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: 46
36
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 



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.


Well they didn't tell you last time so why do you think they would now??
The FACT that they are capable and have done this in the past is irrefutable.

So you are only arguing if they are still doing it, not if they can or have..
I'll leave this side of the debate at that..




posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 01:29 AM
link   
Geoengineering: Global Salvation or Ruin

These videos are experts discussing the subject of geoengineering

fora.tv geoengineering videos
fora.tv...
Geoengineering experts discuss geoengineering
fora.tv...



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I'm running on so little sleep i can hardly think strait and have to be somewhere in 8 hours and sleep in between.

It seems your suggesting the instrument they use does not make a continuous data record, it only takes it every so often and there could be layers of different air...

So you're throwing speculation into it, not refuting the data.

This seems might thin page. If you can't refute the findings cast speculation on it by any means. Sorry, I'm not buying it. Just because there might be supper slim layers... that is less likely considering he recorded many days of this. A given thing might happen rarely does not really answer this. Planes fly at all sorts of altitudes. The chances that day after day week after week there would be these slim layers at exactly the level they are flying is stretching it.

All things being equal, the more likely answer is usually the simplest... these are not contrails. What they are I don't know. But I've read a lot of different papers proposing different things they want to spray.

I'll give you an A for effort.

If you were using the weather ballon data and I were suggesting what your suggesting I think you would, do what you usually do in such situations. But I won't do that to you, I will just say:

I'm not buying it.

Show me a paper that states contrails form at low humidity. Especially show me a paper that says persistent contrails form at low humidity.

I'll check back in after midnight tomorrow. Will be busy all day.

piano



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
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.


I will grant you the fact that aerosol sprays have been experimented with in the distant past. However, even those experiments did not involve high-altitude spraying from aircraft.

Where is the connection to "chemtrails?"

"Chemtrail" faithful/fearful seize upon the terms "government" and "spraying" and immediately make the illogical "deduction" that one equals the other. Government has been spraying paint, pesticides, tear gas, fire retardants, water and smoke for decades, even before jet aircraft were invented. I've been spraying deodorant, air freshener, glass cleaner and fertilizer for decades.

Only an ill-informed advocate or a determined deceiver would offer the conclusion that any one or combination of the above equals to or supports a belief in"chemtrails."

deny ignorants

jw



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 

It seems your suggesting the instrument they use does not make a continuous data record, it only takes it every so often and there could be layers of different air...
So you're throwing speculation into it, not refuting the data.


The objectiverecords themselves are the best evidence that gaps exist. No speculation required.

Show me the objective proof of "chemtrails."

After 20 years of hysteria, there is not one objective, peer-reviewed study published in support of this phenomenon.


... cast speculation on it by any means. Sorry, I'm not buying it.


Yet you readily accept "chemtrail" speculation! This is "conclusion bias," and has no place in science.


All things being equal, the more likely answer is usually the simplest... these are not contrails.


That is NOT the simplest answer. The simplest answer is that they ARE contrails!

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, not speculation and possibilities.


What they are I don't know.

Given that admission, how can you even claim they are NOT contrails?


But I've read a lot of different papers proposing different things they want to spray.


"Want to" has never equaled "is," in any stretch of logic or science.

If these are your best efforts, they only add to the derision of "chemtrail science."

deny ignorance
jw



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   

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



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.


Well they didn't tell you last time so why do you think they would now??
The FACT that they are capable and have done this in the past is irrefutable.

So you are only arguing if they are still doing it, not if they can or have..
I'll leave this side of the debate at that..


They could be. Please show me that they are.
Until you do, I can't simply assume that they are.


EDIT TO ADD:
Plus, just because a country once did something, that does not mean they are still doing it. Canada as a country was once a huge promoter of whaling. It was a major part of there economy. However, Whaling has all but stopped in Canada, except for the Inuits, which have some autonomy over the "European" Canada. The Inuits would not allow the Canadian government to dictate a ban on whaling for them.

Just because the European Canadian government once promoted whaling in the past doesn't mean they still promote it today.


edit on 3/26/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by pianopraze
reply to post by Phage
 


It seems your suggesting the instrument they use does not make a continuous data record, it only takes it every so often and there could be layers of different air...


There's that, and the fact that conditions conducive to contrail production can be highly localized.

The atmosphere in one region of the sky that the readings were taken may NOT be conducive to trail production, but just a few hundred meters away (where no readings were taken), the conditions may be favorable for contrails.


edit on 3/26/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by zipcode80013
 


Zipcode wrote


I grew up in Oklhoma. And my brother was a jet mech. Tinker AFB was the B52 home and The B52 needed to use an afterburner at times. And those were the engines he worked on.


The B-52 did not use afterburner. On some B-52 variants water injection was used in both the turbojet and turbofan engines fitted. The water injection was used to boost the power. There was no afterburner/re-heat as the J57 and TF33 engines fitted did not have it fitted. It is this type of information that makes your case look very poor.

www.faqs.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

TJ



edit on 26-3-2011 by tommyjo because: Spelling



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Mathius,

What are the AH-64 Apaches there for? Come on you must have an explanation? Are they there to keep people away from the Evergreen 'Chemtrail' planes.

Wow look at all those planes ready to be 'converted'? How did the authorities allow them to be photographed?

www.airliners.net...

TJ



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by tommyjo
 


What are you talking about?
What does your question have to do with the topic at hand? Are you just trying to be funny? Everybody wants to be a comedian. Too bad you're not a very good one. It was so funny I forgot to laugh.


edit on 26-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: edit text



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by tommyjo
 


What are you talking about?
What does your question have to do with the topic at hand? Are you just trying to be funny? Everybody wants to be a comedian. Too bad you're not a very good one. It was so funny I forgot to laugh.


edit on 26-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: edit text


He is posting in regards to that video that you posted. You know, the one you posted of Pinal airpark, and the tail mounted aerosol tanks


I do hope Mathias, that you kinda got taken for a ride by whoever made that video. Put a bit more critical thinking into it, and dont just blindly post things. It may save you some embarassment!

edit on 26-3-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 



There's that, and the fact that conditions conducive to contrail production can be highly localized.

The atmosphere in one region of the sky that the readings were taken may NOT be conducive to trail production, but just a few hundred meters away (where no readings were taken), the conditions may be favorable for contrails.


And yet we see many pics of multiple contrails crossing the skies from horizon to horizon..



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 

Do you feel better now firepilot?
There is a little note above the reply/comments screen..
You are an experienced contributor to ATS. Please be an example for our newer members and make every post matter.
You did read it...

Try to elevate the conversation, as opposed to trying to score smug laughs from you friends.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by firepilot
 

Do you feel better now firepilot?
There is a little note above the reply/comments screen..
You are an experienced contributor to ATS. Please be an example for our newer members and make every post matter.
You did read it...

Try to elevate the conversation, as opposed to trying to score smug laughs from you friends.




I wasnt trying to be smug, I was trying to give him sincere advice to look at something and think about it, before just posting it. Mathias may mean well, but he has had a bit of a shotgun style of posting, where he posts a lot of things up, but doesnt really look that much at what he puts in a post at times, leading to him getting kidded by us evil debunkers here, when its something ridiculous. He chose to put that video up, and he chose to cut and paste a paragraph about rear mounted aerosol tanks, which were actually just get engines.

I do hope he realizes that he fell for that video, and channels any embarassment into being a bit more skeptical about such videos made by people on his side of the argument. Instead of just blinding posting that video from Pinal, he could have given a link and asked what any pilots or anyone else for that matter thought about it, and I would have gladly told him the reality of that place, and that it was not at all like what the person who made that video stated.

There is nothing wrong with asking a question when its an area of knowledge that one does not know alot about.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 


I don't feel I got taken at all. Just because the airplane didn't have all the equipment needed for flight at the time it was photographed, doesn't mean it wasn't being modified and repaired. For all we know that plane might be in use right now. Can you tell me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the airplane is not in use?

Besides, I already explained why I posted the video. I was giving an example of a private company capable of doing it. You took the context of why I posted that video completely wrong. This is the third time I have corrected someone for this type of comment. Either you missed it the first time and the last time or you're just trying to argue a mute point.
 

One reason I'm posting this video is that at ...1:02 - 1:18...... they show some sacks labeled barium chloride and then show a close up of dust particulates labeled aluminum oxide. I can't prove they are real but everyone can judge that for themself. I also agree with the text in the video.


.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
Videos speak for themself


Mathius,
You are aware that the first video has the fake image in it? Why are you still presenting it as evidence? Yes, the videos do speak for themselves. It shows exactly how much you are clutching at straws by presenting it as 'evidence'.

TJ



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Of course it is relevant. You are the one presenting these videos time after time as evidence. When questioned about them you always try to deflect and simply go onto another topic. You haven't even had the decency to reply to anyone that pointed out the photo shopped image. You know the one that you still present as evidence even in your latest video presentations? So did you contact Craig Roberts? You consider him an expert?

See following. Any explanation?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

TJ



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by firepilot
 


I don't feel I got taken at all. Just because the airplane didn't have all the equipment needed for flight at the time it was photographed, doesn't mean it wasn't being modified and repaired. For all we know that plane might be in use right now. Can you tell me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the airplane is not in use?


Yes. Mathius, this is why you are so out of your depth when discussing matters in relation to aviation. It isn't exactly rocket science to work it out. You are the one presenting the facility as a chemtrail plane conversion plant, so shouldn't you know about the aircraft stored there?

The Boeing 747 in question is registration N477EV

www1.airliners.net...

www.planes.cz...

www.planespotters.net...

www.rzjets.net...

See posting from enthusiast who logged the aircraft stored there?

forum.scramble.nl...

TJ


edit on 26-3-2011 by tommyjo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by firepilot
 


One reason I'm posting this video is that at ...1:02 - 1:18...... they show some sacks labeled barium chloride and then show a close up of dust particulates labeled aluminum oxide. I can't prove they are real but everyone can judge that for themself. I also agree with the text in the video.


What do you mean that you can't prove that they are real? You can source them on the internet. All they are are images of products that are available for sale on the web.

Copy and paste the following into a search engine.

'barium chloride hg/t1617-2002'

'aluminum oxide 1000 grit'

www.tedpella.com...

What is so mysterious about the above?

The video is just a collection of images. At 01:38 it also contains the photo shopped image from the centre of gravity water ballast test flight. You know the one that you won't talk about!

TJ



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by firepilot
 



Besides, I already explained why I posted the video. I was giving an example of a private company capable of doing it.


As I told you several weeks ago, there are thousands of companies capable of modifying aircraft around the world - I worked for 3 of them.

Pretty much every large airline will have the capability. Lots of 3rd party maintainers do. There are even hundreds of companies overseas from the USA that hold modification approvals from the FAA.

This does not need proving - it is patently obvious, well known forever, axiomatic....and part of normal aviation business!!

"Proving" this is like "proving" your corner mechanic can fix your car, or your local panel beater can knock out a dent!

Congratulations - you illustrated the bleedin' obvious.




top topics



 
36
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join