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: 5
52
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by MallardDuck
 

Been debunked already so it's time to head to the hoax room for you




posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by mikellmikell
 


Oh. It's been debunked already ?

Well I do apologise on behalf of the video poster, sir.

How about a link or something instead of us just taking your word for it?
edit on 4/3/11 by GobbledokTChipeater because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
And no, there was no debunk attempt made by me, until someone actually goes up there and gets air samples, the whole theory is bunk, regardless of what 'evidence' you may think you have.


That would be relatively easy to accomplish wouldn't it? take a personal plane up fly through the trail with jars full of fly paper duck taped to the wings or something?
or the sophisticated industry standard equivalent..

what about clearance though, people can't just fly where ever they want to, even I know that, so then would it really be that easy to do after all? maybe ground samples could be taken but over enough years & consistently enough to point to some conclusive data concerning the toxin levels etc in the samples during times of spraying vs. clear skies instead...

P.L.U.R.I
-B.M



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by tooo many pills
 


No, airplane plumes make up a very small fraction of anthropogenic aerosols. Look back a few pages at the graph. The largest source (non-natural) is the burning of the rain forest. That's not a -trail of any type, it's smoke. Industry, mining, agriculture, surface transportation, construction......all produce aerosols at a rate much higher than contrails do.
Aerosol and anthropogenic do not mean anything is being sprayed or dispersed as a planned activity. It's "common" air pollution sources. Remember the 1960's and 70's when air pollution was a big deal? It still is!
Both the fuel and the engines involved in high-altitude aviation are much cleaner than ground-based transportation. Add in the dilution of the exhaust to atmospheric contribution, which is then diluted further by the volume of the entire atmosphere, means anything in any trail you see is not the problem.
And whether the cloud coverage affects the overall warming or cooling of the planet is still up for debate. Some studies show a cooling effect during the day, others a warming effect at night. The amounts very closely cancel each other out. And the cooling effect is because ice crystals have a very high albedo without needing submicroscopic metallics added by man. Albedo

"Chemtrails" would be an unnecessary, highly-visible, high-cost, high-maintenence, labor-intensive, highly inefficient "secret" program to do anything at anytime. It just doesn't make sense.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   


Nuff said period.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by B.Morrison
 


Look back about page 2 or 3. There are planes specially outfitted to do just that. There are even whole companies that produce the instrumentation. Why? Because such flights are done all the time. For many different reasons, all over the world by many different entities.
Google "atmospheric aerosol studies". There are 377,000 hits, most of them scholarly. Aerosols is a big deal, but the amount that actually comes from planes is minute.
Those who continue whining about "chemtrails" should be much more concerned about the other sources. It's like 'Weed said (paraphrased) you have been behind your monitors for 20 years barking up the wrong tree.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Newbomb Turk
 


Sorry.....she is not credible.

Seen that video posted before, many, many times. The lady is not well informed, and just keeps muddying the science, and the reality, with her insane "beliefs".

BTW....that chart she holds up? With all of the yellow airplane ground tracks...(what does she call them, I forget...."swirls" or something...).

What she DOESN'T reveal (or more likely, has no friggin' clue about) is that those ground tracks she uses as her "examples are NOT....I repeat, NOT from high altitude airplanes.

She has gotten hold, from the source at whatever agency compiled them, track data for ALL airplanes in the local region, from FAA radar recordings. Tell me: What do you think pilots in light airplanes, at many, many local airports are doing when they are practicing take-offs and landings? Whether Student Pilots in training, or Private Pilots out practicing....look up "Airport Traffic Pattern".

I tell you, to a professional pilot, she's the type that is to be mocked, laughed at, and made fun of....sorry, looks like a nice lady (if misguided, or not too bright)...probably someone's grandma. But, that is about the extent of her expertise on this topic.....



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by stars15k
 


OK I am kinda being censored on this site now so I can not post too much.

I'll let you decide whether you believe that the patent I showed you above has anything to do with those earlier reports. I have to go do some work and I''l be back later.


Can anybody tell me why the OP is being censored? He said he had to go do some work, but somebody posted that he left the thread because he's being censored....????

I haven't seen anything questionable in any of his posts, even tho the debunders have gone rabid.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by stars15k
It's like 'Weed said (paraphrased) you have been behind your monitors for 20 years barking up the wrong tree.


well thankyou for the information but its not 'like' that at all because I am a fence sitter when it comes to chemtrails, I was simply making a comment on the practical implication of chad's idea about collecting samples, as you say its possible and done regularly, so there it is


-B.M



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Newbomb Turk
 


I'm sure she is a very nice woman but her website shows planes making "grid patterns" .
Grid patterns are because plane routes cross, planes sometimes leave contrails, and wind moves the contrail over a bit before the next plane comes through.

That is such a really stupidly misidentified point that it's, well, stupid. Planes fly in all directions, so contrails will point to all directions, too.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


The OP has been temporarily post-banned.
edit on 4/3/11 by GobbledokTChipeater because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by stars15k
reply to post by B.Morrison
 


Those who continue whining about "chemtrails" should be much more concerned about the other sources. It's like 'Weed said (paraphrased) you have been behind your monitors for 20 years barking up the wrong tree.


But the other sources don't fly in the sky leaving trails behind them which spread out and join together leaving the sky covered in an ugly haze.
edit on 4/3/11 by GobbledokTChipeater because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikellmikell
reply to post by MallardDuck
 

Been debunked already so it's time to head to the hoax room for you



Asininely hypocritical, you demand evidence from the aware but refuse to provide evidence for your claims. Due to your demanding manner every time I bring forth proof i provide external links; you provided me with a limp dick sentence like that ^. Debunk it for me right now. And don't use ATS links.

A standard set by a "non-chemtrailer":

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 

Sourcing another ATS thread doesn't cut it as evidence.


I'd also like to make a note on how ridiculous it is to see such an emotional and raw segregation between ATS members, I believed this place was some where I could find multiple diverse opinions presented in respectable ways. Using diehard Catholics vs homosexuals as the perfect example of the negative and raw divisions of people. We can be individuals but united by a common identity, we are all ATS.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by GobbledokTChipeater
 



....leaving the sky covered in an ugly haze.




Do you think clouds are "ugly"?? Because, that is what you are seeing. Clouds. In the sky. Where they belong. Cirrus type clouds, to be precise.

Know what you can tell, from cirrus usually? Weather, she's about to change!! That's what.

Have you ever heard of an old, old sailor's adage:

"Red sky at night, sailors' delight.
Red sky in morning, sailors take warning.
" ??

Or, some variation on that? It's been around for centuries, and pre-dates the science of meteorology and weather forecasting of today....Google it.


This guy may be a bit dry, but he knows his stuff!!!:




posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by stars15k
 


Why do people find it necessary to put words in people's mouths
My idol is Tesla
and no i won't hold the stupid part against you as i am very forgiving of human weaknesses



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


They are not clouds Mr.Whacker, they do not look like clouds of any kind I have ever seen before, they ARE ugly, cause they have no definition, just an ugly haze.

They lack color definition, they are pathetic. We need a global stoppage to air traffic so we can again see the sky without these ridiculously rude "clouds" as you call them.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Clouds are beautiful, but the haze left by chemtrails is far from that. Chemtrail manufactured clouds are murky looking, I provide this fact simply with my word. I haven't ever felt the need to document it in the past, but now that I'm aware that so many people are in disbelief I feel obligated to provide documentation of my personal experiences with this phenomenon.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by GrinchNoMore
 


You have just described cirrus clouds, sorry. Cirrus come in many, many varieties, ya know....

Also, at same time....many of you probably don't realize, in this "chem"-trail hysterical nonsense, that OTHER atmospheric phenomena will also reduce visibility. At many levels. Get cloud height reports form your local airports....(Note, though....just as they report "10 miles visibility", even if it is MORE clear than that....when they report cloud heights, in aviation reports, 25,000 feet is the highest). Doesn't mean that some clouds aren't above that, it's just the highest that they report. Because, really...for pilots, they don't care about the high clouds, anyhow....visibility and the lower level clouds are what matter.....



www.google.com...


Thing about weather...it has its own pace, and it is NOT the pace of Humans. You cannot appreciate its changes, since it happens so slowly. You walk outside, look up, and with this imagined "chem"-trail nonsense that's been poured into our heads you grumble and think "G-D chems..."...and keep that one mental "snap-shot" image in your mind. You ONLY notice, when you think ou are seeing "chem"-trails.....but, on the many, many days of clearer weather, you don't notice, and don't remember the nice days....

It is called confirmation bias. Look it up.








So odd....I've been flying for almost forty years, and the sky STILL looks exactly the same to me....because I have the understanding, knowledge and life experience to tell the differences. IF something were "odd", it wold be obvious to me.

And, I assure you, there are NO other professional pilots who will disagree with me. Not once, ever, did any of the colleagues of mine "believe" in "chem"-trails. Really....we laughed instead, at "believers"...sorry, just the facts.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Sir, I thank you for you time but you provide no further evidence than anyone before you. None of which discredits the existence of "chemtrails", it only shows video footage of clouds and weather. Like I said in a previous post I will compile my own findings on the topic and at time when I feel is suitable I'll post my findings.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
...Also because those same few over zealous individuals seem to have such an overt opposition to any and all evidence from any investigation being discussed and openly examined or presented in this forum at all....

... Please correct me if I have this wrong.

What exactly are you asking us to debunk? You didn't really give ANY evidence to debunk....that was just a long ramble where you expressed your opinion. As for the statement I qouted here.....Um...I think you have it exactly Opposite. I readily WELCOME any ACTUAL evidence...but I have seen zero, other than wild conjecture and people claiming that the sky has more contrail/chemtrail's in it than it used to, not too many years back...something I disagree with completely. An opinion is all you have offered. Please offer some GENUINE PROOF, and I think me and the other "zealous individuals" who don't believe in chemtrails (which are easily the majority, rather than the minority BTW) will GLADLY debate it. Debating opinions based on nothing but 'hot' air (contrails are cold, but I couldn't make a pun that way
) is meaningless, and any learned individual with even a modicum of experience with logical deduction will know this to be true. PLEASE offer real proof. That would be great.



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join