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

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 

Chaff:


It is not particulate material.
Particles smaller than microwave wavelengths (millimeters) are too small to be detected by radar. That why chaff is the size it is.


edit on 3/21/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)


OK Phage excuse me , but I have been pinned into this corner through the process of trying to clarify my answers with this argumentative bunch. If you go back and look at my previous posts and put them into the correct context. I also had said that the " if " the aluminum particles are in the persistent contrails that form, the they should appear similar to chaff when viewed using infra red satellite and "Dopplar" radar images.


Wow, just wow.

Explain to use why aluminum would stand out on IR imagery? And how many times have people been telling you over and over that particles do not show up on weather radar. Your zeal in that you have faith that particles would show up on a weather radar, inspite of multiple people telling you that it would not, personifies your religious zeal with chemtrails.

Repeat after me - Weather radars are designed to not display particles.

Still waiting on the engineless airplanes and rear mounted aerosol tank explanations..

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




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 





I claimed that concentrated aluminum particulate looks similar to chaff on radar.


Might you have a link to where one can see concentrated aluminum particulates on radar? This should be fairly easy to do, because you have seen this happen before I take it? Or have you never actually seen this on a radar and you toss this out there hoping others will believe you? Just asking a few questions...

Inquiring minds want to know....



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by badw0lf
 


This is rich. What are you, 10? "I can play if I want to. Naa naa naa naa naa naaaaaa". Leg-slapping good times, for sure. I won't have to go to the Sesame Street page today.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Argyll
 



second question......do you know how a cirrus cloud forms, and the conditions needed for it to form?

Yes, I do know and understand how real cirrus clouds are formed and the conditions for them. So what?


Because cirrus clouds are formed from ice crystals formed from moisture in the atmosphere, typically at heights of greater than 26,000 feet, and aircraft travelling at this, or greater height, emit moisture into the atmosphere, thus causing the formation of cirrus clouds.

You have claimed that "genuine" contrails do not last longer than 20 mins to an hour.........why?......the scientific process of moisture contained in aircraft exhausts form cirrus clouds, once that cirrus cloud is formed it is just a cloud, governed by the same atmospheric conditions as any other cloud, so by your reasoning, all clouds should last no longer than 20 mins to an hour.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   
I posted this once before on a different thread. But just in speculation of the videos posted earlier about smart nano particles I wanted to share this again here. What are the possibilities that this nano tech particles help people spy on things everywhere?

www.gizmag.com...


Laser backpack created for 3D mapping
Using sensor fusion algorithms, the backpack combines information obtained from cameras, laser rangefinders and inertial measurement units, and creates a textured photo-like 3D model of its surroundings. Without such algorithms, along with precise sensor calibration and registration, it would be impossible to bring all the disparate data together to form one cohesive digital environment.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


what is the link to "chemtrails"?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 





But regardless of that fact, the "natural persistent contrails" do not persist for more than 20 minutes to an hour tops.


Are you sure about that? I think these people may have a different say about that....

www.af.mil...

Maybe you should inform the Air Force that their info is wrong about contrails...



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 





I claimed that concentrated aluminum particulate looks similar to chaff on radar.


Might you have a link to where one can see concentrated aluminum particulates on radar? This should be fairly easy to do, because you have seen this happen before I take it? Or have you never actually seen this on a radar and you toss this out there hoping others will believe you? Just asking a few questions...

Inquiring minds want to know....
Go back a page or 2 in this thread, watch the videos I posted. Then do a Google search. I'm tired of providing links to people who are not seriously interested in this for any other reason than to debunk and derail the topic and too lazy to go research themselves. If someone asks me who doesn't have an obvious agenda. Then I might feel more inclined to go and take the time to help answer their questions.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 





But regardless of that fact, the "natural persistent contrails" do not persist for more than 20 minutes to an hour tops.


Are you sure about that? I think these people may have a different say about that....

www.af.mil...

Maybe you should inform the Air Force that their info is wrong about contrails...


Just hypothetically if chemtrails were real, who do you think would be the ones doing it and trying to cover it up?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew


Just hypothetically if chemtrails were real, who do you think would be the ones doing it and trying to cover it up?


Well according to your other message, its a Cargo airline called Evergreen that uses engineless airplanes with rear mounted spray tanks.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot

Repeat after me - Weather radars are designed to not display particles.



Perhaps a repeat of the reason for this is in order?

Weather radars are typically generating 5-10cm wavelength.

They detect water droplets down to about 0.5mm in size by virtue of the Rayleigh scattering that small droplets generate. But this still requires the droplets to be > 1/10th the wavelength in size.

Hence weather radars have a hard time detecting drizzle - which can have droplets



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Something else that bears repeating.....RE: airborne radar equipment.

It CANNOT paint dry hailstones, in most cases, either (not reliably). This is why you never, ever fly beneath an anvil (top of towering cumulus, active thunder-bumper storms that are "sheared" horizontally, due to the upper-level winds at altitude).

Hail (dry, not "wet".....because, if encased in liquid water, they WILL paint strongly on radar) can be falling from the bottom of the anvil, and not be visible...not to the eye, in daylight, and not to radar. (At night, and in IMC? We allow even greater distance and care, in thunderstorm avoidance.....judgement, based on what's seen on the radar screen...and knowing the wind direction and speeds, and we can also judge the approximate height of the clouds....[well, NOT the clouds per se....the liquid water in the storm cells, actually].... using the tilt feature of the antenna).


edit on 21 March 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 





Just hypothetically if chemtrails were real


Wait a second here, I thought you knew for sure that chemtrails are real, but now you are saying hypothetically if chemtrails are real then which is it real or hypothectically real?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Argyll

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Argyll
 



second question......do you know how a cirrus cloud forms, and the conditions needed for it to form?

Yes, I do know and understand how real cirrus clouds are formed and the conditions for them. So what?


Because cirrus clouds are formed from ice crystals formed from moisture in the atmosphere, typically at heights of greater than 26,000 feet, and aircraft travelling at this, or greater height, emit moisture into the atmosphere, thus causing the formation of cirrus clouds.

You have claimed that "genuine" contrails do not last longer than 20 mins to an hour.........why?......the scientific process of moisture contained in aircraft exhausts form cirrus clouds, once that cirrus cloud is formed it is just a cloud, governed by the same atmospheric conditions as any other cloud, so by your reasoning, all clouds should last no longer than 20 mins to an hour.


Mathias

I would be grateful if you would respond to this post......it forms the basis of your premise.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 

Wait a second here, I thought you knew for sure that chemtrails are real, but now you are saying hypothetically if chemtrails are real then which is it real or hypothectically real?


Why don't you quote the entire statement and answer it first? Instead of trying to clip it and take it out of context and answer my question with another question.


Just hypothetically if chemtrails were real, who do you think would be the ones doing it and trying to cover it up?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


2 posts above this one......you have yet to answer, I'm guessing you are trawling youtube for a suitable video, but I respectfully ask that you post your views in your own words.

Thank you.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Argyll

Originally posted by Argyll

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Argyll
 



second question......do you know how a cirrus cloud forms, and the conditions needed for it to form?

Yes, I do know and understand how real cirrus clouds are formed and the conditions for them. So what?


Because cirrus clouds are formed from ice crystals formed from moisture in the atmosphere, typically at heights of greater than 26,000 feet, and aircraft travelling at this, or greater height, emit moisture into the atmosphere, thus causing the formation of cirrus clouds.

You have claimed that "genuine" contrails do not last longer than 20 mins to an hour.........why?......the scientific process of moisture contained in aircraft exhausts form cirrus clouds, once that cirrus cloud is formed it is just a cloud, governed by the same atmospheric conditions as any other cloud, so by your reasoning, all clouds should last no longer than 20 mins to an hour.


Mathias

I would be grateful if you would respond to this post......it forms the basis of your premise.


No Argyll, that is not the basis for my hypothesis. I stated that normal persistent contrails do not persist longer than 20 minutes - one hour. ...
Answer:
Because most normal persistent contrails do not contain enough particulate matter to create the large cirrus clouds that spread out across the sky and last all day. Mos of the natural cirrus clouds also do not dissipate in the same way that the man made cirrus clouds do either.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
[
No Argyll, that is not the basis for my hypothesis. I stated that normal persistent contrails do not persist longer than 20 minutes - one hour. ...
Answer:
Because most normal persistent contrails do not contain enough particulate matter to create the large cirrus clouds that spread out across the sky and last all day. Mos of the natural cirrus clouds also do not dissipate in the same way that the man made cirrus clouds do either.


What about the "normal persistant contrails" that are not included in your "most" group?

the IPCC thinks that contrails can persist for hours - eg see www.ipcc.ch...

The Journal of geophysical research thiks so too.

so i'm wondering what studies you have available that contradict those two bodies' observations - I'm sure you have something that is of a decent scientific calibre on this topic to justify your position, and not just your personal reasoning?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
I think it is a fair statement to say that chemtrails do exist. They exist in many different ways. The purpose is not clear and they are obviously still in dispute. That is all I have to say for now.


Please state a hypothesis or four to which your gathered "evidence" is relevant.

Merely gathering unrelated snippets of out-of-context quotes and articles into a melange of information would not ever be considered "evidence", much less a preponderance.

So, now "chemtrails" exist in "many different ways."

OK. Name three or four.

The purpose is "unclear?"

Name three or four of these. Can you tie them to the "ways" they exist?


... a very heated debate of what I consider to be a very important issue


If their purpose is unclear, what makes "chemtrails" very important?


concerning everyone on this planet.


Which of your beliefs or scenarios affect "everyone on this planet?"

Please provide a hypothesis from which you could derive your quoted positions.

jw
edit on 21-3-2011 by jdub297 because: close quote



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Toots
 
I wanted to share this picture with everyone. It's a picture I got from the NASA / TARFOX website.
geo.arc.nasa.gov...


Once again, we have a cut & paste of an article, without your explanation of what makes it relevant to "chemtrails."

So, NASA experimented measuring aerosols in the environment. Would you rather they didn't?

jw



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join