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.

 

Stratospheric Aerosol Geo-engineering aka "Chemtrails" DEBUNK THIS !!!!

page: 34
52
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
[reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 




On ATS, we are not supposed to post links and basically say "discuss". You need to tell us what is in that link that you feel is germane to the topic at hand.


The entire content found in the link
edit on 24-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)


How about in your own words. If you find mosquito and insect spraying to be a conspiracy, just say so, rather than just post infomation about a unit that does it.

But how does speculation, automatically become evidence? Because thats what you did with that one chemtrail webpage, you are just reposting someone elses chemtrail beliefs, as evidence. Its no more valid some some other chemtrail reposting your postings, as evidence.

And yes, so much of "chemtrails" is about personal feelings, its why if you ask ten of you what chemtrails mean, you may very well get ten different opinions.

You are again just throwing random things up, without telling us how it is relevant to use.
edit on 24-3-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-3-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)


How about the fact every single one of you have been saying that there is not planes that spray. The list shows then spraying for different purposes. Not just for insects. They sprayed oil dispersant into the gulf also. All they need to do is change the spray for whatever it is they want to do.
edit on 24-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: edit text




posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
No, we did not say that there are no planes that spray, because there are some, and not for a conspiracy

You however have included the Space Shuttle, skywriting small planes and firefighting aircraft in your conspiracy, just as part of the throwing everything up against the wall method you have.

Yes, I know about skywriting planes that spray oil on the exhaust manifold for smoke, I know about firefighting airtankers that release retardant around a fire, and I know about cropdusters that spray insectice, I know about companies that spray oil dispersant, and the Air Force reserve wing that can spray insecticide for mosquito missions if called upon.

Absolutely none of that is evidence for your conspiracy of spraying with persistent contrails, none of it.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

How about the fact every single one of you have been saying that there is not planes that spray.


Not me - I am well aware of aircraft that do spray - agricultural operations are a big deal in my country - "spraying" everything from fertiliser to seed. Experiments with the aerial pplication of agricultural products started afte WW2, and the local airforce helped out.

Also we have had repeated operations spraying over cities to eradicate various insects that have been identified as a major threat to our agriculture.

And also helicopters are often used with high pressure water pumps to clean high-tension power pylon insulators.

We don't have fire-fighting aeroplanes here, but helicopters with monsoon buckets are common.



The list shows then spraying for different purposes. Not just for insects. They sprayed oil dispersant into the gulf also. All they need to do is change the spray for whatever it is they want to do.


are you now positing that those a/c are responsible for "chemtrails" worldwide? IIRC the USAF has a handful of spray kits for C-130's - 4 or 6?? Your video above identifies them - found it - there are exactly 4 (FOUR) - en.wikipedia.org...

What is your current definition of a chemtrail??
..... it seems to be changing again



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
GOOGLE:...USAF C-130 MODULAR AERIAL SPRAY SYSTEM (MASS)


Is this your current chemtrail theory??

Not exactly secret - en.wikipedia.org...

And 4 C-130's don't seem like a lot to change the climate of the whole world.


edit on 24-3-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


LOL!!!


...4 C-130's ...


THAT is even more absurd than the cliams about Evergreen (total active fleet size, 11 airplanes....10 B-747s, one B-757) or the other "baddie" candidate, CargoLux!!

Hilariously increasingly ridiculous, these "chem"-trail claims!!




posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


This is just another example of how it can be done. Not how it is being done. I would assume that this same technology has been modified in certain ways to suit each individual aircraft using spray methods.

Also, I still contend that certain a/c some of them actually being commercial airliners are using the technique of adjusting their normal fuel consumption to excessive levels for short periods of time at certain altitudes to contribute the extra soot and sulfur particulate determined to be added at precise locations in the atmosphere.

This second technique is a diffrent type of chemtrail but still a chemtrail non the less. I already linked to this info in a prior post. That described how high fuel consumption setting could help contribute to the amount of aerosols needed. However that report stated the particles would last in the atmosphere for 10 years but only if they were at altitudes higher than 40,000 ft. It said most aircraft don't fly that high so extra aerosol would be needed.
edit on 25-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: spelling



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
This is just another example of how it can be done. Not how it is being done. I would assume that this same technology has been modified in certain ways to suit each individual aircraft using spray methods.


But the title of this thread is "Stratospheric Aerosol Geo-engineering aka "Chemtrails" DEBUNK THIS !!!!".
We can't debunk that it spraying can be done -- of course it can be done. There is nobody disputing that fact that low-altitude spraying is done for insect control, fertilizer, and oil dispersion during oil spills. However, do you have evidence that it is being done at high altitudes for other secret purposes? Persistent trails lasting four hours don't count as evidence, because it has already been established that normal contrails can persist for hours, and eventually spread out into cirrus-like cloud cover. Nor is aluminum in the soil evidence of it, because aluminum occurs naturally in soil, and the levels that are purported "evidence" are not above what could be considered natural.

Please provide your "smoking gun" evidence that high-altitude spraying is actively being done, and only then will we be able to investigate that evidence in an attempt to either confirm or debunk it. All you have given us so far is that methods exist for low-altitude spraying. That's fine, but low altitude spraying has been done for decades for various reasons (mostly agricultural, but for other purposes, also). Perhaps these methods can be used at high altitudes. However, you need to show me the evidence that they are doing high-altitude spraying.


This second technique is a diffrent type of chemtrail but still a chemtrail non the less. I already linked to this info in a prior post. That described how high fuel consumption setting could help contribute to the amount of aerosols needed. However that report stated the particles would last in the atmosphere for 10 years but only if they were at altitudes higher than 40,000 ft. It said most aircraft don't fly that high so extra aerosol would be needed.

Again, this is fine in theory as a way to increase the earth's albedo for the purpose of -- as you indicated earlier in This Post -- figting global warming, but do you have evidence that there actually is a huge fleet of planes flying between 40,000 and 100,000 feet doing this? Supposedly, it would take a lot of planes to make a difference. Show me the planes.

Plus, I'm not sure that spraying between 40,000 and 100,000 feet for the purpose of fighting global warming by creating a layer that reflects some sunlight is something that would work. Climatologists believe extra aerosols in the are causing more of a global warming problem, not helping it. Perhaps it may seem logical (in a knee-jerk sort of way) that spraying a layer of stuff that reflects sunlight may reduce temperatures, but that layer also has the effect of keeping heat near the surface, acting like a blanket. This is the Greenhouse Effect. For example, clear skies at night are important for letting the Earth radiate the heat of the daylight hours. That's why cloudy nights are generally warmer than clear nights -- the clouds act as a blanket. If the night skies were to have this extra sprayed aerosol that is supposed to reflect sunlight during the day, the effect may be to actually increase the overall temperature of the planet, because heat cannot escape at night like it normally does.

Look at the planet Venus, for example. It has a think cloud layer -- but it has the hottest surface temperatures in the solar system primarily because of these clouds. Venus' clouds act like a blanket, holding in the heat.

Another thing about this spraying that you say may be happening between 40,000 ft and 100,000 feet for the purposes of increasing the Earth's albedo...There are places on Earth that persistent trails are not common at all. I would think that for this alleged "spraying to increase Earth's albedo" to be effective, it would need to be done worldwide. If persistent trails are the indication of chemtrail spraying, it would seem that there is no 'evidence' of wide-spread spraying in those parts of the world in which persistent trails are rare. Why wouldn't this particular spraying (to increase Earth's albedo) be done worldwide?

And why would TPTB keep it a secret that they are actively doing something for the purposes of reducing global warming?



edit on 3/25/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

But the title of this thread is "Stratospheric Aerosol Geo-engineering aka "Chemtrails" DEBUNK THIS !!!!".
We can't debunk that it spraying can be done -- of course it can be done. There is nobody disputing that fact that low-altitude spraying is done for insect control, fertilizer, and oil dispersion during oil spills. However, do you have evidence that it is being done at high altitudes for other secret purposes? Persistent trails lasting four hours don't count as evidence, because it has already been established that normal contrails can persist for hours, and eventually spread out into cirrus-like cloud cover. Nor is aluminum in the soil evidence of it, because aluminum occurs naturally in soil, and the levels that are purported "evidence" are not above what could be considered natural.


You are again trying to take one piece of evidence by itself and saying something has been debunked. Well like I said before you have to put all the evidence together at one time and debunk it. What was I supposed to write a five page OP? Why don't you select under my name "posts in this thread" then take all the evidence and DEBUNK THIS !!!!
edit on 25-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: edit text



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Don't forget the whole topic was "Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering". Show me where that has been debunked. Has it ? NOOOO...... it hasn't. What has any of you actually debunked ? You have all made claims but you have no proof you claims are true? Why don't you prove it is true?

If something is a hoax, then it should be easy to prove that it is a hoax. How come this hasn't been proven a hoax yet ? Where the solid evidence that this is a hoax? I haven't seen any proof that anything has been debunked. In fact I see just the opposite.

More people are becoming aware of geoengineering and the aerosol problems from jets. I can't prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt but that is not the criteria for proving a case like this. Proof is measured by the preponderance of the evidence. The evidence presented in this thread alone out weighs any proof something has been debunked...



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
You are again trying to take one piece of evidence by itself and saying something has been debunked. Well like I said before you have to put all the evidence together at one time and debunk it. What was I supposed to write a five page OP? Why don't you select under my name "posts in this thread" then take all the evidence and DEBUNK THIS !!!!

I've been reading this thread since it started. A large volume of sketchy evidence does not make that evidence any lass sketchy.

You may be providing mounds evidence of how spraying is possible. But I would like you to show the the smoking gun that it is happening -- or at the very least that it is probably happening.

You have shown us all that spraying could be done. We all understand that planes can spray. However, you are convinced that it IS being done at high altitude and on a widespread basis -- therefore you must have specific solid evidence of it. That specific solid evidence that has convinced YOU that active widespread spraying is happening should not take five pages.

You need to connect the dots for us.


edit on 3/25/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

You have shown us all that spraying could be done. We all understand that planes can spray. However, you are convinced that it IS being done at high altitude and on a widespread basis -- therefore you must have specific solid evidence of it.


It's worth noting that Mathias declined to engage in a discussion on why the things people see and call chemtrails can't all just be contrails (mind, so have all the other chemtrails believers).

Normally, when proposing a new hypothesis, the very first thing one does is demonstrate why the existing theory is wrong and cannot explain all observed facts. It's all well and good saying this or that could be happening, but when the purpose of the hypothesis is to explain an observation (chemtrails) then surely the first stage is to show they cannot be contrails? But no-one has ever done that - certainly not in any semi-scientific manner. Maybe there's a reason?

edit on 25-3-2011 by Essan because: add comment



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew


Also, I still contend that certain a/c some of them actually being commercial airliners are using the technique of adjusting their normal fuel consumption to excessive levels for short periods of time at certain altitudes to contribute the extra soot and sulfur particulate determined to be added at precise locations in the atmosphere.
]


And pray tell, how are they doing that? Are they pushing the mixture lever up in the cockpit?

edit on 25-3-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


I missed this "gem" (And, WHY on Earth did someone give you a star for this???) :shk:


....I contend that certain a/c ..... are using the technique of adjusting their normal fuel consumption to excessive levels for short periods of time at certain altitudes to contribute the extra soot and sulfur particulate determined to be added at precise locations in the atmosphere....


Utter gibberish!

We are talking here about JET engines, not pistons!!!! Jet engines CANNOT "run rich" (this is essentially what you're "contending"). When you increase the fuel flow to a JET engine, it just results in more power output. More THRUST.


Add fuel = More thrust. (when you want to go....or climb)

Less fuel = Less thrust. (when you wish to slow....or descend)


Reheat, in in some military engines ("after burners") sends additional fuel into the already blazing hot exhaust, downstream of the turbine section, to increase thrust.

(FOLLOW the link....and LOOKY at the pretty picture of the F-18 launching from a carrier, at sea. NOTE the obvious lack of "soot" or "particulates" coming from the engine exhaust....>shrug< >rolls eyes



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

You have shown us all that spraying could be done. We all understand that planes can spray. However, you are convinced that it IS being done at high altitude and on a widespread basis -- therefore you must have specific solid evidence of it.


It's worth noting that Mathias declined to engage in a discussion on why the things people see and call chemtrails can't all just be contrails (mind, so have all the other chemtrails believers).


That's sort of my point about asking him to "connect the dots" for us.

I have no real problems with most of his separate pieces of what he is presenting as evidence:

1. He's seen planes fly odd patterns.
- Fine. I have no reason to dispute that he has.

2. Trails that persist and spread into clouds are a problem.
- I agree that normal contrails (mainly from passenger jets) that spread out into cirrus clouds may be a problem, mainly because of the effects of reduced sunlight on agriculture. Plus I would like to add that there is the potential issue that the extra clouds are contributing to the Greenhouse effect by acting as a blanket, and thus making the planet hotter.

I don't agree that this is being done purposefully -- except in as much that it is an unfortunate effect of the increase in air traffic.


3. There have been studies in Geo-engineering.
- OK. I'll agree with that. The possibility of geo-engineering is well-known.

4. Planes can spray chemicals.
- Of course they can. Farmers have been spraying crops for decades, and the same goes for insect-control spraying. However, all of this is done at low-altitudes. I have seen no valid evidence of high-altitude spraying.

5. Studies have been done on the affects of aerosols in the atmosphere, and even studies on the effects of intentionally spraying aerosols into the atmosphere.
- I'm sure there has been a lot of studies of aerosols, because of the issue of climate change. I also agree that people have studied potential beneficial effects of spraying aerosols, with the hopes of being able to reduce the heat energy from the Sun hitting the Earth (although I'm not sure if I agree that benefits actually do exist).


I do NOT agree with him that:

1. Persistent trails are always chemtrails.
- It is a well-known fact that contrails can persist for hours, and many studies have been done about contrail persistence

2. It is not normal for a large number of trails to criss-cross.
- there is a lot of air traffic -- some going generally east-west, some going generally north-south. Of course the persistent trails from these planes would cross.


So, I think that is his separate pieces of what he calls evidence -- and I have no big dispute with a lot of it (except for his argument that "trails that persist or criss-cross are chemtrails"). However, he has not yet put it all together with a bow. He has not connected all of these separate pieces he calls evidence into one cohesive case that argues that these separate pieces of information really are evidence of a global, systematic, high-altitude, chemical spraying campaign.

At this point, I think I'm more frustrated in the way he is presenting his argument than his conclusion itself (although I don't yet agree with his conclusion, either). I wish he would tell us what it is that he sees as the "smoking gun" that takes all of these pieces and creates the case for chemtrails. Without that, his "evidence" is just a bunch of separate facts.



edit on 3/25/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: speling



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Aye, that's the problem with most chemtrailers. They've never thought it all through and have no coherent hypothesis to present, Which, of course, ought be falsifiable to be valid. Until that happens we just go round and round and round in circles - and to most intelligent people the idea of chemtrails therefore just looks more and more stupid.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker


....I contend that certain a/c ..... are using the technique of adjusting their normal fuel consumption to excessive levels for short periods of time at certain altitudes to contribute the extra soot and sulfur particulate determined to be added at precise locations in the atmosphere....


Utter gibberish!

We are talking here about JET engines, not pistons!!!! Jet engines CANNOT "run rich" (this is essentially what you're "contending"). When you increase the fuel flow to a JET engine, it just results in more power output. More THRUST.


Thats not the first time chemtrailers have talked about running the mixture richer in jet engines. And to think they wonder why they get made fun of so much. Just goes right by to people like Mathias having a completely incoherent idea and just throwing up anything they can think of, HOPING it will come true.

Sort of like talking about Stratospheric Geoengineering, but then bringing up C-130s, that do not even fly in the stratosphere. Well there was that whopping 4 of them modified for insect spraying, which of course is never done in the stratosphere either, which was apparently beside the point.

But hey, the Space Shuttle passed through the stratosphere, and thats part of his conspiracy now too.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
I think the old technique of water injection is pretty close to "running rich" for a jet - it partly quenches the combustion, resulting in a lot of unburned fuel being chucked out he back of the engine, which causes massive black clouds so often associated with B-52 takeoffs.





IMO it's just wickedly ironic that such "chemtrails" are black, not white, and are caused by water injection...



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


This is just another example of how it can be done. Not how it is being done. I would assume that this same technology has been modified in certain ways to suit each individual aircraft using spray methods.


So now you are just assuming stuff - abandoning any pretence of having evidence?

That's more honest......but it's no more correct!

Others have covered the rest of your post and it's complete absence of connection to the real world........

edit on 25-3-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
Don't forget the whole topic was "Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering". Show me where that has been debunked. Has it ? NOOOO...... it hasn't. What has any of you actually debunked ? You have all made claims but you have no proof you claims are true? Why don't you prove it is true?


AFAIK you are claiming that "Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering" is happening, and have posted a whole lot of stuff supposedly showing that to be the case.

That is what has been debunked - your evidence showing that "it" is happening has done no such thing - indeed some of your supposed evidence documents efforts people have taken to ensure it does not happen - particularly in secret or due to the whims of super-rich individuals.

You have no shown any verifiable case that supports the assertions that "Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering" is actually happening.

You are making the claim - you show the evidence.



If something is a hoax, then it should be easy to prove that it is a hoax. How come this hasn't been proven a hoax yet ? Where the solid evidence that this is a hoax? I haven't seen any proof that anything has been debunked. In fact I see just the opposite.


Yep - we have all seen what you see, and what your criteria for evidence is.

That is why we mostly feel you are perpetrating a hoax. Because your evidence is SO poor that no-one with a modicum of intelligence could reaonable be expected to believe it once the counter evidence is known.



More people are becoming aware of geoengineering


Sure.


and the aerosol problems from jets.


Nope - only hte pollution.

Which is bad enough without getting sidetracked by a totally unproven, illogical conspiracy. Or a hoax.



I can't prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt


Yes we know that.


but that is not the criteria for proving a case like this.


Rubbish.

The hoax postulates that something physical is happening in the atmosphere.

You could prove it in an instant with 1 decent scientific study - prove it beyond a shadow of doubt, and have ATS's biggest "I TOLD YOU SO!!" thread ever.




Proof is measured by the preponderance of the evidence.


Proof is measured by it applicability and by its accuracy. No amount of proof that people are studying the possible effects of solar radiation management is going to prove that chemtrails have existed for the purpose for the last 15 years (or however long you choose to say they have existed for)


The evidence presented in this thread alone out weighs any proof something has been debunked...


Only by your volume, and while a squeaky wheel may get oiled, no amount of rubbish evidence can make something true when it isn't.
edit on 25-3-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 02:41 AM
link   
Well what we do know is that what people call chemtrails is not stratospheric geo-engineering.

The only way chemtrails can be geo-engineering is if it's tropospheric geo-engineering and the purpose is to replicate cirrus clouds with the intent of causing a very small amount of global warming.

So I guess that's this thread at an end then?



edit on 26-3-2011 by Essan because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join