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: 50
36
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Tecumte
 

The way I see that video, the makers of the video are pointing to the diffenrent trails by the two planes as evidence that trails are being sprayed -- and mostly likely because (as many chemtrail believers claim) that the two planes should have the same trail.

I'm just saying that this is NOT evidence of chemtrails, because the planes could easily be at different altitudes.

It's that simple.

I'm not claiming I know for a fact they are at different altitudes, but there is nothing at all out of the ordinary concerning the contrails made by these planes. This video is a perfectly normal video of two planes making different contrails.

edit on 3/27/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)




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

Originally posted by Tecumte
reply to post by jdub297
 


Easy enough to clear up, do you believe the difference in the planes exhaust with the quickly dispating trail shown in the video at the same time the 2nd plane is producing the heavy thick looking plume is due to altitude, a variation in the atmospheric conditions between the two planes, some combination or something else. Perhaps I wasn't clear on what you were asserting and you can set the record staright. Thanks.


Jet engine exhaust creates contrails under favorable atmospheric conditions.
There is not enough information presented to assert anything specific regarding relative altitude or atmospheric conditions.
Differences in atmospheric conditions affect the creation, duration and persistence of contrails.
Therefore, given that there are differences in the contrails, the contrails are created under differing atmospheric conditions.

Any other conclusion would require the assumption of facts not in evidence.
jw



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Let's try and look at the bigger picture here and summarize one of the first and most very basic premises of what I see in this debate (and please address and correct me SPECIFICALLLY if I have misinterpreted the general premise being alleged here)

Many people worldwide are personally seeing instances daily (semi-weekly) including myself where huge numbers of planes come out in a very short time, performing x's and o's and turns etc. that produce smoky white spreading lingering trails that can white out the ENTIRE sky within a matter of hours. The activity above where I live 125 miles from any major airport, can best be described I think occasionally like a stirred up nest of hornets, the planes look to me like the pilots had one too many airport cocktails and are flying planes without any destination, engines smoking as badly as an old car with worn out rings and occasionally at very low altitudes.( Yes I realize this is subjective but this is an honest attempt to convey what I'm seeing) Remember I am 125 miles from any major airport, in a mostly rural area, so it is doubtful (but not impossible) the activity of all of these dozens of planes flying their acrobatic manuevers is due to holding patterns, also many turn and fly off in an opposite direction and disappear.

At the same time this is being done I often see other planes flying what APPEARS (yes I know this is subjective too) very near, along side, and through this generated cloud soup left by the other planes leaving only the quickly dispating exhaust trails many have come to know as simple 'contrails'. (I can and will be glad to elaborate on this more later). Often this is done on a day that starts with completley blue skies wiyhtout a cloud in sight.

So first I want to make sure I understand the thinking of some here as to why the VAST visual difference and contrast of both the flight patterns and exhaust trails is so very very different. The anser I have been given by a couple of people is that it is simply a difference in the atmosperic conditions (and/or altitudes) that the planes fly through that causes this night and day difference in the plume characteristics. (other explanations welcome if there are any)

The idea that the exhaust chemical composition forming the plumes themselves could be radically different seems to be vigorously attacked by these people and they wont even consider that this could be a rational reason as well in the plume characteristics. I simply don't understand this thinking and it seems to always be sidestepped or ignored or attacked as a reasonable possibility but NEVER is any adequate reason given as to why they fail to consider this other than occasionally they state the usual line of the supposed chemical makeup of 'average' jet fuel. But they really have nothing substantial to base this on, it could very EASILY be that whatever is coming from each individual plane is completely different in makeup there is NO way to KNOW this as I've said many times without a chemical analysis. They seem to be actually afraid to admit this is very possible which i don't understand (assuming they are REALLY looking for answers).

So in summary I will just add it is my personal hypothesis (yes belief) based upon years of sky observation that what best explains this observation is NOT that the atmosphere where the planes are flying so close and often UNDER each other (yes i know subjective again) is so radically different but rather the difference is the chemical makeup of whatever is coming out of the plane in question. I think this is a much better fit and possibility based upon years of observation but I know others will disagree and assert how this is 'impossible (of which of course it isn't) or even unlikely (of which they really offer little substatial as to why) so go ahead and debunk away if you feel so inclined.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   


he idea that the exhaust chemical composition forming the plumes themselves could be radically different seems to be vigorously attacked by these people and they wont even consider that this could be a rational reason as well in the plume characteristics. I simply don't understand this thinking and it seems to always be sidestepped or ignored or attacked as a reasonable possibility but NEVER is any adequate reason given as to why they fail to consider this other than occasionally they state the usual line of the supposed chemical makeup of 'average' jet fuel


Because, you have ZERO evidence of your claim. The bigger your claim is, the more evidence you need, and you have brought NO evidence of your speculation. You are asking people to take your speculation and "what if" as evidence that it is happening.

large airports do not have some special fuel lab where they tailor fuel for each airplane flight. Fuel often goes to the airport via pipeline from the refinery or fuel trunk line, to tanks, and then to an underground system to the airport ramp. This notion that you have, of aircraft getting all customs is a figment of your imagination, with no evidence at all

You want it taken seriously, get evidence.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 




If we can't actually ascertain if there was or wasn't a difference in the altitude/atmospheric condtions of the planes locations then logically we can't ascertain that that was or wasn't the cause in the two planes plume charcteristics. It's just a guess on anyone's part.

I agree.

But again, it could just as easily be a difference in the chemical composition of each individuals planes exhaust, though obviously, to conclude that would just be a guess too.

As long as we both admit this I don't have a problem.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot



he idea that the exhaust chemical composition forming the plumes themselves could be radically different seems to be vigorously attacked by these people and they wont even consider that this could be a rational reason as well in the plume characteristics. I simply don't understand this thinking and it seems to always be sidestepped or ignored or attacked as a reasonable possibility but NEVER is any adequate reason given as to why they fail to consider this other than occasionally they state the usual line of the supposed chemical makeup of 'average' jet fuel


Because, you have ZERO evidence of your claim. The bigger your claim is, the more evidence you need, and you have brought NO evidence of your speculation. You are asking people to take your speculation and "what if" as evidence that it is happening.

large airports do not have some special fuel lab where they tailor fuel for each airplane flight. Fuel often goes to the airport via pipeline from the refinery or fuel trunk line, to tanks, and then to an underground system to the airport ramp. This notion that you have, of aircraft getting all customs is a figment of your imagination, with no evidence at all

You want it taken seriously, get evidence.


I'm not making any claim I'm simply stating the obvious, it could well be the difference in the chemical composition of any given planes exhaust vs only atmospheric conditions or altitude.

That's really all I've asserted and it should be self evident.

Also nobody including you has shown any evidence the planes were flying at a different altitude or going through different atmospheric conditions as others have admitted. That would simply be conjecture.

I'm simply saying IF anyone assumes this they shouldn't claim this is based on 'science'. It is strictly speculation to start out with an unproven assumption. I admit this and I think rightly so, so should others. I leave the door open as to the actual possibility.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tecumte
reply to post by jdub297
 
If we can't actually ascertain if there was or wasn't a difference in the altitude/atmospheric condtions of the planes locations then logically we can't ascertain that that was or wasn't the cause in the two planes plume charcteristics. It's just a guess on anyone's part.

That is not what I said. Do not paraphrase and inject your own bias.

The people who made that video COULD ascertain the altitudes. The fact that they didn't provide that critical information means the altitudes did not fit their agenda. Why would they leave this out, when it is the most important part of understanding what they presented?


But again, it could just as easily be a difference in the chemical composition of each individuals planes exhaust, though obviously, to conclude that would just be a guess too.


There is no evidence that differences in jet fuel composition create different contrails. There is no room for speculation in testing a hypothesis.

Your hypothesis appears to be:
"Jet aircraft at different altitudes, and on different flight paths, leave different contrails, or no contrails at all."

This hypothesis has been proven to be correct. Good work!

Anything else is speculation.

jw
edit on 27-3-2011 by jdub297 because: closed quote



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297

Originally posted by Tecumte
reply to post by jdub297
 
If we can't actually ascertain if there was or wasn't a difference in the altitude/atmospheric condtions of the planes locations then logically we can't ascertain that that was or wasn't the cause in the two planes plume charcteristics. It's just a guess on anyone's part.

That is not what I said. Do not paraphrase and inject your own bias.

The people who made that video COULD ascertain the altitudes. The fact that they didn't provide that critical information means the altitudes did not fit their agenda. Why would they leave this out, when it is the most important part of understanding what they presented?


But again, it could just as easily be a difference in the chemical composition of each individuals planes exhaust, though obviously, to conclude that would just be a guess too.


There is no evidence that differences in jet fuel composition create different contrails. There is no room for speculation in testing a hypothesis.

Your hypothesis appears to be:
"Jet aircraft at different altitudes, and on different flight paths, leave different contrails, or no contrails at all."

This hypothesis has been proven to be correct. Good work!

Anything else is speculation.

jw
edit on 27-3-2011 by jdub297 because: closed quote


I agree I think it would have been great if whoever made the video could have eliminated altitude as a variable (but how do you know they were aware of how to do it), but then don't you imagine someone would have tried to explain away the vast difference in the two planes exhaust as just being different pockets of the atmosphere or some other type of rationization? If not then maybe you are right, (IF I understand you correctly) it would be best to determine altitude if possble. How would you best suggest this be could done and on a verifiable basis? Might you just come up with some other parameter to use if someone actually WAS able to prove the altitude was lower for the plane leaving the thick smokey looking plume???

Also my 'hypotheis' or what I'm suggesting again (in case i didn't make it clear) is that it may well be the difference in the chemical makeup of the actual plane exhaust that causes the difference in plume characteristics rather than the altitude or atmsopheic condtions, I've tried to make that clear over and over, not sure why it's still not being understood (unless of course it's being ignored)



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Tecumte
 



Also my 'hypotheis' or what I'm suggesting again (in case i didn't make it clear) is that it may well be the difference in the chemical makeup of the actual plane exhaust that causes the difference in plume characteristics rather than the altitude or atmsopheic condtions, I've tried to make that clear over and over, not sure why it's still not being understood (unless of course it's being ignored)


I don't think fuel composition would make a difference but engine output certainly would..



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Tecumte
 


I agree with you Tecumte. The fuel being used by certain planes and the exhaust those jets put out needs to be examined more closely if we are ever to get the answers we are seeking. We can not rule out this possibility. New engines and modified engines are being built and installed. These could easily operate on a modified fuel. Boeing has been trying to design some engines that using a 50/50 mix of diesel and bio fuel. They could also easily be working on designs that use a cloud forming fuel.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 01:02 AM
link   
I'm sure the debunkers will be well aware of my new thread because they jump on everything with the word "chemtrail" in it, but here is a link to my thread

A challenge to Chemtrail Debunkers

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Are you debunkers brave enough to respond to my challenge in an intelligent way? Or will you make the same kind of comments that you do everywhere else?

Yes or no? It's a simple question



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by coyotepoet
 



Yes or no? It's a simple question


No, you didn't offer a simple yes or no..
It was agree with you or be considered closed minded..

Epic fail mate and doing your side no good at all..
I'd ask mods to delete the thread if I was you..



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 





No, you didn't offer a simple yes or no.. It was agree with you or be considered closed minded


I'm assuming that you posted this prior to reading my response to you in that thread in regards to my initial blank post.

However, that is exactly my point because that is exactly the stance and choice that the debunkers extend to everybody. Agree that they are all contrails or be subject to ridicule and trolling. No discussion, no being open to other possibilities.

In the thread I admit that some but not all trails are contrails. I am in fact, partially agreeing with the debunkers on that point. I am simply asking them if they are willing to be as open minded in the other direction. However, I think I already know the answer (though I still have hope.)



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by coyotepoet
 


In the thread I admit that some but not all trails are contrails. I am in fact, partially agreeing with the debunkers on that point. I am simply asking them if they are willing to be as open minded in the other direction. However, I think I already know the answer (though I still have hope.)


Everyone knows the atmospheric conditions required to create persistent contrails..
The questions is are there any trails forming outside of those set conditions?

What I find frustrating is the fact that many are quick to check weather and say yes, the conditions were perfect for contrails, but when the broadcast conditions do not show as favorable it's always the excuse that conditions vary so much or the Appleman Chart is not perfect..

That's really annoying..



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by coyotepoet
 



Yes or no? It's a simple question


No, you didn't offer a simple yes or no..
It was agree with you or be considered closed minded..

Epic fail mate and doing your side no good at all..
I'd ask mods to delete the thread if I was you..


I usually agree with your posts. But unfortunately not this time. I think coyotepoet makes an excellent point even if it is worded in a way that doesn't give the debunkers a choice they are comfortable with. He is in a sense using their own argumentative mentality against them. A form of reverse psychology if you will. He is beating them at their own game I believe and actually was more respectful about it than they usually are.

I understand your view that the "chemmies" shouldn't stoop to the level of the debunkers. But the OP (perhaps in a sarcastic tone) really points out that the debunkers should be more open minded when discussing this issue and if they refuse to then they are behaving no better than what they claim to be the behavior of the chemmies they want to so valiantly save from this so called hoax.

Personally I know just by spending just a few minutes reading, that the debunkers refuse to open their minds to even the slightest possibility that any aspecct of the chemtrail theories might be true. Not even the geoengineering testing aspect which has been openly admitted. Even if it was worded in a way that can stll be denied by debinkers. Please watch this video from fora.tv where experts in the field of geoengineering discuss many aspects of the challenges and problems we could face in the future.

Geoengineering: Global Salvation or Ruin?
fora.tv...

EDIT: Below is a report explaining the growing belief in the use of geoengineering

A very inconvenient truth .....PDF
www.tos.org...
edit on 28-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: add link



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Investing in Geoengineering research now will enable policymakers to make informed decisions based on Science rather than uniformed decisions made out of desperation


A_REALLY_Inconvenient_Truth_Dan_Miller
fora.tv...

This is a video expressing the same view as the PDF document in my last post



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


I usually agree with your posts. But unfortunately not this time. I think coyotepoet makes an excellent point even if it is worded in a way that doesn't give the debunkers a choice they are comfortable with. He is in a sense using their own argumentative mentality against them.


Sorry then, but I'd rather not stoop to their level..
I'll stick to my opinion as you do yours..



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 03:59 AM
link   
Hi

I dont really know a lot about chemtrails so i thought i would post some photos i took.

I was watching tv and heard a very loud bang so thought i would look out the windows to see if i could see any thing and i saw what looked like a chemtrail coming straight down.




now zoomed in



it most likely not related but just seemed odd.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by rutters1983
 


Thanks for sharing your photos. They do look very strange.

Did you observe the chemtrail/contrail clouds for awhile or just for a short period?

Did you ever hear any explanations in the local news?

You say you heard a loud noise, do you believe that the noise was associated with the making of the chemtrail/contrail clouds?



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by rutters1983
 


Thanks for sharing your photos. They do look very strange.

Did you observe the chemtrail/contrail clouds for awhile or just for a short period?

Did you ever hear any explanations in the local news?

You say you heard a loud noise, do you believe that the noise was associated with the making of the chemtrail/contrail clouds?


No worries

I went back to check about 5-10minutes later and the trail had gone. there were quite a few planes in the sky but they were much higher up. I thought you only got a chemtrail high up and as you can see this is very low.

With the noise i have no idea if its related, it sounded like a distant thud but there is a motorway around half a mile from my house so i do hear the odd noise every now and then. It was this noise that made me get up and look out the windows.

Never saw anything in the news but i dont watch much tv




top topics



 
36
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join