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: 48
36
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Why are so many like you so hell bent on debunking??
Your style tells me it's not to be nice...So why ??


Two reasons, really.
1st, when I first started watching ATS it was a forum for thoughtful discussion of controversial topics. Today it has become a playground for children and childlike "thinkers" who post opinions dressed as facts, "facts" that are no more than YouTube and Wikipedia regurgitation, and who have no desire to look at what might be wrong with their position before insisting it is the only correct one and that any who question them or poke holes in false analogies are "shills," "disinfo agents" or paid fantasy assassins.

2nd, While I agree that ATS is an excellent marketplace of ideas, it is now dominated by fearmongers who are so desperate to cling to empty propositions that they grasp at straws, including the incorporation of other fearful beliefs into their original assertions without any reasonable basis for doing so.


Really, can't you discuss "chemtrails" without bringing in "Nibiru" or "mind control?" Can't you be more specific than "they" when discussing those responsible for your beliefs?

In my opinion, the more you rely on silly emoticons, and resort to little more than name-calling, projection and denial in response to a question or statement, the less faith you have in your underlying proposition and the less credibility you deserve as a "researcher" or analyst. If you have to resort to posting videos without explanation of what they are, or misrepresenting what they portray, or use funny little faces and insults to express yourself, you no longer have any reason to post at all.

I go out of my way to avoid personal attacks and generalize as much as possible unless a specific response has been requested, as you have here.

In short, I happen to take the "Deny Ignorance" theme seriously, and feel compelled to point out flawed arguments.

So, why don't you please state your hypothesis for "chemtrails" and lets look at it as I've outlined a couple of posts above?




posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by backinblack
 


Why are so many like you so hell bent on debunking??
Your style tells me it's not to be nice...So why ??


Two reasons, really.
1st, when I first started watching ATS it was a forum for thoughtful discussion of controversial topics. Today it has become a playground for children and childlike "thinkers" who post opinions dressed as facts, "facts" that are no more than YouTube and Wikipedia regurgitation, and who have no desire to look at what might be wrong with their position before insisting it is the only correct one and that any who question them or poke holes in false analogies are "shills," "disinfo agents" or paid fantasy assassins.

2nd, While I agree that ATS is an excellent marketplace of ideas, it is now dominated by fearmongers who are so desperate to cling to empty propositions that they grasp at straws, including the incorporation of other fearful beliefs into their original assertions without any reasonable basis for doing so.


Really, can't you discuss "chemtrails" without bringing in "Nibiru" or "mind control?" Can't you be more specific than "they" when discussing those responsible for your beliefs?

In my opinion, the more you rely on silly emoticons, and resort to little more than name-calling, projection and denial in response to a question or statement, the less faith you have in your underlying proposition and the less credibility you deserve as a "researcher" or analyst. If you have to resort to posting videos without explanation of what they are, or misrepresenting what they portray, or use funny little faces and insults to express yourself, you no longer have any reason to post at all.

I go out of my way to avoid personal attacks and generalize as much as possible unless a specific response has been requested, as you have here.

In short, I happen to take the "Deny Ignorance" theme seriously, and feel compelled to point out flawed arguments.

So, why don't you please state your hypothesis for "chemtrails" and lets look at it as I've outlined a couple of posts above?


"Really, can't you discuss "chemtrails" without bringing in "Nibiru" or "mind control?" Can't you be more specific than "they" when discussing those responsible for your beliefs?"--jdub297

Know you weren't responding to me, but I'd be happy to discuss open and above board IF you really mean it.

How about we start in a logical place with some simple footage and try and get a handle on just EXACTLY what it is that people are seeing with their own eyes that makes them think that some trails coming from some planes may be substantially different than trails coming from other planes. Would that be a fair, rational, and reasonable place to start. No Nibiru, no aliens. etc. sound good?

Can we do this by starting to review the footage posted at the link here: Fair enough?

www.disclose.tv...
edit on 27-3-2011 by Tecumte because: text correction



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Why are so many like you so hell bent on debunking??
Your style tells me it's not to be nice...So why ??


Supose you were a doctor or a nutritionist. And people kept posted threads saying that eating fruit was very bad for you and causes your hair to fall out and your toenails to turn green. And that there's a Govt conspiracy to prevent the public from knowing this. And loads of youtube videos about it - so it 'must' be true.

What would you do?



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


MAJOR FAIL, piano!!

You don't know how to read the radiosonde data?? I mean, I see how you altered it to made the "Rel Humidity" in red....BUT, (without me going to ALL the trouble of copy/pasting/quoting your bits, from your post)**

**EDIT...Ah, heck....on second thought, if I don't find the pertinent bits, and re-post them, then people might not actually go back to LOOK at the original, and my points would be lost on them:

Here, from your error-filled post:


Originally posted by pianopraze

Once you get above ten thousand feet the humidity data is in the teens:

250.0 10620 -51.7 -69.7 10 0.01 325 65 329.1 329.1 329.1
248.2 10668 -52.0 -69.5 10 0.01 325 64 329.4 329.4 329.4
246.0 10724 -52.3 -69.3 11 0.01 325 66 329.7 329.8 329.7

Once you get to 20 thousand feet it stays in the low single digits:

53.0 20407 -54.5 -75.5 6 0.03 360 0 506.1 506.3 506.1
52.9 20422 -54.5 -75.5 6 0.03 0 0 506.4 506.6 506.4
50.0 20780 -54.5 -75.5 6 0.03 345 5 514.6 514.8 514.6



First line, first "[ ex ]" external source box (in blue):

250.0 --- (THAT is the height, in pressure millibars. Might want to Google that, to prove it to yourself)...
10620 --- (THAT is the height equivalent of 250 Mb, in METERS! Ten thousand, six hundred twenty meters. Know what? THAT is ALSO about the normal cruising altitudes for airliners. WE think in FEET, in most of the world. Convert 10,620 M to Feet = 34,842 Ft. CLOSE to 35,000 feet. Flight Level 350!)

Meters to Feet conversion calculator.


Of course, cruise altitudes are common below, and above FL350 as well. BUT, stickin gjust at the 250Mb level, we see 10% RH and temperature of -51.7° Celsius.

Appleman Chart

ENTER the Chart....at the 250 Mb level, left side.....draw a horizontal line to the right. From the bottom, draw a vertical line from 51.7° (or, 52°) and see where the two llines intersect.

IS it in the area defined as "ALWAYS CONTRAILS"???

Looky.

LOOKY, LOOKY.

(A more knowledgeable approach, and using more care, you wouldn't have made such boners). I'm afraid your strong CONFIRMATION BIAS was at work, here. It is responsible for the entire "chem"-trail HOAX, too.


What you provided is a sterling example of WHY the "chem"-trail HOAX keeps on keepin' on....

Garbage In -- Garbage Out.

False/incorrect/incompetent interpretation of data = Garbage In.

FALSE conclusions drawn, and repeated, and IGNORANTLY spread = Garbage Out.

Sad. SO sad.....and, just doing more and more damage to intelligent understanding. BUT, playing very well into the hands of those "chem"-trail hoax profiteers. They are LOVING it!!


"IF" this seems a bit harsh, or overly sarcastic? Well....imagine the sheer frustration when such mistakes are made, and NO ONE who is similarly inclined, with the same proclivity towards the "chem"-trail CONFIRMATION BIAS bothers to check your facts. They just read your post, and nod along in "agreement"...further cementing the ignorance, and perpetuating it.



edit on 27 March 2011 by weedwhacker because: it's complicated.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by backinblack

Why are so many like you so hell bent on debunking??
Your style tells me it's not to be nice...So why ??


Supose you were a doctor or a nutritionist. And people kept posted threads saying that eating fruit was very bad for you and causes your hair to fall out and your toenails to turn green. And that there's a Govt conspiracy to prevent the public from knowing this. And loads of youtube videos about it - so it 'must' be true.

What would you do?


I think a better example would be suppose you kept on top of world events, knew full well that a certain countries oil and switch to the euro (from the dollar) would create a major response fro those who saw that as threat, and they were telling you they had to take steps because there were 'weapons of mass destrcution' there that had to be dealt with. What would you do?



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 




Also this weather balloon data does not show any huge gaps as phage suggested. Nowhere is there a gap of more than a few hundred feet.


The sounding you posted is from Chatham Massachusetts. Weren't we talking about Arizona?

The altitudes are in meters, not feet. It's too bad you left out the most critical altitudes.
Between 10,724 meters and 10,912 a gap of 617 feet
Between 10,192 meters and 11,418 a gap of 1,659 feet
Between 11,418 meters and 11,582 a gap of 534 feet
Between 11,582 meters and 12,050 a gap of 1,535 feet
weather.uwyo.edu...

You didn't read the source I provided, did you? Radiosonde data cannot be relied upon to provide data on supersaturated layers. The layers in which persistent contrails form


edit on 3/27/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   
I offered a cordial invitation to anyone who is still not aware of or doesn't believe that atospheric modification is occuring above in the world's skies. Seems like all the birds flew off. Home come? Doesn't anybody want to exchnage ideas on that, I'm prety sure I read posts to the contrary.

I offered to start the exchnage with a simple observation of EXACTLY what it is that people are seeing that might allow them to conclude that this was a reasonable assumption. No takers???

Let's just start by viewing this video that was posted on another thread and maybe (assuming anyone REALLY wants to get to the bottom of this and not just try and cloud the issue) see what it's all about. I think that sounds pretty fair. How about it?

www.disclose.tv...



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Tecumte
 


SO? That video is nonsense, in its claims:


I offered a cordial invitation .....

....Let's just start by viewing this video.


I only had to watch the first TWO minutes, to know I had seen it many, many times before. OTHER than on "Disclose TV", BTW. YouTube. Whomever made it displays nothing but ABJECT ignorance of science, aviation and meteorology.


Took notes, just for the first bits. The Irish weather forecaster? Everything she says is correct. ONLY the person posting the video seems to think she is "embarrassed" at all. Very deceptive on the part of the video poster.

@1:00. The often repeated, and incredibly stupid claim of "no windows"!! Just ponder on that, for a while. That, BTW, is obviously an Airbus A340, at altitude and being videoed with extreme magnification....but, still from 7 to 8 miles away, the camera CANNOT make out the tiny passenger windows, that are on the SIDES, and ABOVE the center-line of the middle of the fuselage!!! NOT from that low angle, from the ground!! Plus, the contrails are all coming from where is perfectly normal....one contrail, from each engine EXHAUST....(just as the TV weather lady said).

@1:12, "Penzance, Wales". Two airliners, each at different altitudes. Atmospheric conditions are always variable...so, one making a much more obvious CONTRAIL than the other is. See it all the time.

@1:40, YES!! Jets DO make turns in flight!!! Again, why bother watching the rest of that idiot video? More of the same ignorance, repeated......



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


No weedwhacker I think you're missing the point of why I reposted the video. I'm not making any claims (yet) about the person in the video's interpretation of events, I simply wanted us all to PERSONALLY observe what we can BOTH (all) see in the footage as to the effects of the planes exhaust on the sky. Let's just start there. Tell me what you see.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew


Actually it does. If the sign is present it proves that there is a cover up. It also proves that there is more than just water in those tanks. It also proves you all have either been fooled by the cover up or are part of it and have been lying. Which if that is the case it discredits all your statements.


Nope, wrong again Mathias. Here is the original.

www.airliners.net...

Yet again, you fell for someone elses nonsense, because you want it to be true. You want it to be true so bad, you will come up with endless speculation and "what ifs". Some chemtrailer, also so sure that chemtrails are true, added that haz mat sign, because they were probably so sure this is actually a chemplane, so whats a little harm in added that sign.

Well aircraft like that have to be tested where the weight is shifted around, to see how the aircraft flies, with a change in the center of gravity. Thats all this is, and no matter how much you want it to be true, its not a chemplane.

Aircrap fell for it too, listing it as the interior of an Evergreen sprayplane, and they took it down, realizing they had been had too.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Thank you firepilot for your amazing insight on chemtrail beliefs... We should compile notes to write a book. We could make millions.
So anyone seeing any chemtrails being sprayed lately? Or is it just contrails again? Let the experts tell me what i see.
I cant tell ...I must of saw contrails because theres no way a chemtrail could exist with all these experts here on ATS explaining why they could not. Thank you everyone (debunkers)... i apreciate your time and information you have shared with all of us on the matter...I think i see why so many people believe chemtrails these days... its kinda hard not to. Especially when they see evidence that *cough cough* doesnt exist.


I wasnt talking about doctored photos mister. I was talking about how you like to label the people who believe in chemtrails.
Read with your eyes. I feel like anyone who believes in chemtrails is clearly singled out as a chemmie and labeled somehow in someway ... Its a way of descrediting a side by any means. Not everyone believes in chemtrails for the same reasons. Simple fact.
edit on 27-3-2011 by gloomyblue707 because: Response to comment below



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by gloomyblue707
Thank you firepilot for your amazing insight on chemtrail beliefs... We should compile notes to write a book. We could make millions.
So anyone seeing any chemtrails being sprayed lately? Or is it just contrails again? Let the experts tell me what i see.
I cant tell ...I must of saw contrails because theres no way a chemtrail could exist with all these experts here on ATS explaining why they could not. Thank you everyone (debunkers)... i apreciate your time and information you have shared with all of us on the matter...I think i see why so many people believe chemtrails these days... its kinda hard not to. Especially when they see evidence that *cough cough* doesnt exist.


What does any of that, have to do with the issue of the doctored photo that has been used to promote the chemtrail hoax? It is peculiar, that when you can give a normal explanation of something that would normally relieve someone, when it comes to chemtrailers, it angers them. Seeing that a photo is not actually their chemplane, gets them upset at the person who tells them, not at the person who doctored the photos.

If you all think chemtrails are that true, doctored pics and videos of scrapped aircraft, do not promote your chemtrail beliefs, they only hurt it.

And actually, I think it would be an interesting book about how the chemtrail hoax started, how it evolved, and the people in it. "Chemtrails" now, is not the same as people were saying in 1998. What do you think of this quote?



"Four years ago I wrote one of the first articles (published in Eco Decision magazine) describing how atmosphere-altering contrails in high-traffic routes such as the Atlantic corridor between the USA and Europe can occasionally persist for hours, forming cirrus-type clouds that drift over a large area."


edit on 27-3-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-3-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-3-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Tecumte
 


SO? That video is nonsense, in its claims:


I offered a cordial invitation .....

....Let's just start by viewing this video.



@1:12, "Penzance, Wales". Two airliners, each at different altitudes. Atmospheric conditions are always variable...so, one making a much more obvious CONTRAIL than the other is. See it all the time.




Ok, I'll get your thoughts overall on what you see a bit later, but let's just take your observation from the frames of the video at around 1:12. You claim "two airliners, each at different altitudes". But wait! First,how exactly were you able to discern they were at different altitudes? Do you *automatically* ASSUME that can be the only possible reason for the huge disparity in why one trail quickly disapates and the other that appears in such close proximity is so greatly visually different? I don't understand why this is the first line of thinking in 'sceptics' and so called 'bunkies'. Why would not another equally plausible (and IMO from multiple observations) explanation be that it is the composition of the 'exhaust' itself that is different ie, from the type of fuel or other dispersants etc. being released by the second plane that is causing the huge disparity?

Too, is anyone able to post the picture of one of the best frames from the video that shows both of the planes in their entirety as well as difference in plumes? Anyone good at that sort of thing to give us all a good visual as to what we are evaluating?



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

I read all the links yes. Many quite mind numbing and side tracking some few very interesting but none of them refuting the weather ballon data which show contrails they could not form or persist. The data is from another link posted earlier that had the full weather ballon readouts on their case and it is the one I used in that post. It doesn't matter if it's feet or meters I'll check later but this is still a side track and pre-apologize if I read the altitude in feet as apposed to meters.

More and more people are checking the actual facts and recording the data all over the US showing these contrails could not form or persist on days they label as heavy spraying days. The data in amazingly consistent from high humidity at ground level to extremely low humidity where the planes are making the magic contrail which could not form or persist according to all data.

Your best answer to magic contrails which could not form are thin magic layers of air that are completely different from all the weather ballon data, time after time. Maybe it happens sometimes, but day after day...

Very thin argument.

Sorry not buying it - too long of odds.

Seems like your side is the one going against the scientific data.

Geoengineering seems a much simpler answer all things being equal.

Isn't that the argument you like to use? All things being equal the simplest answer is the most likely?

ETA. I'm growing weary of this topic and I'm going to take a break. I can't understand how or why people would spend so much time or effort trying to debunk something. If it's not happening it's not happening. I think many of the UFO threads are much sillier. Yet I don't find people over there spending all this time or effort to try to debunk them. If you don't think there's anything to geoengineering why bother? And why use the techniques I and others are pointing out?

I do think we need a forum on geoengineering and it does not belong in skunkworks. I posted a thread on this. Link to my ats thread suggesting geoengineering needs it's own forum because there are more threads on geoengineering than many other subjects on ATS some of the other threads are even more speculative than geoengineering.
edit on 27-3-2011 by pianopraze because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 

Yes, science often takes some effort to understand. That's probably one reason "chemtrailers" avoid it. It's much easier to arm wave and say things like "contrails cannot persist under these conditions". The fact that they use faulty data is irrelevant to them, they thrive on it.

Magic contrails. Nothing magic about it. It's called physics.


Your best answer to magic contrails which could not form are thin magic layers of air that are completely different from all the weather balloon data, time after time. Maybe it happens sometimes, but day after day...


You didn't really read the source or you didn't understand it. The standard soundings miss supersaturated levels...consistently.


Seems like your side is the one going against the scientific data.

No, my "side" uses scientific data. Data which shows that persistent contrails form in supersaturated levels. Data which shows that the standard upper level soundings under report those levels, often by a factor of 2. Your "side" makes claims about data which doesn't exist.

Occam's razor can be useful but not in this case. All things are not equal. There is far more evidence that what are being called "chemtrails" are persistent contrails.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


All I see is your side ignoring the scientific data I presented.

The hard data I showed shows no conditions for contrails.

Your answer is akin to a magic bullet. Magic layers that aren't showing up in the data. Time and again.

What is hard to understand is your sides motives for ignoring the data then pretending they are on the side of science. Almost think I'm alice in wonderland with that logic going on...hmmm....

I'm done. I'm sick of your tactics and sick of pointing them out. Deny everything especially in the face of hard scientific data. Switch the topic to those presenting the evidence of geoengineering. Try to provoke emotional reactions. Try to shift the discussion to topics you can answer.

Pretend to have science on your side and you ignore the scientific data. On and on... I'm sick of it. I have better things to do with my time. Your side can yell and scream louder and longer, but you can not get around the truth. Only use techniques that twist. This thread could extend to a thousand posts and nothing change. I'm done with it. You can have the last twist because I'm done posting in this thread.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


First you claim there are no discontinuities in the data. Now you're claiming that a lack of data provides evidence? Data is not being ignored. It isn't there.

1) There is no way of knowing what the conditions were in those skipped altitudes.

2) There is no way of knowing how conditions changed between the time the soundings were made and the contrails were observed.

3) Unless the contrail observations were made in Tucson or Flagstaff there is no way of knowing what the conditions overhead were.


edit on 3/27/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

I already did talk about it. I think your image is the photo shopped image. It's a lot easier to remove the HAZARD sign than it would be to put it in the photo. Let's get a photography person and a computer image editing software person to examine both and see which one they think is photo shopped. I'd be curious to know What's more likely. Was the sign added or removed?


And that statement proves how gullible you actually are. It wasn't so long ago that you were trying to state the the image was taken by H. Appleman. Remember that post with your claims of busted and lots of smilies. It truly is like watch a train wreck every time you post Mathias. I've already supplied you with the information on how to contact the photographer - William Appleton. You chose not to do anything back then so what excuse will you come up with now? I shudder to think?

Contact the photographer link

www.airliners.net...

www.airliners.net...

Examples of his other work on Airliners webpage Look he even catches them (Evergreen) 'spraying' Mathius!

www.airliners.net...

All a chemmie has done is ripped off the original image from Airliners website and inserted the 'Sprayer 05 HAZMAT-INSIDE'. Have you noticed that they do that a lot?



From. Read the entire webpage and comments.

www.educate-yourself.org...

It really was a pathetic attempt by chemmies to lie and distort.

TJ



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 





What is hard to understand is your sides motives for ignoring the data then pretending they are on the side of science.


Funny you would say this especially when chemmies do the same thing if not worse. I find it interesting that chemtrailers will only hear what they want to hear, all the while trying to make people believe chemtrails are real even after there is overwhelming evidence of contrails being misidentified as chemtrails.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Go back and read your post when you presented the video 'evidence' of the Evergreen facility. You yourself even posted the reference to the attack helicopters. The belief amongst the chemmies is that the AH-64 Apaches must be there to protect the facility. For them, and probably, yourself there is no other reason why they should be there. See how easy it is to do? Create a webpage, post a fake 'whistleblower' article and point people towards the fact that there are 'black helicopters' protecting the place.

theintelhub.com...

TJ



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join