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: 45
36
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


OK so we have those facts straight I now have another question if you don't mind I am asking you because you seam to have the best knowage here when it comes to the science.
How often would you say the conditions are right for persistent contrail's to form out of a year I don't mind if you estimate I know you can not be exact but I just want a rough idea.
Now I know that contrail's to cirrus clouds is about 1 hour would you agree ?




posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 

Who said anything about radar?

I showed you the upper air sounding data. There are large gaps in it.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by djcarlosa
 

How often does it rain in a year? It depends on weather conditions. It depends on the time of year.

No. I would not agree. Cirrus clouds can last for many hours, so can contrails.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


sorry mate, I misread... am in a hurry as i'm going out the door.

Will reread when i get home later.

cheers,
piano



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by jdub297
 
I gather that you speculate that there is absolutely nothing being sprayed into the atmosphere for any reason. You see no reason why anyone that potentially has the capability to do so, would do so. You may believe that no one has the capability to spray anything on a grand scale like chemtrails are alleged to being sprayed. It appears you reject the notion that the many thousands of people that believe chemtrail spraying exists have any merit for believing so. Furthermore, you reject outright all websites and any organizations and individuals that report on chemtrails that have been brought to your attention, and proclaim that they are not worthy of any serious consideration.
Is that fair?


You "gather" nothing but your own projections.

All I've done in this thread is ask for a testable hypothesis.

People can speculate all they want about any topic. Threads that focus on a topic such as "chemtrails" should ask questions if their authors and followers want to speculate.

A statement of fact or assertion of proof is NOT speculation. If you state "the gay marriage movement is using alien aircraft to spray kryptonite on our field mice to increase the growth of toadstools," then you should be able to back up some of it.

Supporting any thread or post with "I feel like ...," or "Everyone knows that ..." "I'm sure that ..." is not speculation either; it is opinion and argument.

Your attribution to me of "absolutely nothing being sprayed" to me is utterly false. Show me where I've said that.

I know that cloud seeding, insect eradication, paint application and crowd control all require the release of aerosols into the atmosphere; some not so good for us. That does not equate with the hysterical fear of aircraft contrails.

Your attribution to me of "no reason why anyone that potentially has the capability to do so, would do so," is equally false and an affront to common sense. Just as anyone who could post utter rubbish in this thread will do so (to wit: the quoted post), so will people who have access to ANY technology use it to the extent they can to further their agenda or meet their needs.

Please explain why you believe that I think that, "no one has the capability to spray anything on a grand scale."
Again, more false statements offered as fact - exactly as the "chemtrail" fearful have done for years.

When you make this many serial false assertions, it becomes clear that your agenda does not include truth, but an opportunity to rant and rage at perceived slights. Exactly what I'd expect from a devout believer whose faith has been shattered.

And why would you have the opinion that I, "reject the notion that the many thousands of people that believe chemtrail spraying exists have any merit for believing so?" If you've read my posts, you'd see that I WANT to know what they believe, I WANT to see what convinces them that "chemtrails" are real and have a purpose, whether sinister or benign (especially since they can't even agree on THAT)!

So, what is YOUR hypothesis? Who, what, when, where, why, how is all you have to state.
Give me a single statement of the nature and purpose of "chemtrails." I'm still waiting for the OP and others. The most the OP has offered is "geo-engineering." A one-word hypothesis? No, a wild guess unless he can back it up.

How can you say that I, "reject outright all websites and any organizations and individuals that report on chemtrails," when I've made no such statements or cast any such aspersions? In fact, I have quoted "aircrap"'s
statement of purpose; they believe that the phenomenon is nefarious and intended to murder the innocent.

Let's take 2 examples of support/justification for "chemtrails," and let's consider them:

1st: ""Chemtrails" are to poison people and reduce the population below 500,000,000."

When "chemtrails" were first proposed and discussed as real phenomena, the population of the Earth was 4,750,000,000. After 20 years of increasing technology, flights, and scrutiny; today, the pop. is 6,125,000,000.
Isn't that sort of an indictment of THAT theory?

2nd: ""Chemtrails" are to mitigate against man-made global warming."

According the the leading AGW advocates and climate-watchers, the Earth has gotten .5 to 2.0 C degrees warmer since the phenomenon has been observed! And, some solutions, such as sulfur dioxide aerosol injection, are invisible to the naked eye! How does the observed result justify the proposed manner and means?

In sum, your formerly-unshakeable adherence to your faith and fear has blinded your ability to perceive such simple facts as what I have posted, what I have stated, and what I have looked for in my observations here of the "chemtrail" hysteria.

Is that fair?

deny ignorance
jw



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 

new physics that only involves math at 2nd grade level, which yet manages to explain everything, even what would leave Feynman puzzled.


Funny you should mention Richard Feynman in this thread.

Probably the greatest theoretical physicist, if not scientist in general, Feynman believed that you should look at anything that could be wrong with your theory, not just at what you believe is right about it.

He could be terribly cruel in his criticism of colleagues who failed to or refused to consider that they might be wrong before insisting that they were correct.

Such self-criticism would spare the "chemtrail" advocates a world of pain, and enhance their credibility far beyond the group-hug so many prefer to analysis.
s4u.

jw



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 

Still waiting for anyone to tell me how contrails could form when the conditions for contrails did not exist


The balloons are not accurate. They tend to over-predict and under-predict, depending upon circumstance.
The readings upon which the predictions are based are local and transient.

How's that?

jw



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by djcarlosa
 

How often would you say the conditions are right for persistent contrail's to form out of a year I don't mind if you estimate I know you can not be exact but I just want a rough idea.


Conditions for persistence are always present somewhere. Depending upon the local conditions at altitude, it is only a matter of physics. As Page pointed out, it's the same as asking when rain might fall or clouds might form.

We should all agree by now that contrails are nothing more than clouds, whether filled with water, or a make-believe mix of poison and geo-engineering particles.


Now I know that contrail's to cirrus clouds is about 1 hour would you agree ?


No. All contrails ARE cirrus; see above.

I made a series of observations Saturday, Mar. 19, 2011 beginning at dawn, and clear to partly cloudy skies, through evening with broken overcast. Contrails did not form, dissipated in seconds, and persisted for hours during this period, depending upon the location of the plane and changing weather conditions.

The contrails formed X, II, and + shapes as flight paths crossed. Some were above the dominant cloud bank, others below. Some planes traveling E to W left persistent contrails above the clouds, while others traveling N to S did not leave any. Some of the trails that crossed dissipated while the other persisted.

Most of the persistent contrails were perpendicular to the front that advanced in the afternoon, passing either into or over the cloud bank. Most of the dissipating contrails, and the planes that left none, were parallel to the front line. Passing through otherwise clear skies ahead of the advancing clouds. The clouds themselves dissipated at first, as they advanced near overhead from the SW to the ENE.

There were no "chemtrails" observed that day, or on the 3 days prior to it. The ground temperature ranged from the mid 40'sF, to the mid 70's. Humidity ranged from 100% (drizzling) to 40% (clear to partly cloudy). The "super moon" was partly obscured by high cirrus Saturday night.

In sum, changing weather conditions favored some contrail formation, no formation at all, and persistence over the course of a 12 hour period. Clouds ahead of a front advanced, independently of contrails, over the latter half of the afternoon.

All as one would expect under the laws of physics and changing atmospheric conditions.

jw



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 



He could be terribly cruel in his criticism of colleagues who failed to or refused to consider that they might be wrong before insisting that they were correct.

Such self-criticism would spare the "chemtrail" advocates a world of pain, and enhance their credibility far beyond the group-hug so many prefer to analysis.


Obviously you are not reading his view correctly or you would note his criticism could equally apply to you..



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 
Although Feynman's observation applies universally to theorists, it does not apply to me in this thread as I've posited no theories of my own. I've asked many questions, and received no substantive responses from the "chentrail" believers, just name-calling for calling their bluff.

What are you going to contribute of substance?

jw



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 



What are you going to contribute of substance?

I guess you could read my posts on the subject to find out..
But my mind isn't closed either way, unlike some..



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by jdub297
 



What are you going to contribute of substance?

I guess you could read my posts on the subject to find out..
But my mind isn't closed either way, unlike some..


My mind is totally open to the possibility of chemical spraying. That's why I looked at the evidence. However, the evidence I have seen does not convince me that widespread, systematic, high-altitude global spraying of chemicals from airplanes is happening.

I'm not postulating a theory that it says spraying cannot happen -- I'm simply saying that I don't see good evidence for Mathias' theory that it is happening.

I wish Mathias' (and others such as pianopraze) mind was a bit more open. He seems to have closed it to the possibility that contrails are just contrails. And just because people over the years have discussed the possibility of geo-engineeringm that doesn't mean it is happening?

No matter the evidence that he has been shown that contrails can persist for hours, he still refutes that fact. that they can. He says he has no evidence of geo-engineering from the air, but thinks it must be happening only because people have discussed ways it could be done.

I'd say he has the closed mind.


edit on 3/25/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 



I'm not postulating a theory that it says spraying cannot happen -- I'm simply saying that I don't see any evidence for Mathias' theory that it is happening.


Well I would say it is happening but not on the scale some seem to believe..
Past records show it has been done and I have no reason to believe it hasn't continued..
But to consider every contrail a chemtrail is silly..



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 

Of course we have heard incidents of biological agents being test-sprayed in the air in the past, but that does not mean that the whole population is systematically being poisoned today. I don't believe that I am being intentionally poisoned, nor do I believe there is necessarily any poisoning by spraying happening today.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   

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

Of course we have heard incidents of biological agents being test-sprayed in the air in the past, but that does not mean that the whole population is systematically being poisoned today. I don't believe that I am being intentionally poisoned, nor do I believe there is necessarily any poisoning by spraying happening today.


Would you care to show where I mentioned poisoning ??
Please don't put words in my mouth or twist what I post..

If I wanted to directly poison a population then personally I'd use the water supply..
Spraying is too inefficient...



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   

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



I'm not postulating a theory that it says spraying cannot happen -- I'm simply saying that I don't see any evidence for Mathias' theory that it is happening.


Well I would say it is happening but not on the scale some seem to believe..


What scale would you say it is happening? And why that particular scale - what is it designed to achieve?



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 

I agree -- but then as Aloysius asked, what scale are you talking about? What spraying happened in the past that you believe could be happening today?


Past records show it has been done and I have no reason to believe it hasn't continued..

For me, having no reason to believe something hasn't continued is not enough for me to be convinced that it IS continuing.

I need evidence that confirms the positive, rather than looking for evidence that denies the negative.


edit on 3/25/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


IMO there is plenty of reason to "assume" that the past known programmes have not continued - the same records that show they happened also show they stopped.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 



I need evidence that confirms the positive, rather than looking for evidence that denies the negative.


The past spraying wasn't confirmed for years..
I guess I don't trust Governments as much as you guys do...



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   

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



I need evidence that confirms the positive, rather than looking for evidence that denies the negative.


The past spraying wasn't confirmed for years..
I guess I don't trust Governments as much as you guys do...

I'm sure the government has the ability to do a lot of nefarious stuff to me. However, just because they have the ability doesn't mean that anything I think they can do, they are doing (unless someone proves to me that they aren't). If that were the case, I would be afraid to wake up and leave the house in the morning.







 
36
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join