This Forum Should Be Closed Down !

Originally posted by v0ice0freas0n
Anybody using photographs taken in a different time period in comparison against modern photographs as evidence for change in "color temperature" of the atmosphere has no basic grasp on the development arc of color photography. I am here simply to evince the fact that vintage and dated film formats read color in drastically different ways than modern film or digital cameras do. It is not that "the sky was so blue in 1915...," it is simply the fact that dated film is not as readily capable of reproducing an accurate color image. Depending on the specific film type, I would be happy to discuss the process by which the color is achieved and why it is in fact a distortion of what was seen instead of evidence of huge shifts in the color temperature of the atmosphere. (which in truth I would blame on the fact that the world's population has nearly tripled since the forties; the sullying of our atmosphere most definitely increased in kind).

The 1915 images were actually produced with color filters, three exposures on B&W film, and then combined in modern times to get the most accurate color balance possible. It's better than most color film for the next 60 years.

www.loc.gov...

And the point was not that the sky was blue in 1915, it was that there is a white haze, that increases down towards the horizon - something that has always existed, but the chemtrailers seem to now think has only just happened.

I agree with your general point though. In particular unprocessed digital images are often rather bland looking compared to old kodachrome image. Many cameras now have "vibrant" mode, and some devices like the iPhone have apps that let you simulate old film type, which often come with much higher contrast and color saturation.

I think it's quite likely that some people's memories of their childhood has been subtly altered by repeated viewing of particular childhood photos - until eventually they are not visually remembering the actual experience from 20-30 years ago, but instead they remember it as the photo shows it - hence they get memories of this deeper blue than they see in modern photos.

Originally posted by v0ice0freas0n
Absolutely! That was 40 years ago, technology changes in the bilnk of an eye, not the roll of your wheelchair.

Cute wheelchair put-down. And you people wonder why we don't take you seriously.

reply to post by SaberTruth


Additionally, the technology within the camera itself has evolved exponentially-- digital sensors have the ability to recreate color almost exactly, while the color on a negative can be influenced by countless factors, especially in older cameras.

reply to post by SaberTruth


it was a figure of speech, I apologize, you're right. but regardless of my thoughtless put down, the fact of my argument remains.

reply to post by ProRipp


Indeed it should be shut down.

If I believed for one nano second what Chemtrailers say I would -not- be posting in this forum. I would be out showing my proof to every person whoes ear I bend, I would be running for public office so I could find who was doing chemtrails and shut them down.

But thing is there is no proof.

What you are seeing are contrails, not chemtrails.

And those fluffy clouds you miss? I see them all the time and I live right on a flight path of O'hare.

reply to post by Uncinus


I think we're more or less on the same page here in terms of memories being altered by photographs. What tangible, interactive thing comes as close to a memory as an old photo or video? Even the hyper saturation seems right. I referred to your photo out of erroneous memory, if we are in agreement.

Star for pointing out my brain fart and showing me that cool website.

Originally posted by SaberTruth
See, this is what I was talking about with moving goalposts: "Here's a picture." .... "That's photoshopped!".... "It was taken 20 years ago and is an original Kodak print." ... "Oh, that was XYZ film from an ABC camera, which overemphasized blue, and probably used a filter." ... etc. etc. etc.

Where's the picture?

You say there's photographic evidence that the sky has changed, but then you won't produce any photos because they will be subject to scrutiny. Don't you believe your own evidence?

If the film type is known, then the color can be perfectly corrected to a modern equivalent (it's just the reverse of those old-film simulators).

You know, there are a lot of photos on flickr from the 1970s, here's some:
Flickr search for sky+scanned 1970-1980

They seem to show the usual range of skies you see today. Some overly vibrant blue, some hazy

reply to post by Adyta


Declaring what should or should not be spoken about is one small step towards a fascist regime. Nice way of thinking you've got there!

The OP was being ironic (incidentally, is that a good use of the word ironic? Awaiting smarmy responses in 4, 3, 2, 1....)

Geoengineering is real, and thanks to a lot of complaints from the people who are interested in serious study of the matter, there is now a forum to debate and discuss... Unfortunately the forum is being hijacked by the same type of nonsense (and people) that delivered the 9-11 forum into the hands of (necessary) heavy moderation, replete with 'no-messing-about' warning systems being enforced on a continual basis.

Sadly, I doubt ATS is going to commit too many resources to such moderation in this forum (yet, anyway) so the OP is rightly complaining that these people/shills are basically getting away with gang stalking/ pushing the boundaries of the t's and c's in the Geoengineering Forum - in order to insult, demean, discourage and hold up to ridicule those ATSers who are genuinely interested in discussing/ investigating what they (and I) consider to be real, nefarious phenomena.

As a side note - the reason I replied to you personally - 'prophetic dreams' and 'guidance dreams' are real, though hard to prove. The nature of consciousness and quantum weirdness makes for some interesting speculation regarding the purpose of dreams and their ability to predict the future / inform human actions and 'spiritual development'.

Start thinking outside the box, or spend all your time inside it, on twitter, facebook (and possibly NASA.com??)


Your post inspired a new website by the way - a place for people to go when they're sick and tired of all these conspiracy whackos, with all their crazy free thinking and their excellent resource to research ratio... It's called:

ITRUSTTHEGLOBALELITISTLEADERSWAAAYTOOMUCH.COM

Their partner site is called:

ICOULDBEASHILLBUTIFITOLDYOUTHETRUTHTHENSOMEONEWOULDHAVETOKILLYOU.COM

reply to post by philware


Beat you by 10 years. I just turned 50 and looked at the sky when I was a child because my father commuted by plane for most of my childhood. You look up and wonder if your Dad is on that plane. So I've seen contrails, looking like they do now, and clouds that look like the clouds people continue to post as being somehow "chem-." I had reason to look. You notice what you look for with a reason.
There are more planes now. More people fly than they did even just 10 years ago. More planes leaving more contrails. Cause and effect. Look up pictures from back then. There are pictures of persistent contrails from the 1940's and later. Do you deny this? Do you think we are living an Orwellian reality where history changes? All the books and magazines and movies and pictures with contrails pre-your remembrance are wrong?
You must to make that kind of statement.
But really, 40+ years ago, planes made contrails over Indiana just like they do today. You don't notice what you don't look for.

Originally posted by Uncinus
Where's the picture?

Fer cryin' out loud, it was a hypothetical scenario to show the moving goalposts!

The dream and prophecy forums are looking more reasonable by the minute.

And as I said, but apparently not clearly enough, 500 pictures wouldn't be enough. And by the time I dig them out of photo albums and scan them, you'll already have excuses queued up. Sheesh.

Yeah here's for all the "armchair debunkers". A basic news report from a basic news station. So please explain to me why parts per million of aluminum and barium are in rain water? Nature produces these highly toxic metals in the rain now these days?

Originally posted by Bonified Ween
Yeah here's for all the "armchair debunkers". A basic news report from a basic news station. So please explain to me why parts per million of aluminum and barium are in rain water? Nature produces these highly toxic metals in the rain now these days?

edit on 13-5-2011 by Bonified Ween because: (no reason given)

How is 68.8 parts per billion anything that unusual? You did read that report they showed on screen didnt you

Yes, nature produces Aluminum and barium compounds, how is this hard to understand? Its in any soil sample you take, and it is in dust. Dust gets in the air and raindrops can bring it down.

Is this really all that hard?

Where does this chemtrail belief come from that you cant have metals in dust, and that metals are not found in nature and must be cooked up in some lab apparently?

And how is it we can increase the amount of aluminum in the earths crust? That seems a bit impossible

reply to post by dplum517


Perhaps you should notice where debunkers live. They are not all US, therefore their computer time will usually be different than someone from Indiana, like me. Some live in the UK, some live in Australia, hours off my time.

And I recall seeing someone from Utah on every "chemtrail" post, too. He must live to post, ready to pounce on every thread every time a debunker comes in, not to post information, but many times just to point out that debunkers have posted.
There are two sides to everything.

Originally posted by SaberTruth
And as I said, but apparently not clearly enough, 500 pictures wouldn't be enough. And by the time I dig them out of photo albums and scan them, you'll already have excuses queued up. Sheesh.

How about one photo, just to give an example of what you are talking about?

Are you saying that 500 pictures would not convince the average man in the street - because that's who you really need to convince, not the debunkers. If you won't produce evidence for debunkers, by not produce it for the average person.

Aren't you at all interested in getting the truth out?

Originally posted by Bonified Ween
Yeah here's for all the "armchair debunkers". A basic news report from a basic news station. So please explain to me why parts per million of aluminum and barium are in rain water? Nature produces these highly toxic metals in the rain now these days?

They were off by a factor of 100. See:

contrailscience.com...

quote from the reporter on the story:

Yes, I did make corrections to my first report, which originally aired almost 2-years ago now… after quickly realizing my very embarrassing mistake. I was not happy with myself. Unfortunately, the first version of my report got out to the internet before I could make the correction(s), and the wrong version is shown repeatedly.

reply to post by Uncinus


Inks and dyes used with photos before the 80's are even less stable than those used after, and irreversible color decomposition has surely taken place. Point is, scientifically speaking, they don't even look like they did when they were first printed.

Originally posted by ProRipp
reply to post by Essan

 

So your mind is closed then ?

My mind is open. But only to rationale, science and logic.

How can the denial wingnuts consistently deny the fact of chemtrails when it is one of the few conspiracy topics where there is actual physical proof?

There are Aliminium levels being found in mountain top snow around the globe which is containing Aluminium levels 10's of thousands and in some cases 100's of thousands of times above normal levels which should be close to zero. and also elevated barium levels. Levels of these metals are being found that are off the scale.

reply to post by v0ice0freas0n


That's true, scanned prints are not very useful. Much better are professionally scanned slides and negatives, corrected for the film temperature. This Flickr set from around 1970 is a good example of what looks like pretty true color

www.flickr.com...

(delete double post)