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: 55
36
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
What exactly are we seeing that looks to be flying around the plume in this particular video?

Oh dear....

Someone needs A simple lesson on PERSPECTIVE

The big bad monster is going to get us!!




No trolling going on here, nope, none at all...

Maybe there are some monsters here after all...


Oh yeah... the topic... well it seems they have developed ways of injecting SO2 directly into the engines, no need for spray tubes, it just comes out right in the contrails...


In the case of the present system, a significant quantity of sulfuric acid will be stored on the aircraft and ejected into the atmosphere during flight. This liquid could be injected into the engine to provide additional thrust at high altitudes to combat thrust lapse. As discussed in the previous section elevated sulfur content is detrimental to engine com- ponent life, and consequently traditional liquid injection techniques (compressor inlet injection) would not be appropriate for this system. However, some thrust augmentation may be realizable by injecting the sulfuric acid downstream of the turbine, in a manner similar to a modern afterburner. By this approach, to achieve thrust increases the tur- bine exhaust gases must be hot enough to vaporize the sulfuric acid.

candian study




posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Tecumte
 


Sorry, but that video shows perfectly normal air traffic, and the contrails that will form, when conditions are ripe for them....the reason the sky continued to cloud over is because conditions were ripe for the contrails!!

Yes....IF NOT for the airplanes flying through the air, when it is ripe and primed for contrails to form, then *possibly* fewer cirrus clouds would have naturally developed, on that particular day. There is NO ARGUMENT about that. Airplanes, merely by *being there*, contribute to increasing cloud formation, of cirrus variety.

Having said that, however.....it is STILL A FACT that regardless of aviation activity, weather happens!!

It is frustratingly unbelievable how simple this is to understand, yet how so many people refuse to grasp the concept.


Also....reading the comments on these sorts of videos, on YouTube, make me shudder and sigh with sadness.....at the abject stupidity displayed, by them. Out of the many comments are the occasional rational and sane one. The sheer number of posts that actually agree with these ridiculous claims, and egg each other on? It is, yet again, a testament to the failing of the modern Public School system.....

.....(because, the Internet, and YouTube in particular, being the animals they are, I presume the majority of those ignoramuses are teens or young adults. Hence, the failed School System remark. It is becoming endemic to society, at least in the USA. AND, those same idiots are allowed to vote, which is the really scary part......)....



It's really even easier to understand than that.

If plane #2 did whatever it was (still not proven) that plane #1 (shown immediately preceding it) was doing then we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

We wouldn't be having our skies blotted out to this degree with this nasty mess observed in the footage.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


Actually Chadwickus (probably) was not trolling, but rather just showing an example of "forced perspective", especially considering the link he provided. I can't confirm his actual motive, but Chad -- if you're there -- would you concur?

This was in response to the video showing a contrail and what some of us are saying were objects in the foreground near the camera, rather than objects near the trail -- i.e., an example of perspective.


edit on 3/29/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Tecumte
 

I'm still not sure why you say that contrails can't persist under certain (not uncommon) conditions. Can you explain why you are saying that the only normal contrail is a short-lasting one?

Plus, I'm not sure what the point of that video was trying to make showing the sky filled with trails. It pointed out that the weather report was for clear skies, yet there were many persistent contrails that spread out to create cloud cover. I don't know what the weather report for "clear skies" has to do with planes making contrails.

I admit (and I think most of the chemtrail conspiracy skeptics would agree) that contrails can produce clouds on an otherwise clear day -- even filling up the sky with clouds on a day that's supposed to be sunny. I've never denied this, and most of the other haven't, either. Most of us understand that increased air traffic over the past several decades is a potential problem because these planes are incidentally making the sky cloudy. However, this isn't a secret plan to make cloudy skies -- it is simply an unfortunate side-effect of commercial air travel.

Again, how is this video of contrails evidence of chemtrails?


edit on 3/29/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Tecumte
 


HOW can you still not grasp it? What am I missing....what key to that lock in your mind, that I can't open??

:shk:

I didn't '[ quote ]' and re-post your comments....they made no sense to me, logically. You are coming from a position of utter non-comprehension, it seems obvious. Unfortunately, I can't send my decades of life experience in direct transmission from my mind to yours. ( OH! For Vulcan mind-meld abilities!!!
)

Words and facts and knowledge that is (attempted) to be imparted....WHY is this not sufficient??

Let me re-cap:

  • Have shown the videos of air traffic paths, yes? Remember? Sped up in time-lapse?
  • Have provided the links to the actual aeronautical navigation charts, so you can see the actual routes, and the many, many various paths, yes? (Although, common sense would tell you that, in the first place).
  • Have linked to the flight tracker websites, to see 'nearly' live feeds of the actual airplanes in flight, yes? (Slight time delay, just a few minutes, from actual position, to the display by the time it reaches your computer).

    So....what other videos can be convincing? Other than having you spend the next few years, and several hundred or thousand so of hours in an airliner cockpit (impractical, but WOULD finally be effective, I would hope)....


    Why not try YouTube, some more, just be more selective of what you look for. I'm talking about any number of videos posted up that are filmed form inside airliner cockpits. I'll post a search parameter, you can modify the search keywords to find more.

    Also....a very effective proof that high-altitude clouds, and CONTRAILS (which are indistinguishable from clouds, in behavior) that are above your head, seven or eight miles up, DO NOT FALL down on you!!!

    YouTube time-lapse videos of clouds. There are many of them. You can see for yourself how clouds evolve....and MOVE across the sky, never falling down. (What does fall is rain...hail, sleet, snow....it's due to size and mass of particles, and the ever-present FACT of terminal velocity, in atmospheric resistance).

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    YouTube 'search' links:

    cockpit+views+of+contrails

    (Just one example of 'keyword' searching).


    cloud+time+lapse


    And, more specifically to the above (may include repeats):

    cirrus+cloud+time+lapse




    edit on 29 March 2011 by weedwhacker because: Linkys. Giggity.



  • posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 03:13 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by weedwhacker
    reply to post by Tecumte
     


    HOW can you still not grasp it? What am I missing....what key to that lock in your mind, that I can't open??

    :shk:

    I didn't '[ quote ]' and re-post your comments....they made no sense to me, logically. You are coming from a position of utter non-comprehension, it seems obvious. Unfortunately, I can't send my decades of life experience in direct transmission from my mind to yours. ( OH! For Vulcan mind-meld abilities!!!
    )

    Words and facts and knowledge that is (attempted) to be imparted....WHY is this not sufficient??

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    YouTube 'search' links:

    cockpit+views+of+contrails

    (Just one example of 'keyword' searching).


    cloud+time+lapse


    And, more specifically to the above (may include repeats):

    cirrus+cloud+time+lapse




    edit on 29 March 2011 by weedwhacker because: Linkys. Giggity.



    I don't know for sure what you do for a living, but I would suggest if you spent the last 20 years of your life working in a GLP laboratory testing facility (yes that's what I do for a living) you really wouldn't have a hard time comprehending what I'm getting at, at all.

    IF we are talking about comparing any 2 sample situations we really need to have a handle on EXACTLY the specifications of the two ACTUAL samples in question to make an apples to apples comparison other than if we just want to compare visually. It depends upon what we're looking for. Visually is ok for a START. But you can't just say I'm comparing the properties of oxygen vs hydrogen and just say well their both gasses so all gasses behave EXACTLY the same way in every case. We may well be able to ascertain they share certain properties but they may also have different properties which MUST be taken into account depending upon the nature of the analysis. Comprehend?

    As for the two planes in question yes we can say we've studied OTHER planes and can get a GENERAL idea of how planes MIGHT work that's true, but we are talking about THESE TWO PLANES IN THE VIDEO, specifically Comprehend?

    So I would say AGAIN, yes it's POSSIBLE that altitude is A difference here, or that atmosheric conditions MIGHT differ between them IF they are truly at different altitudes (we don't really KNOW do we) it's POSSIBLE but it's ALSO POSSIBLE they may be putting out TOTALLY different CHEMICAL exhausts. (This has to be eliminated as a potential factor for apples to apples comparison) COMPREHEND?

    In GOOD SCIENCE these questions HAVE to be answered, you HAVE to know the EXACT nature of ANY GIVEN SAMPLE if you want to compare apples to apples. COMPREHEND??? Geeez.... How hard can it be!!!

    So in case I haven't made it clear the ONE question that needs to be answered first is; Do you know 100% that the chemcial composiiton of the plumes of THESE two planes in question are identical? If you can't be SURE of this as a factor then you can't be sure it is or isn't a culprit in the difference of the plume characteristics. IF you can't comprehend this then I'm going to assume you're not even tyrying.



    posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 03:54 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Tecumte
    reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
     


    Again we don't know whether the plane shown leaving a quickly disapating vapor trail was actually flying any lower and if so if it was substantially lower (I still can't believe this alone accounts for the drastic difference we are seeing in the plume characteristics)


    do you have low clouds in the sky at the moment that you can see? If they are scatterd then you can probably see some of the height of the cloud - ie from it's bottom layer to its top. I can see a few where I am - they are not very deep - at a guess I would say maybe a few hundred feet - there's a layer of cumulius just above some hills to the east of me about 10 miles away.

    so the altitude band that is suitable for cloud formation in that part of the sky I can see is only a few hundred feet in depth - any higher and there's no clouds (there is some cirrus way up in the sky), any lower and there's no cloud.

    In between the scatterd clouds there is no cloud.

    Same with contrails - the conditions for persistant contrails can occur over a thick or thin ban of altitude. they can occur in sections across the sky at a given altitude with "gaps" between.

    that is what the atmosphere is like - we just can't see the actual conditions - just the effects they have where those are conducive to clouds or contrails.



    but on the *remote* (IMO) chance that it was then perhaps planes need to fly at that elavation and all of this could be avoided. It seemed good enough for plane#1. Yes?



    You have missed the point - why should the airline choose to fly at a different altitude to avoid making contrails if they burn less fuel flying at an altitude that makes contrails, or if they are told by ATC to fly at such an altitude?

    There is no incentive for them to do so - no laws, no increase in profit...nothing.

    Planes flying from different destinations but along a simlar route at the same time will be given different altitudes to fly at by ATC to maintain seperation. That is for safety - not ATC or the airlines trying to make contrails!



    posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 04:00 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Tecumte
    So I would say AGAIN, yes it's POSSIBLE that altitude is A difference here, or that atmosheric conditions MIGHT differ between them IF they are truly at different altitudes (we don't really KNOW do we) it's POSSIBLE but it's ALSO POSSIBLE they may be putting out TOTALLY different CHEMICAL exhausts. (This has to be eliminated as a potential factor for apples to apples comparison) COMPREHEND?


    Given that they all source the same jet fuel specification (Jet A1), it would require something additional to normal airline operations for this to be the case.

    There is no evidence of any such differences - no strange additives, no different fuel trucks, no different fuel specs, no unidentified tanks on aircraft being serviced by unidentified vehicles, no engines built to different specifications to burn different fuel, etc.

    It is not logical to assume there is a difference when none of the necessary pre-conditions are known to exist. It is not even all that sensible (IMO) to think there could be such a differnce in practice without some evidence. And there is NONE. Not 1 single skerrick of credible evidence that ther is anything "different" going into aircraft that might result in anything "different" coming out.



    posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 04:17 PM
    link   
    reply to post by Phage
     


    gee phage i don't like posting one liners, soo...

    2nd line www.omdurman.org...



    posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 04:26 PM
    link   


    HOW can you still not grasp it? What am I missing....what key to that lock in your mind, that I can't open??
    reply to post by weedwhacker
     



    why would you want to unlock somebodys mind?

    that sounds like brainwashing to me .


    Matthias i've never seen CT's in PR before until recently:
    My First Chemtrail Video: CT's in the PR Twilight [best viewed full screen




    No wonder i'd never seen CT's in PR THEY SPRAY AT NIGHT!!! yeah, yeah i know crappy too dark, whatever. taken with borrowed iphone after running 5 blocks when i saw it. when i get my own iphone I'll be sure to have all the best audio, video, editing and other apps etc. fair enough?



    posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 04:27 PM
    link   
    reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
     


    Does that have relevance to contrails?

    any connection whatsoever??



    posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 04:31 PM
    link   
    reply to post by Tecumte
     

    So you are saying that two planes in the sky at the same time making different trails could be evidence of chemtrails (i.e., the difference in trails could be due to the difference in what is being sprayed from the engines).

    OK -- using that logic, then you are saying that every video a person has of two planes in the sky at the same time on video with different trails is always potential evidence on chemical spraying. OK -- I get that.

    However, while this may be true in concept, the reality of the situation is that it has been shown that it is perfectly normal for there to be two planes in the sky at the same making different trails. Sure, it's possible that if you presuppose that chemicals are being sprayed, that the trails may look different, but different-looking trails do not necessarily equate to chemical spraying.

    I hesitate to ever employ Occam's razor, but it seems you are totally ignoring it. I admit Occam's razor should not be used as an end-all to logical arguments, but there are times when its principles should be at least considered.

    You seem to be fighting us tooth-and-nail with your argument that just because something "could be" happening, that is somehow good evidence that something "IS" happening. I'm not an expert on the matter of chemicals in jet exhaust, but, YES, it is not out of the realm of possibility that the trails could look different because of different chemicals deliberately being exhausted out of the engines for the sake of spreading those chemicals. However, this is not GOOD evidence that planes could be spreading chemtrails. It's only evidence that it is in the realm of possibility that these planes are spreading chemtrails. Considering that it is perfect normal for contrails to look different from planes in different parts of the same sky, I'd say this video is GOOD evidence that the trails are normal contrails. It seems the trails coming from these two planes are perfectly consistent with the way normal contrails could commonly appear from planes at different altitudes -- and you seem to be admitting that idea is true (i.e., that the different in those two trails may be perfectly normal behavior for contrails).


    I'm going to repeat something I posted the other day, because it helps make my point in this particular post, too.

    Say the weather report for the day was calling for rain. Right before you and I walk into a windowless building together, we note that it hasn't rained yet and the streets are dry, but the sky is dark and looks to be threatening rain. An hour later, you and I come out of the windowless building to find that the streets for at least several blocks around the building are all wet (although it isn't raining at the moment, but the sky is still dark and overcast).

    Using the argument I've been advocating in this post, I would suppose it probably rained while we were in the building. That would employ Occam's razor. It would be the most logical explanation given the information at hand.

    Using the argument you've been advocating, you would probably say that perhaps it didn't rain, but rather a fire truck could have driven all over spraying water on all of the streets.

    Both of our explanations are logically valid (I mean, I suppose a fire truck could have done that). HOWEVER, if a third person coming out of that building asks you why the streets are wet, would you really tell them that you think a fire truck could have driven around spraying all of the streets, or would you tell them it probably rained?

    Considering the information at hand, the most logical explanation, using critical thinking skills, as to why the streets are wet is that it rained. All of the information we need to back up that explanation is right there without taking a logical leap.

    Considering the information at hand, the most logical explanation, using critical thinking skills, as to why those two planes had trails that looked different is -- since it is well known that two planes flying at different altitudes commonly make different trails (and you seem to agree with that idea) -- is that they were flying at different altitudes. All of the information we need to back up that explanation is right there without taking a logical leap.

    To suppose the explanation that the difference in trail appearance could be because of intentionally exhausting different chemicals for the purpose of secret spraying would require you to assume that different fuels (or whatever) would cause the trails to look different. We already know altitude can change the appearance of normal contrails -- no assumptions are required.


    edit on 3/29/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



    posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 04:50 PM
    link   
    reply to post by Phage
     





    reply to post by MathiasAndrew
    It has been pointed out that scattering techniques would not be visible even if they were being done. No "chemtrails".


    here you are nitpicking, and sounding childish to boot. No "chemtrails" nyah,nyah



    reply to post by MathiasAndrew
    Did you miss the part about "thicker". "Chemtrails" are supposed to get thicker, not dissipate.


    it has been stated countless times and on countless threads that chemtrails dissipate into a haze. are you playing word games? and this isn't the 1st time i've seen "connies" do this Abbot and Costello routine with words.

    my dear fellow, are you really phage?

    this is not the conduct of a proponent of reasoned debate,let alone science.

    just my 2cents



    posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 05:07 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
    reply to post by Phage
     





    reply to post by MathiasAndrew
    It has been pointed out that scattering techniques would not be visible even if they were being done. No "chemtrails".


    here you are nitpicking, and sounding childish to boot. No "chemtrails" nyah,nyah


    So chemtrails are persistant and can be seen across the sky, but the science papers that Matty quotes suggest that any solar Radiation Management would be invisible...and that is nitpicking??

    It seem liek a pretty fundamental problem withteh idea that VISIBLE persistant contrails are part of that programme!!




    reply to post by MathiasAndrew
    Did you miss the part about "thicker". "Chemtrails" are supposed to get thicker, not dissipate.


    it has been stated countless times and on countless threads that chemtrails dissipate into a haze.


    It has also been suggested that they get thicker and cover the entire sky with "soup"


    are you playing word games? and this isn't the 1st time i've seen "connies" do this Abbot and Costello routine with words.


    Hmm......?? And visible = invisible is better??



    posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 05:13 PM
    link   
    "So you are saying that two planes in the sky at the same time making different trails could be evidence of chemtrails (i.e., the difference in trails could be due to the difference in what is being sprayed from the engines")-SG

    What I'm saying for the nth time is that until this variable is KNOWN, scientifically we can't say for sure either way what is causing the difference in plume charcteristics between the first plane shown in the video leaving only the quickly disapating trail and the second plane leaving the very persistant one.

    I fully understand altitude and atmosphereic condiitons can change the appearance of contrails, that's obvious I've never asserted otherwise. But so can a number of other things. Not just fuel, though that certainly could be. Some geoengineering protocols call for simply a richer burn among other things to provide more carbon for cloud building nuclei. The second plane could be a military plane as could all of the ones that left the soupy mess in the video being exempt from fuel restrictions or violating them. Or experimental planes. Or the planes making the soup COULD really be 'spraying' something. WE simply DON"T KNOW. To conclude it could ONLY be caused by certain things without eliminating plausible variables is not scientific at all.

    I'm not suggesting 'could' means 'did'. but neither should so called 'debunkers' automatically either. I will add though I have my doubts that the DEGREE of difference (and yes this is a subjective opinion) of the different plumes I see in the video are caused only by a difference in atmospheric conditions. While these might well aid the difference (assuming the alt/cond are truly dif.) I still believe this doesn't fully explain what we're seing.

    .



    posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 05:16 PM
    link   
    Reading page after page of the same arguments by the same people is getting boring and time consuming. I'm out. See y'all on other threads.



    posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 05:25 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Tecumte
    What I'm saying for the nth time is that until this variable is KNOWN, scientifically we can't say for sure either way what is causing the difference in plume charcteristics between the first plane shown in the video leaving only the quickly disapating trail and the second plane leaving the very persistant one.


    sure...but it is a known explaination that fits the facts, and in the absence of any contrary information in the video it is plenty for me.

    the video itself claims that it is proof of chemtrails - but it also has the same lack of information, and a total lack of any other evidence either.

    Simply saying "you can't prove they are at different altitudes" still doesn't constitute proof of chemtrails - because there's also no evidence that they are not.

    Which is why videos like this are essentially useless.

    So as far as I'm concerned, when a video like this pops up, my first thought is definitely "probably different altitudes".

    As soon as someone posts some credible information otherwise I'll reconsider that.

    But no one has.


    edit on 29-3-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



    posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 05:32 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
    ...Simply saying "you can't prove they are at different altitudes" still doesn't constitute proof of chemtrails - because there's also no evidence that they are not.

    Which is why videos like this are essentially useless.


    Exactly. It is evidence of nothing.

    Tecumte -- you are right in saying this video is not proof that planes at different altitudes can create different trails, becuase -- as you say -- we can't tell at which altitude those planes are flying.

    However, that's not what any of us are saying. We are simply saying that this video is not evidence of chemtrails. That's it.

    If you can say "it could be chemtrails", then I could say "the planes could be at different altitudes". If I can't assume the planes are at different altitudes (and you are right about the fact I can't assume this), then you can't assume the trails are different because of different fuel. Therefore, as your argument about "could be's" has proven, that particular video evidence is meaningless, and should just be discarded as such.


    edit on 3/29/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



    posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 05:57 PM
    link   
    reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
     


    Confirmed.

    Illustrating perspective using forced perspective images.

    If that's trolling, well colour me troll coloured!



    posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 07:20 PM
    link   
    reply to post by Tecumte
     


    WORKING in AVIATION, mate!!!


    I don't know for sure what you do for a living, but I would suggest if you spent the last 20 years of your life .....


    MORE than "20 years".

    Nearly 24 at the last MAJOR U.S. airline. In the cockpit. Over a decade at other airlines, and in other piloting capaciites, before that. Roughly 20,000 hours total time, lifetime.

    I have seen contrails for my entire life....and from a professional and knowledgable standpoint, I know exactly what I am looking at.

    Knowledge and experience.

    When you need to consult a professional in ANY field outside your area of expertise, say a physician.....does the medical condition you are concerned with determine which specialty you consult?
    Or, do you simply seek out any individual with the title "Dr." behind their name?

    If your kitchen cooker, or your Hoover need repairs, do you call in a professional locksmith? They are experts in their particular field ... but, of course, you want someone whose abiities coincide with your needs...when they are outside the ken of your ablities. SO, no matter how educated and expert a locksmith is, he/she may probably not be the best choice to consult on your Fridge.

    There exist several ATS members in these "chem"-trail threads who DO have experience, knowledge and expertise in these matters, and are imparting THEIR wisdom and judgements to these discussions. Shame that so many people simply cannot (or will not) realize that they are out of their depth, and others know much, much more than they do.


    I'm wondering if you even bothered to follow those links I provided....any of them (??). I see the unneccessary full quote of my post, in your response....to repeat the latest helpful links to information....did they just languish, unused?



    new topics

    top topics



     
    36
    << 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

    log in

    join