Chemtrail Debunkers....

page: 4
36
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by miconATSrender
 


What don't you like?.......the condensation in the atmosphere that is formed from the aircraft exhausts?




posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Will you please share your sources and information you have collected or discovered so far?


One day, when I have a full day to commit, I will photographically document the changing conditions and traffic patterns that allow contrails to persist, not appear at all, dissipate quickly, or a combination of all three.

On any given week day where I live/work, with clear to partly-cloudy skies, there can be up to 10 or more high altitude jet aircraft, or their contrails, visible given open views from horizon to horizon.
Those passing nearly overhead can be seen, and often heard within a few seconds of their overhead transit, regardless of the presence of contrails. Others are only visible by their contrails.

Today for example, between 7:00 and 7:30 a.m.EDT, at 39°58′23″N 86°6′28″W, the skies were perfectly clear and there were absolutely no contrails at all, although the usual traffic pattern activity was normal, i.e., failry heavy and constant.

Between 11:40 a.m. and 12:15 p.m. the same traffic activity existed, but now, some planes left intermittent contrail, some none at all, in otherwise clear, cloudless skies.

Between 3:35 and 4:35 p.m., the skies had begun to fill in from the North with high, thin cirrus and some stratus to the west. Still traffic patterns were consistent with the hour and there were no contrails visible during this period.

By 6:00 p.m., all of the cloud had dissipated, but occasional and intermittent contrails followed some air traffic, but not the majority.

Currently the skies are clear, and there are no contrails behind the normal traffic.

Obviously, the high altitude conditions were conducive to neither persistent contrails, nor natural cloud formation.

Given that one of the leading theories "explaining" the purpose of alleged "chemtrails" is to obscure the skies, or to modify the weather, these conditions literally begged for them. None came.

If, on the other hand, the purpose is to deposit poisons into the atmosphere to drift to the ground, the low-level winds would seem to invite extensive "drops on target." None came.

So here we have conditions that are perfect for "chemtrailing" and "the government" with their thousands of aircraft, and numerous locations for origination didn't even bother?

Your theories and opinions do not seem to match objective, verifiable observations.

jw
edit on 16-3-2011 by jdub297 because: typo



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by miconATSrender

Hi
I see both kinds one after the other, some make clouds and some look regular.
It starts as a nice clear day then bam 20 come by to make clouds.
I need to see the skies and this intentional clouding sucks.


why do you say it is intentional?


I think every one can agree that we don't like it.


Some people find contrails attractive.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Argyll
 

I did click your link. It shows NASA asking school kids to help with the study of persistent contrails. So obviously the current data and information about contrail science is incomplete. All just theories and speculation. Show me the proof that your predicted contrail condition charts are accurate and actually apply to all persistent contrails.
coto2.files.wordpress.com...

Appleman was the first in 1953 to present charts that predict the likely hood of contrail formation.................They identifed a unique range within which a contrail should theoretically form. However the lack of field tests to verify these models and the fact that contrails have been noted to form and spread during conditions not deemed favorable according to some of the models




posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   
2+2=4--------Here in n-wisconsin we build lake homes for retired people-vacation homes for the well off. We know the weather since we work in it--I am 55, lived in same rural area my whole life, I know our weather even etter since relatives have lived here since 1900's. We noticed a big differance in our winter weather first. It got really strange when we almost had a snowless winter when we usually get 100 inches a year. January was always artic weather here. 0-30-40-EVEN 50 below on some nights.
We also noticed over the lakes where we could see the bib sky that air-planes were flying and spraying something. This was 15 years ago. WE seen how these CHEM-TRAILS from these planes were spreading out and turning the sky hazzy-or all togather clowdy. Now they even spray in the winter after 4 years ago we never went below 0 for the entire month of january???????=
If you really watch, keep tract of storm fronts you will see they are spraying for reflection or chem-clowds to offset the effects of GLOBAL WARMING..
THE SPRAYING ARE GLOBAL DIMMING PROJECTS NOW BEING RUN BY MOST FREE NATIONS OF THE WORLD.
Watch the skies people and you will see its the one reason that is above all others.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Angelicdefender2012
 


Thanks for the links in your post. Here's something I found when looking at some of the info.
www.asp.bnl.gov...

The cloud modeling and aerosol research elements of the newly combined Atmospheric System Research Program got off to an early start in a joint meeting held in Boulder Colorado, September 29 - October 2.. The meeting commenced on Tuesday, September 29, with the Cloud Modeling Working Group. The Aerosol Working Group and Atmospheric Science Program commenced on Wednesday, September 30, and extended through Friday, October 2



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


I respectfully requested that debunkers like yourself refrain from posting. You obviously don't know what respect is or what open-minded objective scientific research is.


Since when does "open-minded objective scientific research" reject or deny a forum to a contributor merely because his conclusions do not agree with some given mind-set, or who doesn't share the same bias as the sponsor?

Scientific research invites failure! It invites testing and rejection of false hypotheses.

How can a virtual love-fest of people who have already come to the same conclusion be consistent with "objective science?"

deny ignorance
jw



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 

Your link that states that some of the toxic fuel was used for industrial purposes does not negate the fact that they also use the fuel in military vehicles including jet airplanes.


NOTHING in the description even hints that the fuel was used in airplanes associated with "chemtrails." Here we go again.

Show me the cite. You cannot. You are making things up.

dent ignorance
jw



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Because information should be reviewed first and the people who are viewing it can make up their own minds. It should not be deemed false or a hoax and tainted by the biased opinions of government shills and dis-info agents. Before anyone has a chance to review it for them self.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by GobbledokTChipeater
 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Just because you can prove that contrails exist, or can prove that industry spews out toxic chemicals, does not mean that somebody isn't spraying something for some reason.


Equally valid would be that it does not mean that somebody IS "spraying something for some reason."

So, show us who, what, where, how and why; if you believe they ARE.

deny ignorance
jw



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 

I find it interesting that anyone can be so convinced that something so vast as the "chemtrail" conspiracy is real without having a shred of actual evidence.

I find it interesting that anyone can claim to study a subject and deny that contrails exhibit exactly the same characteristics as "chemtrails".



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Stop lieing!......why did you post details from another site then?....a site I did not link to, but you claimed that I did?

The site I linked to has nothing to do with school kids!....it is a NASA information site that clearly explains what a contrail is and how they are formed, you can find the same information on any scientific website.........you may however struggle to find similar information on youtube!

Again.......why did you claim that I posted details from a dubious site, when I did not?..........not to forget that you are the one who calls dis-info agents and shills!



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Argyll
 

IShow me the proof that your predicted contrail condition charts are accurate and actually apply to all persistent contrails.


Why?

Everyone knows it is not perfect - why do you ask for somethign that everyone knows does not exist?

as for the Belfort Group - their reportis self-assessed - they say they have "adequate evidence" for this and that - but the only peole actually assessing their evidence are themselves!

the report is supposed to be scientific - but it has no authors - no-one put their name to it - that immediately marks it as suspect.

it contains much useful and truthful information - eg it's descriptions of wingtip and propellor contrails are spot on, as is its noting that it is not only jets that make contrails.

It contains information on the nature of combustion products that is perfectly standard - it points out that het older jet engines on the NATO AWACs a/c are more polluting than newer engines.

It discusses teh effects of cirrus clouds and contrails on climate - it acknowledges that contrails can expand into cirrus clouds (section 4.1.3), and that persistant contrails are jsut persistant contrails!

It discusses other effects of aerosols - eg on precipitation.

In 4.4.1 it says


When this knowledge is linked with the surveys of previous paragraphs it becomes crystal clear that aerosols emitted by aircraft engines have a significant impact on precipitation patterns and surface temperatures.


but then in 4.4.2 it says:


It is accepted that knowledge on man made Cirrus cloud is relatively poor and that study of the impact of contrails on the Stratosphere is only in its initial phases.


So how can 4.4.1's "crystal clear" be true if we are only at the start of our understanding?

This is the level of deduction that is evident throughout the report.

It's only verifiable conclusion is that NATO's AWACs should get newer engines - almost as if those handful of a/c were somehow responsible for all the "chemtrails" around the world!



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Satellite evidence of chemtrails and pictures of hole punch clouds.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:36 PM
link   
**ATTENTION**

The personnal attacks and off topic posts stop now.

You will be post banned if such behaviour continues. Every member in this thread knows better.

Consider this your only warning.

Thank You.

~Keeper
ATS Moderator





top topics
 
36
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join