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.

 

You can't tell me Geoengineering isn't real...

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Sorry man but you can't correct something when others are stating it as fact. The entire site is filled with WHY Chemtrails don't exist. Just for that reason alone the site should be highly suspect. It loves to give you half truths and other blatant lies for the sole purpose of discrediting Chemtrails. Plain and simple, they are putting up pics of chemtrails and saying these are Contrails.... with no real scientific data backing any of it up. It is basically like another conspiracy site where people can go and spout # in a thread.

contrailscience.com = propaganda machine




posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 


Huh? Of course you can correct something that others state as fact - you can show why they are wrong - with things like evidence.


It loves to give you half truths and other blatant lies for the sole purpose of discrediting Chemtrails.


so point out what the half truths and blatant lies are - shouldnt' be too hard since they are blatant.

I look forward to you improving the site's accuracy.


Plain and simple, they are putting up pics of chemtrails and saying these are Contrails.... with no real scientific data backing any of it up.


Except flight paths, dates, times, aircraft identification, atmospheric science, etc.

And even if they didnt' have that the chemtrail conspiracy has no evidence eitehr, nd the basic questions remains - how do you know a chemtrail from a contrail? Because we do know contrails exist.
edit on 14-4-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Just a general question: The argument that Chemtrails are noticeable because they last longer than "normal" contrails, is often used. But wouldn't the logic be the other way around since H2O has a lower molar mass than most other compounds?

So H2O instead would "last longer" in the air than the supposed chemtrails?
edit on 14-4-2011 by Somehumanbeing because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-4-2011 by Somehumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

That OP has not noticed such clouds before is neither here nor there. I've never seen a wombat before. Does it mean they don't exist?


It is called observation. If you had suddenly noticed wombats where before there were none, you would be asking questions, too.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
As the OP says, it does not take much stretch of the imagination to think chemtrails might be real too - but without any evidence that is all it remains - imagination.


I think it's just as imaginative to assume that it doesn't go on at all.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by GobbledokTChipeater
 


I don't need to imagine contrails - there is a wealth of information about them from all sorts of sources dating back 70 years and more.

chemtrails need to be imagined because ther is nothing else that supports their existance - not one single item of credible evidence has ever been sustained - some bits of evidence have looked good for a while - until someone did actually look at hhtem and see past the headlines...



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
I don't need to imagine contrails - there is a wealth of information about them from all sorts of sources dating back 70 years and more.


Don't twist my words. I didn't say that you are imagining contrails.

All I said was you had quite an imagination yourself to assume that it doesn't go on at all. And that's all it is, an assumption.

Unless of course you know all the geoengineering programs which exist on all of earth. If in fact you do, then spill the beans all knowing one.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by GobbledokTChipeater
 


If chemtrails are real and they have been doing it for thirty years, what has been achieved?

Why send up a plane when you could send up some chemicals in a cardboard "firework type" rocket for a fraction of the cost?

Who actually funds this and how?

This whole thing is inreasonable, face it.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   
I agree with you. I always feel that naysayers about weather modification and chemtrails haven't researched the topic very well. I wanted to show people the patents mainly. If anyone else posted already, sorry. I just responded after only reading some of the thread. ... Ok I was going to copy and paste, but the list is huge. Here's a link: inquiringminds.cc... Here's another informative site, if not a well-designed one, hehe. www.geoengineeringwatch.org...



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut

If chemtrails are real and they have been doing it for thirty years, what has been achieved?


I have no idea. I do not know what the goals are. Nor have I been alive for 30 years in order to use my own observation. I can only use articles and information from elsewhere, much like most people here.



Originally posted by chr0naut
Why send up a plane when you could send up some chemicals in a cardboard "firework type" rocket for a fraction of the cost?


As I said, I'm not sure. I do not know the ins-and-outs. I do not know the ins-and-outs of wombats either, but they exist.

Perhaps a cardboard "firework type" rocket isn't suitable for aerosol delivery and produces particles too large?


The size of aerosol particles is also crucial, and efforts must be made to ensure optimal delivery. *




Originally posted by chr0naut
Who actually funds this and how?


I don't know, probably taxpayers.



Originally posted by chr0naut
This whole thing is inreasonable, face it.


No it's not.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by tinker9917
 



Those, my friend, are CONTRAILS, and contrail clouds.


Can you tell me what plane would be doing 180 degree sharp turns at contrail altitude as seen in those pics?



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Yes - they are flying a holding pattern - en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by backinblack
 


Yes - they are flying a holding pattern - en.wikipedia.org...


No they're not. Toowoomba has a very small airport. Probably about 10 - 20 planes (not jets) take off and land daily.
edit on 14/4/11 by GobbledokTChipeater because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by GobbledokTChipeater
 


Why says they are holding for Toowomba?

Brisbane is only 80 miles away - that is not an unreasonable distance to be holding.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by backinblack
 


Yes - they are flying a holding pattern - en.wikipedia.org...


A holding pattern at cruise altitude and with long lengths of straight flight??
Not to mention the trails going straight through your "so called" holding area??

You are joking right???



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


the curved bits are teh holding pattern, the straight bits that are not part of the holding pattern are either other flights going across, or perhaps the fligt(s) in eth holding pattern coming into them - there's not enough information to determine which, or if they are something else.

But those are fairly simple logical observations.

Why would you think they are something else?



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by backinblack
 


the curved bits are teh holding pattern, the straight bits that are not part of the holding pattern are either other flights going across, or perhaps the fligt(s) in eth holding pattern coming into them - there's not enough information to determine which, or if they are something else.

But those are fairly simple logical observations.

Why would you think they are something else?


Absolute BS !!!!
Please look at the pics again...
It is NOT coming into a holding pattern..
The trails into and out of the bend are BOTH long which rules that out..
You also KNOW they have holding areas AWAY from flight paths yet here we see other trails going straight through..
You also know planes in a holding pattern fly much slower and LOWER than normal cruise and thus are not normally at a height to produce contrails..

Please debunk the pic with facts, not fantasy!!



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Aircraft from RAAF Amberey maybe?



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Holding patterns can be flown at any height - that is why various states have no upper altitude limit on the speed restrictions for holding patterns.

The apparent foreshortening of the curved section seems to me to be nothing more than perspective - the photograph is at an angle so they appear smaller than they are.

Since you are so keen on facts, what facts do you have that show them to be anything else?



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
Aircraft from RAAF Amberey maybe?


Hey Chad...
The pattern is odd with those tight turns..

At an altitude conducive to contrails, military jets would be my only answer to a plane that could turn that tight..

But the OP took the pics and hasn't mentioned the noise such jets would create..



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join