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: 43
36
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Yep, I'm sure I must be the one twisting

There are a variety of strategies, such as injecting light-reflecting particles into the stratosphere , that might be used to modify the Earth’s atmosphere-ocean system in an attempt to slow or reverse global warming. All of these "geoengineering" strategies involve great uncertainty and carry significant risks. They may not work as expected, imposing large unintended consequences on the climate system. While offsetting warming, most strategies are likely to leave other impacts unchecked, such as acidification of the ocean, the destruction of coral reefs, and changes in composition of terrestrial ecosystems. Yet, despite uncertain and very negative potential consequences, geoengineering might be needed

www.cfr.org...
Starting on page 11 he rings his allegorical hands at the fact that nations that want to do it will unlikely be stopped. Woe is the poor little powerless CFR

Starting on page 12
He suggests that

set norms about responsible geoengineering. This approach would recognize that international law is weak (especially when inconvenient), but norms can be powerful if they become internalized within the communities that might contemplate geoengineering. Historically, similar norms emerged around the deployment of nuclear weapons—for example, against the “first use” of nuclear weapons and against reckless testing of weapons—and probably helped reduce the danger of nuclear war. Important norms have emerged about safe testing and deployment of genetically engineered crops.
Ibed
I've yet to see any safe GMO's but that's another thread.

So what did they discuss??? How to stop it??? Nope. How to set "norms"... in other words, they have no intention of stopping it. They just want complete control over the teams that do it.

At the workshop we should discuss what norms should govern geoengineering and how they might gain widespread adherence.

Getting all relevant nations to adhere to such norms may be especially difficult.

...geoengineering seems to be so inexpensive that large NGOs and rich individuals could do these things on their own.


They even admit that a rich enough individual could do it on his own. Bill gates, Grand Cayman, and mosquitos comes to mind, but they've got the spin going full blast on that one.

Lord Help us from these globalists.

So twist all you want, get all your buddies to star you up. The truth is the truth.

ETA. This whole paper is a very subtle mind conditioning. If you anyone knows enough about the way to lead someone down a certain path with psychology... they will recognize it here. You say "oh how horrible this must be... (someone thinks stopped....) controlled" and then you subtly say how bad it would be to do it... but instead of focusing on stopping it you work on ways of doing it... and suggest it's even possible for individuals to do... which becomes almost a subtle invitation to do it... because of course it's going to get done anyways... so we must regulate it... by the end you're subconsciously thinking it is a necessary evil and must be done.
edit on 25-3-2011 by pianopraze because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by pianopraze
reply to post by weedwhacker
Still waiting for anyone to tell me how contrails could form when the conditions for contrails did not exist


why would anyone tell you that?



Typical procedure from the debunkers perspective. Avoid answering the valid questions that are asked of you.


Because the question is entirely dependent on a claim that has not been proven or even addressed (that I have seen so far), I am not just going to believe something someone states, because its on the internet. Unlike some people, I do like there to be evidence behind a claim, and if the claim was that contrails could not have formed, when in the photos there are contrails, well i want some backing of the claim, rather than to just take someones claim at face value.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Yep, the planned the whole world domination thing in that one weekend...


You're all or nothing shtick is good for stars. But this is just one part, and it fits well into their whole plan which is becoming increasingly obvious to the man on the street and is all over ATS.

They even admit in their papers how this will bring down diseases that haven't been around for a long time and lead to all sorts of health problems. It's a great two for one special


ETA for all those asking about the weather ballon. Mat originally posted this, I've posted it twice before this, and it continues to be avoided. I don't give a darn about the radar. The weather ballon data shows contrails could not form on the days he recorded "contrails"... so what were they if contrails could not form?

edit on 24-3-2011 by pianopraze because: added video



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 11:52 PM
link   


ETA for all those asking about the weather ballon. Mat originally posted this, I've posted it twice before this, and it continues to be avoided. I don't give a darn about the radar. The weather ballon data shows contrails could not form on the days he recorded "contrails"... so what were they if contrails could not form?


Finally, some kind of answer, but still not what I am looking for. HOW does the weather balloon data show that contrails could not have formed??? It doesnt need a long answer, just concisely tell me in your own words please...Give me numbers, percentages, temps..something!
edit on 24-3-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot

Finally, some kind of answer, but still not what I am looking for.


ROFLOL

Yep you're the one who's been waiting on an answer. You're so put upon. Mat posted this and I reiterated it over and over for pages and pages. 11 pages now. Gotta love all the cherry picking going on.

You've been ignoreing this from at least this post 11 pages.

I guess you still haven't bothered to watch it. All the info is in the video.
edit on 25-3-2011 by pianopraze because: formatting



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by pianopraze

Originally posted by firepilot

Finally, some kind of answer, but still not what I am looking for.


ROFLOL

Yep you're the one who's been waiting on an answer. You're so put upon. Mat posted this and I reiterated it over and over for pages and pages. 11 pages now. Gotta love all the cherry picking going on.

You've been ignoreing this from at least this post 11 pages.

I guess you still haven't bothered to watch it. All the info is in the video.
edit on 25-3-2011 by pianopraze because: formatting


How exactly can I ignore my own post, thats what that links to.



I, and others, will continue to refer to it as a religion. You all have FAITH that it is going on, inspite of no concrete evidence of it. When your chemtrail belief is attacked or debunked, you all get upset over it, just like how people react when their religion is attacked.

Sorry, but it is very much a faith based belief system you have. And like for many who are rather religious, they will eschew science anytime it is in opposition to that closely held belief. So if you do not like chemtrails being called a religion, then you all should quite having such religious type zeal about your faith in being sprayed.

Someday you will have to learn how a weather radar works. And no, release of some metal powder is not going to show up on it either.


yes, thats my post, and I stand behind it.

Its much more substantive to debate peoples words and thoughts, that for people to try to debate via youtube. If everyone just slapped up youtube videos in place of their own thoughts, where would it get us?

Points of views are best expressed with clear thoughts, not links to youtube videos.Is it your video or someone elses?
edit on 25-3-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   

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)


As soon as the particulate matter is released. it collects the moisture from the air which you have described to great detail. Well that process makes the particles big enough so tat they appear to be rain drops. That is how I believe that aluminum particulates can show up on radar and look like a big storm front but actually contain very little precipitation.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot
How exactly can I ignore my own post, thats what that links to.

Its much more substantive to debate peoples words and thoughts, that for people to try to debate via youtube. If everyone just slapped up youtube videos in place of their own thoughts, where would it get us?

Points of views are best expressed with clear thoughts, not links to youtube videos.Is it your video or someone elses?
edit on 25-3-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)

First of all I do not know you (and don't believe I've addressed you in the past) or have any preconceived notions about you but I do object your argument techniques.
Now, to directly answer your question and point out the techniques I ask you politely to refrain from using:

That post was your response to his post with the video, ergo your first time ignoring the data Mat presented. You cherry picked then and are still. This shows these two techniques:
**edit** Cherry picking technique. I lost the reference page and will try to look up, put wrong quote here before
Found it here it is:

Calculated Omission

Otherwise known as “cherry picking” data. One simple piece of information or root item of truth can derail an entire disinfo news story, so instead of trying to gloss over it, they simply pretend as if it doesn’t exist. When the fact is omitted, the lie can appear entirely rational. This tactic is also used extensively when disinformation agents and crooked journalists engage in open debate.

link

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic.

link

You are trying to shift focus in your last post to me from answering the question, so I will ask it again:

How can contrails form when this video shows the conditions did not exist? If they were not contrails then what were they?

The video provides data. All or nothing techniques suggests since there are some bad youtube videos then all youtube videos are bad. This is a good youtube video that directly addresses the topic at hand with well presented data. Data that has still not been addressed other than with a few weak periphery attempts to draw away from the core data. The hard fact is post after post, and your last post illustrates well... shift from the data and attack credibility or youtube videos or those posting the video which is a disinformation technique as outlined here:

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.


Please address the data, thank you.
edit on 25-3-2011 by pianopraze because: edited where i put **edit** posted wrong quote accidentally

edit on 25-3-2011 by pianopraze because: fixed missing link... see **edit**



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
As soon as the particulate matter is released. it collects the moisture from the air which you have described to great detail. Well that process makes the particles big enough so tat they appear to be rain drops. That is how I believe that aluminum particulates can show up on radar and look like a big storm front but actually contain very little precipitation.


That's a great idea, Mathias. In fact, we all but forgot (in the heat of argument) that poor little fairies have to pee, once in a while.

And, to quote you, 'that process makes the particles big enough so that they appear to be rain drops.'

That's it, dude. Chemtrails explained. Thanks.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Nope, not at all. Cherry Picking would be taking one thing that is not important from an argument. But when it comes to people and their conspiracies, well often they just throw up things in an not well thought out manner, and can just one massive error, to render the rest of it moot.

For example, Mathias once posted a video, shot from Pinal Airpark in AZ, that displayed aircraft missing engines, aircraft that have not moved in years, aircraft with parts off of their wings, and it also claimed that aircraft with rear mounted engines were actually not engines but aerosol spray devices. That was all utter nonsense, and rather invalidated his whole theme of the message.

Sorry, that was not cherry picking anything, that was a video that he chose to post. As many completely wrong things that he has posted, no one has to cherry pick anything.

And if your entire claim is centered around contrails supposedly not being able to form, well its not like anyone has to go through everything else, if that is the lynchpin of your argument and the basis of your idea, because if that is invalid, then the rest of it goes. No one gets graded on averages here.

yes, i did see that video and I have an idea what you may be referring to. However, I have wanted you to express the claim in your own words, and in your own thoughts. I expect that of others, but its something I do myself though too. if I cant put my thoughts into words, I am not going to rely on someone elses youtube video to do it for me.

Nowhere in that video when I briefly watched it before, was there any mention of consulting contrail formation charts.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 




The weather ballon data shows contrails could not form on the days he recorded "contrails"


I've decided to have another look at the video, where have you concluded that contrails could not form? Just because he said so?

If I'm reading the chart right, conditions were right for contrail formation.

Here's the chart:



I've added 3 lines to help clarify a bit, these lines are based from the Appleman Chart

The two horizontal lines represent typical aircraft flight height and the diagonal shows the 40° C line more clearer.

As you can see, the dew point (which represents humidity) and temperature both pass within the parameters of contrails forming.

Now, I'm not fully familiar with the chart presented so I could be wrong but the guy on youtube could be wrong too since he's wrong about this statement:



Humidity and temperature on the ground means nothing when contrails are forming 30,000 feet above.

I can also prove the statement is wrong because I myself have taken photos of persistent contrails from passing jets whilst in the middle of the desert on a 40+° day.





And my approximate location:



So make what you will of it, but the guy isn't the full beans on the subject.





edit on 25/3/11 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
Humidity and temperature on the ground means nothing when contrails are forming 30,000 feet above.



Edit.. hmm on rereading your post maybe you did attempt to debunk it. will have to examine and get back with you. Two thumbs up for addressing data


here's a graphic to show where the weather ballon data was taken... anywise


edit on 25-3-2011 by pianopraze because: edit to add graphic then reread post and noticed he did address data



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


The Appleman chart is not perfect..
But it appears to only be inaccurate when debunkers need it to be..



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 


I already responded to this. I posted a video that was in response to a request to name a company I thought was involved. That video was about evergreen Aviation. I never claimed I agreed with everything in that video I only offered it up for viewing as an example of who might be doing it.

I named quite a few companies and organizations, like NASA, IPCC, CFR, GCRIO, Battelle, Raytheon, Applied signals technologies, Evergreen Aviation, Cargolux and many many more



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


What other weather balloons are you talking about??

One chart was shown from one balloon on your video and that one appears to show favourable conditions for contrails!



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


It's looking pretty acurate to me.

But it is just a guide developed in the 60's.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by backinblack
 


It's looking pretty acurate to me.
But it is just a guide developed in the 60's.


Yeah but I've seen it said conditions are perfect for contrails but then no contrails occur..
Always an excuse..
Seems it's only used to debunk and that's it...



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Ok, re-watched video and read your links; thank you for the info.

He is saying that on many days he observed contrails, the humidity was "well below 60 percent" That graph is basically an explanation of what he asserted not the observations themselves (the graph is reprinted here in black and white). All the papers I could find agree with the assertions of the maker of the video.

So with all that information, you have still not shown how contrails could form when the conditions do not exist. You have only made me understand the video, much better.

Totally off topic... I love the NASA educational papers for school children I found researching this post which only reference other propaganda papers


priceless...

ETA. I'm going to be busy this weekend volunteering so I'll check back in Sunday. It's 4:35 am so I'm going to bed now

edit on 25-3-2011 by pianopraze because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


So with all that information, you have still not shown how contrails could form when the conditions do not exist.


And the opposite has been shown..
Contrails NOT forming in ideal conditions....

That's when the Appleman Chart is suddenly not so accurate..
IMO, that chart should never be used as proof..
It's been proven wrong so many times..



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 03:43 AM
link   
Its so strange I ask for information from phage and he won't answer my question I know why he won't and to me that just proves what we are saying here is true.
I can't say I blame him but I did think that he being one of the smartest member's on ats when it came to the science behind contrail's would be the best member to ask so it raises the question why he won't answer a simple question like mine.
It's also strange how whenever I've been posted a link to information on contrail's and how they form they all lack one vital bit of information about the length of time a contrail will last for.
So I'm doing my research the right way and I ask for help and all I get is silence in reply.




top topics



 
36
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join