It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What came first, the chicken or the egg? (don't ask the chicken)

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on May, 3 2011 @ 02:18 PM
reply to post by Quickfix

speaking of pattens, check out this link.< br />
how many of them are floating around our oceans right now?

posted on May, 3 2011 @ 04:45 PM

Originally posted by Quickfix
reply to post by network dude

Usually a hypothetical question, gets a hypothetical answer, just so you know.

The plane being up higher wouldn't make a difference, there still would be a contrail or chem-trail. It being up even higher would make more of a contrail on your side of the debate, since the moisture in the air is usually higher up and since it is colder up higher it would form the contrail easier.

It will almost certainly be colder, but there is no guarantee at all that the humidity will be as high.

This site shows atmpspheric soundings at various sites around the British Isles.

Clicking on any point on the map gives a graph of various measurements - I will use Nottingham for this example - it is the red dot in the middle of England.

The blue line at the left is the dew point profile, and if you slide your cursor along it you will see the humidity at various heights given in brackets next to the dew point (which is given as a temperature).

If I set my cursor at the 300mb pressure scale on the left of the graph it shows the altitude to be 29846 feet, dew point to be -63.9 deg C, and humidity 23%.

2 intervals above on the graph the pressure is 286mb, altitude is 30873 feet (so only 1027 feet higher), and hte dew point is -61.9 - but hte humidity is now 34% - 11% change in about 1000 feet.

So the difference can be quite large for a small change in altitude.

Henche the video is not evidence of anything, except that the aircraft are flying in differenet atmospheric conditions - you can't even say which is higher or lower from the persistance of the contrails - it could go either way.

As for the KC-10 - the physics involved in creating aerodynamic contrails is about year 11-12 level.

Do you remember the gas laws? PV=nRT?? If you drop the pressure in a constant volume you also drop the temperature.

Aircraft wings work by dropping the pressure on the top of the wing (so basically the higher pressure underneath pushes upwards), and so the temperature drops. If the atmospheric conditions are such that the temperature drops to tehpoint where moisture condenses out of the air then of course you get condensation.

it really is that simple.

And with your response to the video being a hoax, do you have some other video or thread to point to, to show for your what if view point?

posted on May, 3 2011 @ 07:55 PM
reply to post by Quickfix

There is nothing about physics in your video. It's about two planes, obviously miles apart, which places them within different parts of the atmosphere, with different conditions. That one trail is "smaller" and seems to dissipate faster, means that there is lower humidity in that place than in the other. That is all it means, that is all it ever means.
To deny that contrails can and do persist more than a few minutes is to deny clouds exist and behave that same way. They are both water and dirty air, of course they will act the same.
To say from the ground you can tell the difference in chemical content, which is the diffference in "chemtrails" and contrails, is just unbelieveable. You can't. No one can.
Why don't you research about clouds and find out the hows and whys. Actually learn something that you can use for comparison. You would really benefit if you had more information about the sciences involved.

posted on May, 3 2011 @ 07:59 PM
reply to post by PoopDawg

Hey, Poo'. You have restored my faith in the internet public. Thank you.
"Chemtrails" as a theory requires that you not know or deny scientific principles that have been around since man could think.
Of course,.......(look at my signature)

posted on May, 3 2011 @ 08:15 PM
reply to post by Quickfix

Use the search feature right here at ATS. This video has been thoroughly picked apart, down to which plane it is showing and why. It really should be expect a plane flying on a secret "chemtrail" spray run would allow another plane to fly that close behind? No. Would you expect two people taking definitive proof of "chemtrails" being real would be laughing about posting it on YouTube? No.

Have you researched the claims of barium before? You really should. I have, and most sources go back to a report that is easily proven to be very, very wrong. Yet the "chemtrail" community uses the report, unchallenged. So they are either unintelligent or dishonest. Or both.
You also need to learn about the atmosphere a lot more than you do now. The layers and pockets of different conditions vary a lot in size. And can be very different from one to the next. Without knowing the basics about the atmosphere, you are just perpetuating wrong information. It's not about contrails or "chemtrails", I'm just talking about the atmosphere. Why clouds form and behave the way they do. What cloud types mean about the weather. Learn about the difference in density between warm air and cold. And why that is all important to having an informed knowledge about what you see in the air without just parroting internet myth and nonsense.

posted on May, 3 2011 @ 08:20 PM
reply to post by dplum517

They are wrong there? Prove it. Show them where they are wrong. Not your opinion, not just one claim over another, but really show them where the science is wrong. Have at it. They welcome that kind of thing there.
You have made this same claim many times before, yet you never do more than give your opinion. So put up or shut up. Just saying "they are wrong" over and over again doesn't make them wrong. No matter how many people say the world was flat, the world is still round.

And claiming something is is a "powder contrail" based on a patent doesn't work either. Because someone thought of something and got a patent does not mean it works or exist. But you've been told this before and still try. It doesn't make it anymore true. Prove it. Show one. Find someone who uses one. Or the company that makes them.
edit on 3-5-2011 by stars15k because: Forgot something.

posted on May, 3 2011 @ 08:36 PM
reply to post by Quickfix

Quickfix....that is the very report I was talking about being so wrong.
It's easy to prove, just look and listen carefully at about the 1:00 mark. Look at the number written on the report, and listen to the reporter saying the number. Do they match?
The next part requires thinking back to chemistry class. Look at the measurement notation. The reporter says "parts per million". Does the report read that? What unit is stated in the report?

Those are basic factual things that should have been big clues to someone in the "chemtrail" community with any scientific knowledge, especially chemistry. Like Carnicom claims to be. Someone should have seen the mistake and questioned it when it came out. They didn't. The "chemtrail" theorists still use this today. Without correction. That's either stupidity or dishonesty.
And how do you think a test of water collected in a mayo jar in the backyard of someone's home will show anything about what might have been deposited 30,000 feet above his head? It can't. Especially when the mineral profile of the ground around the area is known to have barium in it all the time. Like most dirty anywhere.

posted on May, 6 2011 @ 07:11 PM
Certainly don't have to "put up" for you Stars15k ....... stop acting like a female dog.

It's quite obvious the way chemtrail debunker posts go.... they suck... no flags no stars .....

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in