Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

This weeks "Chemmy" special.A study on contrails turning into clouds. (WARNING::Too much data)

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


Thanks tsurfer but my computer wasn't able to open it. Maybe you can provide a short analysis of the content?




posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Tecumte
 


Sorry about that. Google Patrick Minnis and look for CONTRAILS AND CIRRUS CLOUDS and there you can see the info that I posted the link to. That should work for you.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


lol, it's interesting you would bring up the name of Patrick Minnis, I recall that guy from years ago in my own research for awhile over at chemtrail central, he got quite a bad rep as being a definate disinfo troll, being associated with NASA's attempt at downplaying the whole atmsopheric engineering that is occuring, probably good to do a little search about him too, just google Patrick Minnis and disinfo and see what you get, Here's just one link, hope that helps....

allaircraftarenotinvolved.freeforums.org...



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 



Originally posted by liejunkie01

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
Again I have to say, where were these things pre 1990s? The skies weren't this bad until then, I know because I've been an amateur astronomer-sky watcher all my life. It gets worse as the years go by. We are still waiting for a decent explanation as to their sudden full-on appearances.


Are you kidding me? I just gogled World War Two contrail pictures and there are alot of these pics. This is just a few.

1953




Here is one in the Phillipines



Contrails are nothing new. All you have to do is look at unbiased infomation. Not information coming from a source with an agenda to spread false acusations.






Are you kidding ME?

do you have any such photos that are not altered? [not accusing you of anything, but...]



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
 


Try this one:

www.history.navy.mil...

Can be found halfway down on the history page of USS Birmingham:

www.history.navy.mil...



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 



Originally posted by liejunkie01

I just knew that real info would be overlooked by those who wish to believe in false truth's and spread information with no scientific backing. You cannot refute the studies when it is scientifically perfomed in this way. This subject is like beating a dead horse. As I have said before the damn horse is nothing but mush by now.

I was hoping that some of the believers in chemtrails would take a little something from this study. But I guess not.

Thank you
Lj01


i've noticed that the Con-Troller club has been in aposting frenzy these last few days



sorry you won't be drawing me out and will have to wait patiently for my upcoming thread:



Contrails do not Exist!!! Prove me wrong!
by DerepentLeStranger
A Denial of Ignorance
Wherein a contrail conspiracy is revealed
and it's proponents unmasked as Pedlars
of Pseudo-Scientific Flippancy
A proposal or two for an experiment is provided,
and the IHM is short-circuited to the dismay of it's Con-trollers




preview


"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."



"There is a principle which cannot fail but keep a man in everlasting ignorance, that priniciple is contempt prior to investigation" ~ Self-evident Truth

end of preview

all in good time
edit on 27-3-2011 by DerepentLEstranger because: fixed alignment



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





Looks pretty serious science to me - and there are an awful lot of papers out there similarly by people with lots of letters after their names on atmospheric science that run counter to the chemtrail theory.



The University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were putting out "an awful lot of papers out there similarly by people with lots of letters after their names on atmospheric science"
Looked like "pretty serious science" backing the AGW
until their e-mails got hacked


there you have it in a nutshell

an inconvenient truth

brought to you by:

DerepentLEstranger, Survivor of the 20th Century, A.E., A.P., J.S.,V.Sh.,and D.I.

edit on 27-3-2011 by DerepentLEstranger because: added edit & additional comment



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 



Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
 


Try this one:

www.history.navy.mil...

Can be found halfway down on the history page of USS Birmingham:

www.history.navy.mil...


Umm gee...

this is kind of ackward...


don't know how to put this nicely...

but thanks any way





star and a lolcat





posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
 


Well you could order the prints from them...

I don't think the creator means anything apart from showing what was used to crop/upload/etc the image...unless it's been altered by two different parties and has come out identical.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





Looks pretty serious science to me - and there are an awful lot of papers out there similarly by people with lots of letters after their names on atmospheric science that run counter to the chemtrail theory.



The University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were putting out "an awful lot of papers out there similarly by people with lots of letters after their names on atmospheric science"
Looked like "pretty serious science" backing the AGW
until their e-mails got hacked
[/quote[]

there you have it in a nutshell

an inconvenient truth

brought to you by:

DerepentLEstranger, Survivor of the 20th Century, A.E., A.P., J.S.,V.Sh.,and D.I.



You're going to have to explain that one to me sorry.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
I think the responses to my valid and easily observable flaw in this 'sudy' just shows the less than thorough nature of those who simply posts studies without really taking the time to read them, as to how a 'study' built around a severely flawed concept can be used by those who could care less and won't even address the valid concern, to try and further use it to discredit people with whom they don't see eye to eye.

I really expect more from people here who attempt to hide behind 'science' who won't even bother to look into just how faulty that 'science' really is. At least those of us who admit we are often speculating and don't post as fact don't do this and admit it. C'mon you say you want to REALLY debate and look at the data, but then do just the opposite, what gives???



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
 


The info I post is fair game. I got it off of Google. If it is not legit then so be it. Thank you for pointing that out. If you wish I could find some more pics.


I will delete the photo I only wish for the truth.


edit on 28-3-2011 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)



EDIT: On second thought, what a jackazz. If the photo is not legit then who cares. Pat yourself on the back there stud.
edit on 28-3-2011 by liejunkie01 because: EDIT



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


I am replying to myself to apologize to the poster above. I should know better than to feed the troll. If the photo is not legit then, hhey it happens. I will move on with my quest for knowledge. I should know better than to let emotions interfere with the subjects on ATS.

Thank you and have a good day.


PS, there is more photos if some of you would just look them up.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
 


Could you check this photo. I believe that I did try to resize the photo.

I will wait to see if you respond.


gallery.pictopia.com...

I really hope you do.

ETA:I just ask because I read this on the bottom of the photo.

Any copyright watermarks shown above do NOT appear on prints. The image above is for display purposes only and may appear blurry on your screen. Actual prints are made from high-resolution files for perfect reproduction.

gallery.pictopia.com...
edit on 29-3-2011 by liejunkie01 because: ETA



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   
I think it's quite possible planes in the WW2 era flew a bit 'dirty' with the technology available then and left all sorts of pollutive carbon and other contaminates that formed lingering trails. Also the photo above may be INTENTIONALLY left trails, or what one often sees at air shows. I would imagine as technology has changed and vastly improved planes don't HAVE to pollute like that today. Surely we can make clean burning jet engines that don't cause the massive 'polltution' problems we see in our skies today IF that is really an objective. Interestingly some 'geoengineering' proposals call for this very thing to INTENTIONALLY fly 'dirty' to provide nuclei for cloud building.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


reply to post by Chadwickus
 



why bother [the latest pic has most of it's data stripped by the way]

the point of my "photo analysis" was to point out that any WWII pics are not gonna have EXIF or any kind of Data on them these pics are scans [scans not scams] and do not constitute proof of anything. who says it's a real pic you would have to have the originals analyzed by a third party and post the analysis.

it's your claim so burden of proof is on YOU in this case. that's not trolling, just pointing a wee flaw is all

this is trolling:

Disclaimer: OP should not interpret the following as in any way being directed towards his person



Originally posted by Lunartik Just remember folks:- A troll is someone who disagrees with what you post. A troll will point out your stupidity and bigotry. Dont worry though. If you have been found lacking upstairs, you can always report them. ITS A TROLL. THEY MADE ME LOOK STUPID. oh yuk ughoo, ( in the voice of Pluto) I am stupid. nevermind. The internetz is here to defend the rights of the mentally retarded. POST BANNED>


from Super-Mod Masqua's thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

To Chad, Aw c'mon mate, you know I'm taking the piss, and we both knew that was gonna be the result else why would you not have verified it yourself?


oops forgot to add My First Chemtrail Video: CT's in the PR Twilight
edit on 29-3-2011 by DerepentLEstranger because: added video



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
 


The reason i said you were trolling is that it is convenient that you just happen to show up at my threads posting information in a manner that i find a little disrespectful. This is my opinion and I have a pretty godd idea of what you are about. But that is neither here or now, so with that being said, I fell into you peoples trap of asking for pre 19609,s photos of contrails. Thank you all for setting the bait. I took it. You sit and nock some pictures that mightnot be able to verify, then you post a youtube video of chemtrails that you make. Hmmm.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger

the point of my "photo analysis" was to point out that any WWII pics are not gonna have EXIF or any kind of Data on them these pics are scans [scans not scams] and do not constitute proof of anything. who says it's a real pic you would have to have the originals analyzed by a third party and post the analysis.

it's your claim so burden of proof is on YOU in this case. that's not trolling, just pointing a wee flaw is all



there is aample contemporary (WW2) written and eyewitness evidence of contrails existing in the same manner as the photos depict, from many many sources to make the photos evidential unless they can be shown otherwise.

If you are seriously suggesting there has been tampering then the burden of proof for that claim rests with you.

I would not be surprised if the original negatives are probably still available for many of those photos - why dont' you go get some credible evidence for your claims? Talk is cheap.

(snicker, because no chemtrail advocate ever does
)



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger

the point of my "photo analysis" was to point out that any WWII pics are not gonna have EXIF or any kind of Data on them these pics are scans [scans not scams] and do not constitute proof of anything. who says it's a real pic you would have to have the originals analyzed by a third party and post the analysis.

it's your claim so burden of proof is on YOU in this case. that's not trolling, just pointing a wee flaw is all



there is aample contemporary (WW2) written and eyewitness evidence of contrails existing in the same manner as the photos depict, from many many sources to make the photos evidential unless they can be shown otherwise.


tssk! hearsay. there is ample written and eyewitness accounts in the history books that are flat out lies
hnn.us...



If you are seriously suggesting there has been tampering then the burden of proof for that claim rests with you.


who said they were tampered with? i merely pointed out that they did not constitute proof and could not be analyzed properly


from the airforce/MIC?
fruit of the poisoned tree


I would not be surprised if the original negatives are probably still available for many of those photos - why dont' you go get some credible evidence for your claims? Talk is cheap.

(snicker, because no chemtrail advocate ever does
)


why should i ? you and your band bring "evidence" of "contrails" , your evidence is shown to be no good, and i'm supposed to pay for your "proof", by ordering prints from the supposed originals? you and liejunkie are the ones claiming that those are pictures of "contrails"

sounds like you've been smoking contrails, either that, or chemtrail exposure has caused serious damage to your higher cognitive functions. i think that's the real problem with "connies", they are like mikey: they'll eat [and swallow] anything.

talk is certainly cheap, especially when you have no intentions of putting out, and expect others to pay your way.




posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 





The reason i said you were trolling is that it is convenient that you just happen to show up at my threads posting information in a manner that i find a little disrespectful. This is my opinion and I have a pretty godd idea of what you are about. But that is neither here or now, so with that being said, I fell into you peoples trap of asking for pre 19609,s photos of contrails. Thank you all for setting the bait. I took it. You sit and nock some pictures that mightnot be able to verify, then you post a youtube video of chemtrails that you make. Hmmm.


i see but when the Con-Trollers always show up on a CT thread that is just a coincedence, they aren't on the look out for threads to bash and vilify as the work of mental cases and inferior intellects.

as for setting traps, sounds like you are projecting.

bwa-ha-ha! you are hoisted by your own petard and accuse me of lighting the fuse!
oh yuk ughoo!!!!!!!




this thread should be moved to the hoax bin as the title is misleading, it's not about chemtrails but "contrails"
as for too much data, that is a blatant falsehood,

nobody's head has exploded.
edit on 29-3-2011 by DerepentLEstranger because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join