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.

 

Chemtrail Debunkers....

page: 31
36
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Which help proves my point here that we are so tied up in the do they exist debate that we can't really discus why they are doing it which to me should be the real issue.
I had to post that because I was asked directly what my thoughts were as to why they would be doing it and out of all the theory's I've heard on this debate those are the only 2 in my eyes that have any real merit.
On a side note I have to say that in that report I thought the co2 scrubbers idea put forward by John Latham of the National Center for Atmospheric Research was a brilliant idea and deserves the funding as it's a more long term option that tackles the cause rather than the other short term fixes put forward in that report.
edit on 21-3-2011 by djcarlosa because: correcting a mistake




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
My biggest thing on this subject is how much these people care so much about this but don't care about other real problems in the world. I don't see you getting mad at the planes that spray pesticides on the food you consume, which in a sense is the exact same thing since you are ingesting it. RegardlessI think we are getting poisoned in many other ways.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by unknOWNmirAGE
 


I agree with you that we are being poisoned by many sources I have touched on the fluoride in our water supply a deadly toxin and pesticides used on the crop's we eat are also another issue that is being tackled the reason that we are here on this thread is that this subject is being so strongly debunked by so many experts when the change in the trail's left by air planes and the way they travel across the sky's is as plane as the nose on your face.
Especially for me who lives in an area of the UK where the program has only just been implemented in the last 4 months.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Living here in California...having witnessed what you skeptics would consider contrails... i noticed a pattern of only spraying on days that warm up or are extremely hot. It's pretty much common belief among everyone i know, among all genders and races above the age of 15 going all the way to my grandparents in their mid 70's that chemtrails are in fact real and do exist. There are no buts or ifs ...we see them commonly in our skies and do not question that they are indeed spraying something up there... so much so the videos some other members pointed out in this thread are being passed out at local churches throughout northern california... Recently in october i went to LA and discussed the topic of chemtrails and asked a bunch of questions with Socal residents at the music event i was attending... and they too witness chemtrails and believe their skies are being sprayed. Now this is dozens of friends, family members, aquintences, and complete stranger who all live in this state who witness the chemtrails and have come to accept they are up there doing this. The ATS debunkers can post their precious links and info all they want... the fact is the skies are not as blue as they once were here and there are very unusual clouds constantly popping up that i have only witnessed more recently as now i know what to look for. This is happening in many locations worldwide and the fact that other locations do not see this happening only makes you wonder even more why these strange clouds only happen to appear in these few locations.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


welcome back dude, try not to get banned again


replies to all those who flooded my u2u yesterday
for all my mastery of Wi-Fu was barely able to get dial up speeds yesterday which is severly limiting post wise.


Aloysius the Gaul:



Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger- 2-As for the rest of the post, most "contrail" advocates are unable or unwilling to differentiate among the varied aerosols, good and bad, to which we are exposed just by living in an industrial age.




Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Did yuo mis type something here, or are you agreeing??


mis type to you.
correction to me.


Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
who are you tryng to kid here? how am i or any body else going to get funding for chemtrail research from TCOTBIP? sure, make me waste my hard earned money, nice little tactic there.




Gave up without even starting? As with any social advocacy, you start with a fundraiser. Ask fellow "chemtrail"ers to contribute to a fund. Open a bank account; your parents will show you how.


LOL! next you're gonna say that i'm still wet behind the ears, gramps.
i'm in my mid forties by the way,
the use of webspeak is an affectation, though some might call it deceptive. as it seems to have mislead you.


Devote a website or blog to "The Science of Chemtrails," and use it to fund and post research, instead of anecdotes and speculation.
You could even set up sub-topics, such as the materials used, means of delivery, efficacy as delivered, sponsors and perpetrators, results and objectives sought, avoidance, self-protection, mitigation, et c.
Use a separate page/chapter for each hypothesis. Climate? Poison? Mind-control? Enrichment? There's no limit, just as there's no limit to the incoherent rants and hysteria.


AHHHHHHH! what a polite and elaborate way to tell me to go play with myself, you sir,
have a future in diplomacy, methinks, if not a past... also reveals what you think of anyone who might consider the possibility of CT.

zombiejesus




Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
5- patently false i am on record re my Hypothesis concerning CT's and none of you contrailers have ever responded to my allegations or if you have you avoid a straight answer to my questions.



Originally posted by zombiejesus
Where is this hypothesis? I looked at your posts in this thread and I see none.


dude, on record on many other contrail threads, rather rapid investigation on your part, ehh? i notice the 2nd part of that statement has not been addressed.


Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
Contrails do not Exist!!! Prove me wrong!



Originally posted by zombiejesus
Is this your hypothesis? Because if it is, it is not a hypothesis, it is a claim, an extraordinary one at that, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Contrails have been observed and studied for 80+ years, and ARE a recognized phenomenon amongst the scientific community.
YOU are making the claim that they do not exist, therefor the burden of proof lies on your shoulders to prove that they do not exist.


that is the title of my upcoming post, taken out of context,though i see from your quote that you copied it before it was edited perhaps you should go back and read the post.

as for claims... see you on my thread.


to the other Con-Trollers don't be in such a hurry for my thread, as the OP has returned let us tarry here a bit.

after all, a proper investigation/thread needs time and we wouldn't want a sloppy thread made in an afternoon do we now?


don't worry I've made a list and will be u2uing you all when it's posted.

patience, Catnarock is coming, seek not hasten it.


just like i'm patiently waiting for the spectro-analysis which only Aloysius has responded to.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by gloomyblue707
... the fact is the skies are not as blue as they once were here...

Chemtrail debukers usually agree with this. However, this phenomenon is probably due to the steady increase in air travel in we have seen over the past several decades...

...i.e., More airline traffic = more contrails = more clouds.

It is a very well-known fact that there are more clouds from contrails now than ever. This increase in clouds from contrails was true in the 1960s, 1970s, and up to the present day, and even in the past has been attributed to increases in commercial air travel.


...and there are very unusual clouds constantly popping up that i have only witnessed more recently as now i know what to look for. This is happening in many locations worldwide and the fact that other locations do not see this happening only makes you wonder even more why these strange clouds only happen to appear in these few locations.

Can you be more specific about these unusual clouds? Can you give some specifics as to how these clouds differ from the clouds that can be created by contrails?

Thanks.


edit on 3/21/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
in my many searches for information I came across this from a paper on contrail's turning into cirrus clouds.

In situ observations of the microphysical properties of upper-tropospheric contrails and cirrus clouds have
been performed during more than 15 airborne missions over central Europe. Experimental and technical aspects
concerning in situ characterization of ice clouds with the help of optical and nonoptical detection methods
(preferably FSSP-300 and Hallet-type replicator) are addressed. The development of contrails into cirrus clouds
on the timescale of 1 h is discussed in terms of a representative set of number densities, and size distributions
and surface area distributions of aerosols and cloud elements, with special emphasis on small ice crystals (diameter
,20 mm). Contrails are dominated by high concentrations (.100 cm23
) of nearly spherical ice crystals with
mean diameters in the range 1–10 mm. Young cirrus clouds, which mostly contain small regularly shaped ice
crystals in the range 10–20-mm diameter and typical concentrations 2–5 cm23
, have been observed. Measurement
results are compared to simple parcel model calculations to identify parameters relevant for the contrail–cirrus
transition. Observations and model estimates suggest that contrail growth is only weakly, if at all, affected by
preexisting cirrus clouds.
Now I maybe wrong but that states to me that a contrail would become a cirrus cloud if its over an hour old now the paper is vast and contains alot of information so I am getting help to make sure that I completely understand the paper before I post more from it so bear with me.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by djcarlosa
in my many searches for information I came across this from a paper on contrail's turning into cirrus clouds.

In situ observations of the microphysical properties of upper-tropospheric contrails and cirrus clouds have
been performed during more than 15 airborne missions over central Europe. Experimental and technical aspects
concerning in situ characterization of ice clouds with the help of optical and nonoptical detection methods
(preferably FSSP-300 and Hallet-type replicator) are addressed. The development of contrails into cirrus clouds
on the timescale of 1 h is discussed in terms of a representative set of number densities, and size distributions
and surface area distributions of aerosols and cloud elements, with special emphasis on small ice crystals (diameter
,20 mm). Contrails are dominated by high concentrations (.100 cm23
) of nearly spherical ice crystals with
mean diameters in the range 1–10 mm. Young cirrus clouds, which mostly contain small regularly shaped ice
crystals in the range 10–20-mm diameter and typical concentrations 2–5 cm23
, have been observed. Measurement
results are compared to simple parcel model calculations to identify parameters relevant for the contrail–cirrus
transition. Observations and model estimates suggest that contrail growth is only weakly, if at all, affected by
preexisting cirrus clouds.
Now I maybe wrong but that states to me that a contrail would become a cirrus cloud if its over an hour old now the paper is vast and contains alot of information so I am getting help to make sure that I completely understand the paper before I post more from it so bear with me.


Glad you see you taking the time to read something scientific, you deserve a star for that.

However, these papers can be tedious reading though, they are not exactly exciting reading. It does however talk about contrail persistence, which is the entire issue at hand.
edit on 21-3-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by djcarlosa
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

My concern here is that it shouldn't be there because why put it in a film for kids unless you where trying to make them think it is normal to see that pattern in the sky.
There would be no need to put it in the film if these trail's where normal.


that's exactly 180 degrees out - contrails are normal - more so now than previously because there is no argument that there are more of them - so putting them in films (whether as tyre tracks or not) is also normal



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Really is that what you think ?
so to prove that these trail's are normal they are putting them in kid's cartoons please think about what you are saying.
Kids cartoon's as far back as I can remember have sky scenes that are all the same a blue sky with the occasional white fluffy looking clouds so in effect if what you are saying is true then these earlier cartoons were showing what a normal sky line looked like then and car's is showing what a normal skyline looks like now.
Now I use the word normal here in the context of you look up and that's what you see not in the fact that the trail's themselves are normal.
Now my point here is that if this premise you have is true then we see that these trail's where not normal when earlier cartoons where made but are normal now.
so which ever way you cut it it goes to show that either
1.they where put in the cartoon to convince children that these trail's are normal.
2.these trail's where not a normal sight in the sky when earlier cartoon's where made hence the lack of them in said cartoon's skylines again proving the point that these trail's are a new addition to our skylines which is proven by how long planes have been used as a means of human transport.
In other words the planes have always been there but persistent contrail's have not



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
I apologize for not answering certain questions that people have asked me yet. I have been busy with personal business. I also have been busy researching and reading chemtrail / contrail related materials. I am not purposefully avoiding any questions. I just want to be able to respond as accurately as possible. In the mean time I would like to share a few videos on weather radar and satellite imagery. They can be useful in spotting and documenting anomalies in the air above us and especially if you notice something strange in your area.

This video explains a little bit on how aluminum chaff appears abnormal on radar.

This is a second weathermans explanation

This video can help you decipher satellite / radar images above your area.


EDIT: Here's an interesting article about air traffic controllers complaining about the radar image anomalies
aircrap.org...


WrFrom the April 2002 Idaho Observer. VANCOUVER, Canada – As continuing chemtrail activity culminated in massive aerial spraying over Vancouver Island and Washington state March 20, 2002, and broadening plumes once again fanned out to haze clear blue skies – Air Traffic Controllers at major airports across the United States expressed concern over the emissions constantly showing up on their radar screens.
These radar returns are the signature of the fine aluminum particles found in laboratory tests of chemtrail-contaminated rain taken in Espanola, Ontario in the summer of 1999. The lab analysis found reflective quartz particles in the chemtrail fallout — and levels of aluminum FIVE TIMES higher than Ontario’s maximum permissible health safety standards.ight-Patterson, Air Traffic Controllers Vindicate Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists




edit on 21-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: add text



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

This video explains a little bit on how aluminum chaff appears abnormal on radar.


Exactly. That's how we know it's a very rare occurrence and therefore cannot explain what people call chemtrails.

But we've already explained that to you. So why bring it up yet again?

It's as relevant to the discussion as a red herring. Oh, wait .......



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
I think your first video debunked the chemtrail conspiracy, good job!

Talked about how combat aircraft can use chaff to confuse an enemy radar or missile.
Mentions how it can take quite a while to come down. Chemmies think something released instantly goes to the ground.
Goes into how is strips of mylar coating with aluminum. oops, so much for the chemmies mantra of chaff being powder or a liquid.

Those videos had absolutely nothing to do with your chemtrail religion however. But they were informative about telling people what chaff ACTUALLY is, compared what the chemmie websites CLAIM


edit on 21-3-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-3-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-3-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 

Mathias --

You have said that you have often seen chemtrails in your area...
...Does that mean that on these frequent days you see these chemtrails, your weather man's radar always gets "blocked" by them?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
This video explains a little bit on how aluminum chaff appears abnormal on radar.

Exactly. That's how we know it's a very rare occurrence and therefore cannot explain what people call chemtrails.
But we've already explained that to you. So why bring it up yet again?
It's as relevant to the discussion as a red herring. Oh, wait .......


I disagree. It details how aluminum effects radar images. If some of the persistent contrails seen by others contain aluminum, then they too will appear on Dopplar radar images. It is relevant to collecting future evidence. If you see a persistent contrail with your own eyes from the ground. You can then go check the image from radar online to confirm if the "cirrus cloud" contains aluminum.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot
I think your first video debunked the chemtrail conspiracy, good job!

Talked about how combat aircraft can use chaff to confuse an enemy radar or missile.
Mentions how it can take quite a while to come down. Chemmies think something released instantly goes to the ground.
Goes into how is strips of mylar coating with aluminum. oops, so much for the chemmies mantra of chaff being powder or a liquid.
Those videos had absolutely nothing to do with your chemtrail religion however. But they were informative about telling people what chaff ACTUALLY is, compared what the chemmie websites CLAIM


Again I disagree, it has everything to do with the chemtrail theories. It is not a religion and I think it's disrespectful of you to imply that. Just as chaff containing aluminum disrupts radar images. So to would persistent contrail clouds containing aluminum.
edit on 21-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: edit text



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
If some of the persistent contrails seen by others contain aluminum, then they too will appear on Dopplar radar images. It is relevant to collecting future evidence. If you see a persistent contrail with your own eyes from the ground. You can then go check the image from radar online to confirm if the "cirrus cloud" contains aluminum.


Exactly! And that's why we know they don't contain aluminium - because they don't appear on radar!



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
This video explains a little bit on how aluminum chaff appears abnormal on radar.

Exactly. That's how we know it's a very rare occurrence and therefore cannot explain what people call chemtrails.
But we've already explained that to you. So why bring it up yet again?
It's as relevant to the discussion as a red herring. Oh, wait .......


I disagree. It details how aluminum effects radar images. If some of the persistent contrails seen by others contain aluminum, then they too will appear on Dopplar radar images. It is relevant to collecting future evidence. If you see a persistent contrail with your own eyes from the ground. You can then go check the image from radar online to confirm if the "cirrus cloud" contains aluminum.


NO, you are yet again entirely incorrect and just trying to cling to anything. And besides, if your chemtrail religion was true and there was all this aluminum being released (which there is not) and it would show up on radar (which it would not), then you would have this stuff on weather radars all the time.

Particulate matter does not show up on radars. Nor do clouds either, do you understand why clouds do not show up on radar but rain will?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   

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

Mathias --

You have said that you have often seen chemtrails in your area...
...Does that mean that on these frequent days you see these chemtrails, your weather man's radar always gets "blocked" by them?


I believe you have me mistaken with someone else. Please show me where it is I said "I often see chemtrails". I never have made that statement. I actually said I live in an area that is often over cast and foggy. The chemtrails I have seen were when I traveled North and South of my area.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by djcarlosa
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Really is that what you think ?
so to prove that these trail's are normal they are putting them in kid's cartoons please think about what you are saying.


No that is not what I said - pelase do not paraphrase me and put words into my mouth!!

I said that contrails are normal, so it is normal to expect to see them in normal depictions of the sky.


Kids cartoon's as far back as I can remember have sky scenes that are all the same a blue sky with the occasional white fluffy looking clouds so in effect if what you are saying is true then these earlier cartoons were showing what a normal sky line looked like then and car's is showing what a normal skyline looks like now.


the vast majority of sky shots in "Cars" have no contrails. A few do.

Why do yuo sieze upon hte small minority of shots that show hte contrail and say that is suspect, when the vast majority of skies in het movie do not have such contrails?



so which ever way you cut it it goes to show that either
1.they where put in the cartoon to convince children that these trail's are normal.


That's highly presumptuous and you ahve no evidence of it whatsoever - just your "logic", which is flawed..



2.these trail's where not a normal sight in the sky when earlier cartoon's where made hence the lack of them in said cartoon's skylines again proving the point that these trail's are a new addition to our skylines which is proven by how long planes have been used as a means of human transport.


yes, there are more contrails now than "before" - that is not news.


In other words the planes have always been there but persistent contrail's have not


Of course - and ..er....not to put tooo fine a point on it....so what?

it has always been the case that contrails are only formed in low temperatures and high altitudes, and thus, generally, only by high flying aircraft because that is where the temperature is commonly low enough, and for a long time few aircraft flew high enough.

There's a good article on early contrails called "The Wakes of War"

the Wright flyer did not generate persistant contrails. the 1st note of contrails comes from WW1, there's high altitude research though the 1920's, they are noted in fighter combats towards the end of the Spanish Civil War (1936-39) when fighter a/c stater routinely flying a lot higher than they used to, then the Battle of Britain, the daylight bombing of Germany in 1943-45.

then they die off a bit - civil aviation is mainly unpressurised piston a/c that do not fly very high for passenger comfort reasons. there are still photos of military jets making them....but they are not nearly as numerous as civil jets now.

There are a couple of vids on YT of Boeing stratocruisers making contrails in the 1950's - they were high performance piston engined a/c that were pressurised so could fly at high altitude - but were mainly used only on long distance routes such as over the Atlantic ocean.

Starting in the 1960's jet airliners become much more common - and, therefore so did persistant contrails.

So yes - there used to be aircraft with no persistant contails........and that is completely explained by known contrail characteristics.


edit on 21-3-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: quoting







 
36
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join