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: 37
36
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 

Please concentrate on your best evidence for your best hypothesis. Otherwise it does get troublesome.

OK I will stick to the Geo engineering evidence. As that is my main theory and hypopthesis for the purpose of the chemtrails. It's getting late here. 2am I'm going to bed and do some reading. Have a goodnight.



edit on 22-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: add pic




posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
 

Why do I get dragged into these pointless arguments with people who are intentionally being ignorant?


Because banging your head against the wall helps equalize all the internal pain?

There is no reasoning with... certain types... of people. Sometimes you thinking your playing a game, and realize your the one being played.

You are coming up with some excellent evidence. This post among others stand out as exemplarily.

The first post they show a big long strip. This is only one os many types. many of them are small particles and small strips.

Your third video is a game changer. Absolutely great evidence. Weather balloons measuring the temperature showing they could not be contrails



Notice how they shift the conversation away from the absolutely damning evidence. They instead focus on the big strip chaff and say you debunk yourself. This is a major part of the sub game. Shift focus from damning evidence. Twist what you say, misquote, misrepresent, use alice in wonderland illogic, deny... on and on. Learn the game they are playing. They are not playing the game you are playing. They are playing you.

Speaking of damning evidence, here is proof of spraying being deposited on Mt. Shasta:

Let me pull a close up of the last frame of that video notice under the 43?:



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


Thank you, what's the chances that we can get Dr Lenny to comment in a thread again? Do you think he would mind if I sent him a U2U ?



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


He's an ATS member now, you don't need my permission lol. I talked with the good doctor quite a bit via email, messenger, and phone. He is wonderfully approachable and full of knowledge.

He was greatly distressed by some of the subtle machinations that went on, and I'm afraid that was not one of ATS's shining moments. I'm still a little sore over it myself. If you could get him to come into this thread that would be good. I've not been in contact since a couple days after the show.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


I left a message on his U-tube video about Japan radiation exposure

www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


Odd... It seems you're doing exactly what you're claiming others are doing.

Chemtrails/contrails, whatever you want to call them, won't show up on doplar radar.

Of course some guy on YouTube is an awesome source and extremely believable,cso you won't believe what I say...

So here's an easy experiment for you.

Next time you see a Chemtrail load up your local weather website and see if it's visible on the doplar radar as your YouTube guy says.

Share results!
edit on 22/3/11 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 







posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 05:30 AM
link   

If you see a big storm on radar but no rain.....Red Flag



Weather and Doppler radar info

The Weather Network - Doppler Radar Promo
www.youtube.com...
 






This animation shows the working method of a meteorological weather observation radar that is a remote sensing system


NEXRAD




edit on 22-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: edit text



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 06:10 AM
link   

NEXRAD



www.wunderground.com...
 

NASA Infra red


www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov...

Other NASA satellite sites


www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov...
 

NOAA


www.roc.noaa.gov...
 

NWS


radar.weather.gov...
edit on 22-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: add link



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by pianopraze
 


Odd... It seems you're doing exactly what you're claiming others are doing.

Chemtrails/contrails, whatever you want to call them, won't show up on doplar radar.

Of course some guy on YouTube is an awesome source and extremely believable,cso you won't believe what I say...

So here's an easy experiment for you.

Next time you see a Chemtrail load up your local weather website and see if it's visible on the doplar radar as your YouTube guy says.

Share results!
edit on 22/3/11 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)


Chad how is it you know so much about radar but you can't even spell it correctly ?



edit on 22-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 




Chad how is it you know so much about radar but you can't even spell it correctly ?


Best you take a dose of your own medicine mate.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander and all that jazz!


Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
I want to give notice to all members who post in this thread in the future. Any disrespectful, insulting, belittling or mocking remarks will be reported the mods. It will be their decision as to whether the post should remain still. But if comments are made that I feel do not contribute in any positive way to this discussion and are filled with personal attacks, moral judgments of another persons character or are inflammatory in nature. I will not hesitate to quote those remarks and remind you of the purpose for which we are here. I would once again like to ask that everyone who posts here to please be respectful of the comments made by other members even if you do not agree. Even if you think it's drivel or think that the person is unintelligent or any other opinion you might have about them. Your comments should still be polite and you should respectfully disagree while pointing out why it is you disagree.
Thank you

www.abovetopsecret.com...



So I spelled it wrong, get over yourself.




edit on 22/3/11 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 

Fair enough, no offense. I'm just curious as to how you know so much about radar imaging and also why you feel that the U-tube guys video was not valid? Why do you say that a persistent contrail that makes a large cirrus cloud won't show up on radar? Is that your own personal opinion. Is that something you were taught? Or is that just something you have been told by someone else?



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

Originally posted by Argyll
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 



I have just one question for you Mathias........do you agree or disagree, that persistent contrails can form naturally?


I agree that some persistent contrails do form "naturally". Although they are all formed by Jet exhaust so it's hardly natural. But regardless of that fact, the "natural persistent contrails" do not persist for more than 20 minutes to an hour tops.

What about this paper published in 1972 that discusses the weather effects related to "contrail cirrus [that] may persist for hours"?:

cires.colorado.edu...
[this links directly to a PDF file]

Here's an excerpt:

If sufficient air traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours...


It seems that according to this article, you are wrong about contrails not lasting for more than 20 minutes. Or are you saying that this scientist doesn't know what he is talking about when he describes contrails that persist for hours and become clouds?


edit on 3/22/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Yes I am saying that the study you supplied is highly flawed and lacking in data..

First reason is tat it was only a 10 day study of which only 2 days were actually the proper conditions. So it is really only a 2 day study.

Next, your quote mentions that "if enough air traffic exists". This is saying that it takes many planes to create a cloud that lasts for hours. It is not saying a single plane can make a contrail that lasts for hours.

Last I see that the type of jet fuel used and the fuel consumption settings in the experiment had a significant impact. Which actually is one of the points I have tried to make.

EDIT: Also, I would like to point out that your report states that the longest amount of time that a single contrail persisted was for only 39 minutes.
edit on 22-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: add text



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


No -- the paper says it takes many planes to produce an "entire overcast", not one persistent trail.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   

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


No -- the paper says it takes many planes to produce an "entire overcast", not one persistent trail.


I am familiar with this report I have read it before. Let me read the entire report again ok. I do see that they mentioned some observations from a different month where 13 days in October had proper conditions. So I will retract the statement I made that it was only a 2 day study. I need to examine it more to redress it properly.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   
The first thing that sticks out to me is that the study only used 1 type of aircraft. The twin jet engine Sabreliner. A more thorough and proper study should examine many types of aircraft and fuel types.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
The second thing I notice is that they specifically turned up the fuel consumption settings to 300 lb hr above its normal fuel consumption of 1200 lb hr to 1500 lb hr.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   
The next abnormal detail says that they purposefully slowed down the normal air speed. They had to apply the wing flaps to compensate. They were intentionally trying to cause as much exhaust as they could.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   


A photograph of the contrail shown in fig 4 was taken 12 minutes after generation. The initial time of contrail generation was 1208:28 as determined from Doppler derived air track plots......... The entire contrail and the generated virga were visible for almost an hour.




top topics



 
36
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join