmospheric conditions that are favorable. In my studies, contrails from commercial and passenger jets have left contrails that persisted for as much as two minutes, on one occasion more than 20 minutes. Normal contrails can persist even more if they fly through a pre-existing persistent trail, cloud or other high mosture zone.



I wouldn't listen either. This is what did it for me.

Predicting Contrails Using an Appleman Chart [Student]
Background: Military planners have been interested in condensation trail (contrail) forecasts since World War II. Contrails can make any aircraft easy to locate by enemy forces, and no amount of modern stealth technology can hide an aircraft if it leaves a persistent contrail in its wake. In 1953, a scientist named H. Appleman published a chart that can be used to determine when a jet airplane would or would not produce a contrail. For many years, the US Air Force Global Weather Center used a similar chart to make contrail forecasts.

The first published reports of contrail formation appeared shortly after World War I. At first, scientists were not sure how contrails formed. We now know that they are a type of mixing cloud, similar to the cloud that sometimes forms from your breath during a cold winter day. Appleman showed that when the air outside of the airplane is cold enough and moist enough, the mixture of the jet exhaust and the air would form a cloud.

An example of a contrail-forecasting chart is shown below. We will use the chart to make our own forecasts, and make observations to determine whether they are true or false.



asd-www.larc.nasa.gov...



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 



Quite right - real science accepts that there is bias, and there are extensive studies on it.

Do the chemtrailers believe their own "reports" do not have any bias? All the documents I've seen saying that chemtrails exist contain phrases such as "to differentiate chemtrails from contrails", or "it is common sense that chemtrails exist", or "to see chemtrails...." - all of which are starting from a position that chemtrails exist in the 1st place - making "evidence" fit a preconceived conclusion!

Yankee451 - I applaud you for asking Mathias to express his position in some manner that it is comprehendible to us "ordinary folk"!

And, as always, I am dying (sic) to see any verifiable evidence of the existence of chemtrails.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


There is no shame in knowing the truth. I'm glad that I do and that I'm secure enough in myself that posts like yours don't phase me. My own eyes and instincts are stronger than your words. In the end, I don't have to feel guilty for denying the truth and steering people in the wrong direction instead of helping them.

One day, your posts will end up in the ATS Hall of Shame. Don't worry, I will nominate you.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


The reports I am speaking of are based on the studies of 13 government agencies. The report itself comes from a government agency and you won't find the word "chemtrail" in the report. The studies are about climate change and the way that some of the data was obtained was through the use of testing and sampling, adjusting and altering the particles found in the atmosphere. This was done by testing the effects different sized particles made up of different chemical compositions had on clouds and their ability to radiate or absorb sunlight and humidity.

I don't really care to waste my time trying to convince any of you about what these reports say. If you can't understand what it says then go back to school and get a better education. I can understand what they are saying and I do not have any degrees or diplomas in any of the fields of health, science, politics or law.

www.globalchange.gov...


www.climatetechnology.gov...

The focus of this Plan is technology research, development, demonstration, and deployment, and it provides a broad roadmap to the future. It does not, however, provide detailed roadmaps for specific technologies. Such roadmaps are referenced in the appropriate sections throughout the document. Moreover, the Plan does not, nor is it intended to, provide a comprehensive mitigation strategy. It is not a policy document. It does not, for example, address technology incentives (e.g., tax credits) or regulation (e.g., energy efficiency standards), but it does set a course for evaluating such policies. Further, the Plan makes no judgments as to what constitutes a dangerous level of GHGs in the atmosphere. For century-long planning, the technology portfolio must be designed to be robust in the face of a range of plausible concentration target scenarios. Finally, the Plan is not a budget document, but provides a framework to set budget priorities.
edit on 3-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


The reports I am speaking of are based on the studies of 13 government agencies. The report itself comes from a government agency and you won't find the word "chemtrail" in the report. The studies are about climate change and the way that some of the data was obtained was through the use of testing and sampling, adjusting and altering the particles found in the atmosphere.


Where does it say they are altering the particles?

I have read the whole thing and all I see is that they measure various parameters of particles, try to predict how changes in parameters affect the effects of the aerosol, and getting accurate measurement is one of the major problems in the existing uncertainties about knowing what those effects are.

It is possible I overlooked something, but given your track performance to date I think it more likely that you are reading something into it that is not there.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
www.climatetechnology.gov...

2.2 Strategic Goals

The ultimate objective of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change-stabilizing GHG concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference-provides an important (though not the only) planning context for CCTP's Strategic Plan. Two considerations that arise from this are relevant to long-term technology R&D planning and guidance. First, the level of GHGs in the Earth's atmosphere implied by the UNFCCC is not known and is likely to remain a key planning uncertainty for some time. [2] Accordingly, CCTP's strategic goals are not based on any hypothesized level of stabilized GHG concentrations, but rather encompass a range of levels. Second, stabilizing the atmospheric GHG concentration at any level implies that global additions and withdrawals of GHGs to and from the atmosphere must achieve a net balance. This means that the growth in net GHG emissions would need to slow, eventually stop, and then reverse and approach levels that are low or near zero. The technological challenge is to develop new systems that could help achieve this goal affordably



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


That gets you yet another big fat SO WHAT?

I think we all appreciate that your spam posting skills are 1337 beyond description already.....
...no need to impress us on that front any more.....
edit on 3-3-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


The main report you read was an overview of the whole plan and study. For a more detailed description read the other reports that accompany those documents.

To ask for information from the document and then call it spam when I supply information from the document. Truely just shows your ignorance Get a clue......



edit on 3-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Why can't you point to where it says they are altering the particles?

It should be real simple - just give the report name or URL, page and/or section number.

Now there's a challenge for YOU - I think it is worded in sufficiently simple maner so that everyone here can see what it is, and evaluate your answer.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by TETRA.X
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


There is no shame in knowing the truth. I'm glad that I do and that I'm secure enough in myself that posts like yours don't phase me. My own eyes and instincts are stronger than your words. In the end, I don't have to feel guilty for denying the truth and steering people in the wrong direction instead of helping them.

One day, your posts will end up in the ATS Hall of Shame. Don't worry, I will nominate you.





In other words, your perceptions, emotions and feelings count more than knowledge, facts and science...



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


And, as always, I am dying (sic) to see any verifiable evidence of the existence of chemtrails.


Don't look at me.




posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
rd-dashboard.nitrd.gov...

New Government Beta website to disclose research reports and patent application information from the National Science Foundation, the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the National Institute of Health for the years 2001 to 2010



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


I already have pointed that out in previous posts. Go find it yourself you lazy bum

edit on 3-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


And.....??????



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 



Actually, I trust the German scientists.
Here is the link:
www.naturalnews.com...



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by TETRA.X
 


The video there has been deleted from YT - however if it is the one where the Germans "admit to using duppel" then your trust is unfounded - see here for a full expose about how it was possibly deliberately mis-translated to further the chemtrail hoax!



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TETRA.X
reply to post by firepilot
 



Actually, I trust the German scientists.
Here is the link:
www.naturalnews.com...


And if you are talking about that German video, it does not mention chemtrails, and that meterologist is not talking about them whatsoever.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by TETRA.X
 


So then....a dodge. Head in the sand, fingers in ears, huh?? :shk:

"Truth"??? Facts are not discovered merely by limiting oneself to investigating only those claims that already support your preconceived ideas.

In case you were not aware, this is called confirmation bias.


The video I challenged you to re-examine is loaded with inaccuracies, and lies....blatant lies, is my assertion, as stated earlier. It conveniently takes advantage of the ignorance of many people....those who have no first-hand knowledge and experience with airplanes, and aviation. In other words, they are "innocent" of knowledge. (Another way to describe "ignorance"....).

Every claim and statement in that video can easily be refuted...PROVEN a lie. Not difficult, with even some online research. Best method, though, would be a personal visit to Pinal Airpark, in Marana AZ. (I've been there, BTW... As well, as many other "boneyards"...airplane "graveyards", as they're called. For THAT is what the place is. Airplanes go there to die.... That one is for civilian airplanes. Nearby, Davis-Monthan AFB has a much larger area, for military airplanes and helicopters. SOME are in long-term storage, a small percentage may fly again, after extensive time and effort is spent to "un-mothball" them).


Here, an American Airlines MD-80 pilot filmed their delivery of a jet to die, in a facility near Roswell, NM. I have actually flown a few of those jets, there.....:




Here's one in the Mojave Desert:




Airplanes being "recycled" in Mojave:




And, these guys are roaming around in MARANA, AZ....yes, the very place that was featured in that crap video at the airCRAP website:










edit on 3 March 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


I already have pointed that out in previous posts.


No. You. Haven't.

So there it is folks - the answer to my "challenge" - i wold say "I told yuo so"...but that would just be stating the obvious....




Go find it yourself you lazy bum


Figures - you can't actually back up any of your claims to scientific data. We all knew this already of course, this is just another bit of verifiable evidence of the fact.

What hapened to your mission to "crush" me using Contrail Science



new topics

top topics



 
131
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join