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: 77
36
<< 74  75  76    78  79  80 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tecumte

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Tecumte
 


It is not ignored.

Many of us are waiting for any evidence to be produced.

Same with differences in exhausts making contrails - we do know that some differences in exhausts matter - there'e a study done comparing old a/c (a 707 with JT3 engines) with a newer one (A300 with CFM56's) - you can read the whole paper here - elib.dlr.de...

And yes there is a difference - the newer engines will make contrails at a lower altitude than the old ones - exactly as expected.


I was waiting for you to produce evidence that the atmospheric conditions of the huge spreading plume was actually different than the one that quickly dispated. Do you have any?


right - so ignore the evidence that does exist, and go for the straw man - nice move! Except of course it isn't a straw man at all - sorry about that.

But actually yes I do have evidence - it's what chemmi-faithfull are always telling everyone to do - look up.

If one contrails dissipates quickly, and another doesn't, that is primae fasciae evidence of different atmospheric conditions, and/or different engines.




posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Tecumte

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Tecumte
 


It is not ignored.

Many of us are waiting for any evidence to be produced.

Same with differences in exhausts making contrails - we do know that some differences in exhausts matter - there'e a study done comparing old a/c (a 707 with JT3 engines) with a newer one (A300 with CFM56's) - you can read the whole paper here - elib.dlr.de...

And yes there is a difference - the newer engines will make contrails at a lower altitude than the old ones - exactly as expected.


I was waiting for you to produce evidence that the atmospheric conditions of the huge spreading plume was actually different than the one that quickly dispated. Do you have any?


right - so ignore the evidence that does exist, and go for the straw man - nice move! Except of course it isn't a straw man at all - sorry about that.

But actually yes I do have evidence - it's what chemmi-faithfull are always telling everyone to do - look up.

If one contrails dissipates quickly, and another doesn't, that is primae fasciae evidence of different atmospheric conditions, and/or different engines.



Hmmmm, so really you have no evidence, as I thought.

So if you or anyone else actually has no evidence that the atmospheric condtions between the huge spreading plume and the quickly dispating one are any different, then we must admit, it is just as possible that it is a difference in the makeup of the exhaust itself.

So really we are back to square one. There is not proof either way.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   


Originally posted by Tecumte

If one contrails dissipates quickly, and another doesn't, that is primae fasciae evidence of different atmospheric conditions, and/or different engines.



Hmmmm, so really you have no evidence, as I thought.


Clearly we have different interpretations of what constitutes "thought".

There is a wealth of scientific data about contrails - about how they form, spread, why they are sometimes persist and sometimes do not.

Hence to observe one persisting while anotehr does not actually IS evidence of differnt characteristics in the atmosphere at the 2 places.


So if you or anyone else actually has no evidence that the atmospheric condtions between the huge spreading plume and the quickly dispating one are any different, then we must admit, it is just as possible that it is a difference in the makeup of the exhaust itself.


But since hteer is plenty of evidence otehrwise, there is no need to make such a conclusion at all.

Especially since htere is absolutely NO evidence supporting the possibility that it exists.

Waht evidence do you have for there being any mechanism, material, or ability of engines to vary the contrent of their exhaust output, othe than by throttling up and down?


So really we are back to square one. There is not proof either way.


no - there is plenty of proof one way - contrails behave jsut like the science has said contrails behave since people started studying them seriously around-about WW2.

But that doesn't suit the chemtrail religon so y'all and pretend that it "could be" some mysterious change to exhaust for which there is not one single piece of verifiable evidence - just your imagination and that of other believers.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Okay let's start with this one shall we.



You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. I certainly have no idea what you're talking about. You make no sense. Are you trying to be funny? Do you think you're funny? You're not funny, you're just being ignorant. Why don't you explain in detail what it is that I posted that makes you laugh so much?


So I don't know what I am talking about. Well who would know more about not knowing what they are talking about more than you.Everything you post is funny, because you just blind post whatever you think backs your claims up. In fact let us look at something here shall we. You do know the name Ken Caldeira right? you should he is in a video you posted about Geoengineering is a weapon of mass destruction.



Now I showed you in a prior post that even your expert does not believe what people are calling chemtrails are nothing more than ordinary contrails. Listen at 2:50 on and funny he even said that contrails are not part of any geoengineering project because he doesn't know of the existance of any such project. This makes me laugh because you essentially debunked yourself with this one.

Now we can address this..




By the way you're incorrect in saying that your link to Alan Robock's study in where my .pdf was adapted from. You're also incorrect about me understanding what I posted. Seems to me you're incorrect about a lot of things. Maybe you should try to understand what you post a little more. Might help you not look so ignorant.


Well I hate to burst your bubble but what does this say chief...



Holy crap what does that say at the bottom there. I think it says..

Source: Adapted from Alan Robock.

Funny it does say that right there on the bottom of page 6 in your linked pdf. Please pay attention because you obviously do not understand or pre read what you post. Right there plane as day.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


"Clearly we have different interpretations of what constitutes "thought"."-ATG

LOL, yes, I'm sure we must.

I simply asked if you had any evidence of your theory that the ACTUAL two trails in question are in fact under different atmospheric conditions. And you don't.

Until you can conslusively show that, then you have no way of knowing whether or not the difference we are seeing is in fact due to the actual differences in the makeup of the exhaust.

I admit as much. But you seem to be going round and round chasing your tail, denying the obvious.

Until you provide proof it's still an open question.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 





You should of seen your face when the Geoengineering / Chemtrail forum was created by ATS. Now that was funny...


If I remember correctly you are the one crying about your threads going into skunkworks and you cried about not having a geoengineering thread so the staff made you one so you would quit crying about being in skunkworks. Now that is


Funny how you say the look I had on my face was funny when they started this thread. So you must be looking in my windows then are you some perv that looks into other peoples windows.


Honestly I could give a crap where they put your rediculous posts it still doesn't change the fact you post without knowing what you post. Again that's



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


Ken Caldeira is not "my expert", he's got a lot to gain by lying and so do Alan Robock and David Keith.

The only thing adapted from Alan Robock was the list of Pro and Cons not the entire report. Get a clue dude.

Now I'm positive you don't have a clue on what you're reading or how to even read the report.

Unless you're purposefully trying to deceive people. So which one is it? Are you clueless or intentionally trying to deceive people?



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


lol - isn't David Keither the schientist who's papers you have punted up a few tiems as "prof" - I seem to recall you've even posted a YT video of him once or twice too to "support" your case.


Tecumte - I have all the proof I need. Your unwillingness to accept the evidence and reliance upon your imagination might trouble you sometimes, but it is not of any concern to me whatsoever.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 



If I remember correctly you are the one crying about your threads going into skunkworks and you cried about not having a geoengineering thread so the staff made you one so you would quit crying about being in skunkworks


I highly doubt that the creation of this new forum had to do with anybodies "crying". Especially not mine, since I never cried or whined to anyone from ATS about it.

I think it was more likely that the large amount of evidence supporting the theories and the many holes in all the arguments by you and your fellow debunkers that is responsible for bringing about the new forum.


CHEMTRAIL DEBUNKERS ON ATS ARE COMPLETE FAILURES





posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


So please explain to me why you would use him as a source which is what you did when you posted that video on geoengineering being a weapon of mass destruction? Looks like you have gotten pinned down and now you are calling him a fraud or better yet a liar. I am speechless. This is your norm in all the threads you post to. You have been called out on it by other members also you do not have a clue when you post. Help yourself and others by actually doing some research before you make yourself look worse.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


I posted videos and papers by David Keith as evidence not as proof. All the evidence together is the proof.

I have no need to prove anything to you. You can go on living in ignorance and denial all you want if that's what makes you happy. I couldn't care less. Go ahead and stick your head in the sand and follow your fellow lemmings off the cliff., see if I care



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


Sounds to me like you need a lesson in CHEMTRAIL 101



Have you done your homework?

Aerosol crimes / chemtrail crimes Clifford Carnicom
www.youtube.com...

Rosalind Peterson: The Chemtrail Cover-Up
www.youtube.com...

What in the World Are They Spraying? (Full Length)
www.youtube.com...






So I want everyone to closely examine this picture again.

The bunktoids here claim the difference we are seeing in these two trails is due to ENOUGH of a difference in the 'atmospheric conditions' of the airspace THESE two planes are flying through to cause the massive difference in THESE two trails. Does that really seem reasonable??? Likely??? Look closely. This is a night and day difference. And they don't have a shred of proof in the first place to show the atmosphere is in ANY way *substantially* different, much less so radically different that it causes this HUGE disparity.

I'm saying I think it is much MORE likely (IMO) that the actual makeup of the exhaust would better explain the difference considering the HUGE disparity and the somewhat close proximity.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


I've done plenty of research and I will continue to do so. I've done way more research than you have obviously. Why don't you go do some research. You haven't even learned how to read a footnote from a report properly.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


You've done plenty of 'net searching......b-all of it comprises actual research.

Posting lists of irrelevant paper titles and patents, mis-representing the content of papers, admitting you don't care whether photos are "true" or not, conflating "evidence" to make up a case......all of this you do - it's not research tho'.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   

-->Cloud seeding, a form of weather modification, is the attempt to change the amount or type of precipitation that falls from clouds, by dispersing substances into the air that serve as cloud condensation or ice nuclei, which alter the microphysical processes within the cloud. The usual intent is to increase precipitation (rain or snow), but hail and fog suppression are also widely practiced in airports
-->

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 18-4-2011 by Tecumte because: link added



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Tecumte
 


Did you mean to provide some comment on that?

Because cloud seeding

1/ is not a secret
2/ is weather modification not climate modification or geo-engineering
3/ is done INSIDE CLOUDS not across nice blue skies
4/ is usually done at relatively low altitude
5/ involves burning silver-iodide candles in very small amounts, or dumping "Dry Ice" (CO2) and not "spraying" anything out of engines
6/ is often raised by chemmies who are confused about what it is they think chemtrails are.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Tecumte
 


Did you mean to provide some comment on that?

Because cloud seeding

1/ is not a secret
2/ is weather modification not climate modification or geo-engineering
3/ is done INSIDE CLOUDS not across nice blue skies
4/ is usually done at relatively low altitude
5/ involves burning silver-iodide candles in very small amounts, or dumping "Dry Ice" (CO2) and not "spraying" anything out of engines
6/ is often raised by chemmies who are confused about what it is they think chemtrails are.



No, I thought I would just raise the topic and see if I got the usual patent response.

Actually if you take the time to read just the one link I posted you'll find manipulating weather and clouds is a much bigger and studied endeavor than just the miniscule things you mention.

But I'm glad you acknowledge it exists even in your limited way. That's a start.

We can add alot to this though as I get the time.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


That's your opinion Aloysius. Which has no bearing on the actual facts and evidence to this debate.

How else do you expect the average person on ATS to research this topic besides reading information and viewing the available evidence from the internet?

I've proven that there at least 4 different types of chemtrails that have already.been used.

www.rense.com...

The first project is an effort to block the rays of the sun from hitting the Earth

The second and most secret project is the Navy's Radio Frequency Mission Planner (RFMP) program

The third project also utilizes the mixture of barium salts in the atmosphere and involves weather control

The fourth atmospheric project is being run by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) as a means to detect and decontaminate enemy biological attacks


Here's my own list
1) At least 500 tons of chaff per year in the being unnecessarily dumped over the USA.
www.iemr.org...

2) Barium being injected into the atmosphere for radar and satellite communications studies of weather, ionosphere and magnetosphere
www.nasa.gov...

3) Cloud and weather modification techniques that are not using the typical methods of silver iodide cloud seeding.
www.met.reading.ac.uk...

4) Testing of SRM geoengineering techniques
www.srmgi.org...


Show me where I posted something that was irrelevant. I'll have to explain it to you better
I never misrepresented the content of any paper. That statement actually applies to you.
I never said I don't care if photos are true or not. You've fabricated that statement.



edit on 18-4-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: edit text



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tecumte
Actually if you take the time to read just the one link I posted you'll find manipulating weather and clouds is a much bigger and studied endeavor than just the miniscule things you mention.


Who said it was miniscule? it's been done over wide areas by lots of countries, and usually it is "us debunkers" who quote that article to chemmies who think it's secret....



But I'm glad you acknowledge it exists even in your limited way. That's a start.


no - it's a fact - it always has been, no debunker has ever said otehrwise - it is only chemmie-believers like you who ever think it's something strange, and from your language I guess you think you've stumbled on something secret or evil or mysterious.......


We can add alot to this though as I get the time.


I bet it's nothing new tho - it never is.......it's always just the latest believer to find ATS (or the latest ATS member to become a believer) who thinks s/he's going to startle us all with fantastic revelations that turn out to be all the same old stuff that was not evidence 10 years ago and is still nto evidence today.

But hey.......dont' let me stop you - I need more deja vue all over again, again.
edit on 18-4-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Tecumte
 


Did you mean to provide some comment on that?

Because cloud seeding

1/ is not a secret
2/ is weather modification not climate modification or geo-engineering
3/ is done INSIDE CLOUDS not across nice blue skies
4/ is usually done at relatively low altitude
5/ involves burning silver-iodide candles in very small amounts, or dumping "Dry Ice" (CO2) and not "spraying" anything out of engines
6/ is often raised by chemmies who are confused about what it is they think chemtrails are.


You really need to do your research better. Cloud modification is a huge part of geoengineering and the main reason behind most of the persistent spreading chemtrails. The whole idea is to pollute the clouds to give them a higher reflective ability.



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 74  75  76    78  79  80 >>

log in

join