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.

 

Perpetuating the "chemtrail" hoax

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
reply to post by newcovenant
 


This is not a debate on the existence of "chemtrails", so I would appreciate if you could answer my question about why the "chemtrail" myth continues to be perpetuated, and whom benefits from it.


And with that comment you've closed the debate to anyone that has something to say against your view. Can you tell me how two identical aircraft at identical altitudes and paths can leave two different types of trails?




posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by topherman420
 


They use metalic particals in the military for chaffing to scramble the radar.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Actually, I believe he was talking about how Chemtails behave.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by mb2591
 


Too bad, not a word of what you wrote is accurate, regarding how contrails behave.

Come back, tho.....after you find solid evidence of "chem"-trails being something other than normal contrails...composed of ice particles. Indistinguishable from cirrus clouds.

Proof. Oh, wait....there isn't any.....



Looks like we have a stalemate. Seems evidence to support either side is seriously lacking credibility and... well.... "evidence".
Isn't there anyone that knows what the real scoop is? I doubt there are any answers correct 100% of the time. Sure chemicals are being spilled into the atmosphere but seriously doubt it's the most pressing problem facing us today. Airborne chemicals deliberately distributed such as the Bayer pesticide blamed for the bee colony collapse disorder, for example is far more critical in my view.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAnnouncementMovement

Originally posted by adeclerk
reply to post by newcovenant
 


This is not a debate on the existence of "chemtrails", so I would appreciate if you could answer my question about why the "chemtrail" myth continues to be perpetuated, and whom benefits from it.


And with that comment you've closed the debate to anyone that has something to say against your view. Can you tell me how two identical aircraft at identical altitudes and paths can leave two different types of trails?


I noticed the OP doesn't answer every question.
Do you have anything simpler?



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 


It's quite obvious what his intentions were from the first porst.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 08:23 AM
link   
'Perpetuating the Chemtrail hoax' is a great title for a thread whose title should read 'Reinforcing tired debunking jargon to set up the discussion on one-side only

Seeking truth doesn't work when you already have the answer you want.

If you seek to deny your ignorance, open the ends of your questions a little more to views not consonant with your own. This may lead to vibrant discussion instead of side-taking (one hopes!)

It seems that the latter has unfortunately happened to your thread here

edit on 15-5-2011 by DjDoubleD because: To be clearer !



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by TheAnnouncementMovement
 


I'll bite, have a read at this page. There is no use in me trying to explain this concept (which has been explained over, and over and over), it will just fall on deaf ears.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by DjDoubleD
'Perpetuating the Chemtrail hoax' is a great title for a thread whose title should read 'Reinforcing tired debunking jargon to set up the discussion on one-side only

Seeking truth doesn't work when you already have the answer you want.

If you seek to deny your ignorance, open the ends of your questions a little more to views not consonant with your own. This may lead to vibrant discussion instead of side-taking (one hopes!)

It seems that the latter has unfortunately happened to your thread here

edit on 15-5-2011 by DjDoubleD because: To be clearer !



This is so very true and well put.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by DjDoubleD
 


There is NO DOUBT amongst the educated, knowledgeable and experience people on the planet that "chem"-trails, as depicted in the scads of ridiculous websites, and equally daft claims made by them, are a myth.

It is such a blatant misunderstanding of science and technology, it makes my heart hurt to see it spread, by sites that look as if they were written by "Dumb and Dumber" characters....


The question, then...is WHY?? WHY is it that the science, when presented to these people, is IGNORED?? Why is logic ignored? Reason? Common sense???

WHO benefits from perpetuating this hoax, and myth and BAD science...really, it qualifies as pseudoscience, by every definition of that term.


When you delve back into the history of this nonsense, you begin to find a few names as progenitors....Will Thomas, Cliff Carnicorn, to name two off the top of my head.

FOLLOW the MONEY!!

The answers might be found there.....



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

Excuse me? What part of that post was inaccurate..? You basically just took what I said and rephrased it to say that chemtrails are contrails. I was simply saying that what people refer to as chemtrails behave differently than contrails. However I've always speculated that the reason that contrails or chemtrails whatever you want to call them stick around was some difference in the weather. I just never really cared enough though to do the research to prove my speculations.


edit on 15-5-2011 by mb2591 because: didnt want anyone to get upset about me refering to chemtrails as contrails



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by mb2591
 


THIS is what you wrote, and it's flat out wrong:


....chemtrails don't fade away like contrails. They stick around and spread out to large blanketing clouds. If you watch you will see what I'm talking about. Clear blue skys will become covered by clouds that are formed by these chemtrails speading out.


You flip-flopped in the post, "questioning" at first, then stating that as a "fact"

You waffled, again, in your reply, too.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by pagan_night
reply to post by topherman420
 


They use metalic particals in the military for chaffing to scramble the radar.


No, they do not. Particles do not show up on radar.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAnnouncementMovement

Originally posted by adeclerk
reply to post by newcovenant
 


This is not a debate on the existence of "chemtrails", so I would appreciate if you could answer my question about why the "chemtrail" myth continues to be perpetuated, and whom benefits from it.


And with that comment you've closed the debate to anyone that has something to say against your view. Can you tell me how two identical aircraft at identical altitudes and paths can leave two different types of trails?


First of all, you dont know that they are at the same altitude, unless you are using hardware that can intercept transponder returns, or you are using a website that has an FAA ATC data feed.

Chemtrailers have this idea that planes up there are all at the same altitude, which is entirely not correct. You can not actually tell us you were able to discern their altitudes, determine the planes in question were at the same altitude.

And yes.you can have two planes at the same altitude, one making a trail and one not. Look at this.

www.atoptics.co.uk...

the problem is, that everytime this is shown, the chemtrialers just ignore it and move onto the next misconception. The more efficient the engine (high bypass turbofans, compared to early turbojets), the more likely it is to make contrails. I wish a chemtrailer would actually acknowledge this for once, rather than just silence.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by mb2591
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

Excuse me? What part of that post was inaccurate..? You basically just took what I said and rephrased it to say that chemtrails are contrails. I was simply saying that what people refer to as chemtrails behave differently than contrails. However I've always speculated that the reason that contrails or chemtrails whatever you want to call them stick around was some difference in the weather. I just never really cared enough though to do the research to prove my speculations.


edit on 15-5-2011 by mb2591 because: didnt want anyone to get upset about me refering to chemtrails as contrails


Well you are correct. Chemtrailers think contrails change the weather, but its weather that changes the nature of contrails. The colder it is, or the higher the relative humdity at altitude, the more likely contrails (and natural cirrus) are to form.

I do not know how many times i have seen chemmies say that they saw more contrails, and then it rained the next day, so it must have been the contrails that caused the rain.

The reality was that upper level moisture was increasing in advance of the weather system, which made the contrails more prominent. The contrails did not change the weather, but were an indicator of more moisture, showing the weather was in the process of changing



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by adeclerk
 


Didn't answer my question as it clearly says they're in different regions of air and altitude, I asked why two of the same manufactured planes, on the same path and altitude create two different trails



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAnnouncementMovement
reply to post by adeclerk
 


Didn't answer my question as it clearly says they're in different regions of air and altitude, I asked why two of the same manufactured planes, on the same path and altitude create two different trails


They wouldn't, because they would be too busy falling to the ground in a ball of fire after they collided.

How close are these two planes, exactly?



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by mb2591
 


THIS is what you wrote, and it's flat out wrong:


....chemtrails don't fade away like contrails. They stick around and spread out to large blanketing clouds. If you watch you will see what I'm talking about. Clear blue skys will become covered by clouds that are formed by these chemtrails speading out.


You flip-flopped in the post, "questioning" at first, then stating that as a "fact"

You waffled, again, in your reply, too.

Yea this is what I said but i don't think you understood what i was trying to say. I was just saying that its understandable that people would call contrails that turn into clouds chemtrails. I wasn't saying they do anything that can't be proven. Also I didn't "question" at first and then state as a "fact".. I stated as a fact first.. simply refering to the way these behave.[1] I thought i made that clear by saying that I wasn't sure of the actual "chem" content of these thing.[2] I then said that you can watch it happen as my proof that what "chemtrailers" are refering to don't behave like typical contrail.[3]

Just a little insight for all of you, "chemtrails" are real..[1] how much actual "chem" is in them I don't know, it wouldn't surprise me if there was nothing harmful at all.[2] I know that there is something a little different with chemtrails than the normally emitted contrails.---- If this is what is really bothering you I appologize I was very drunk when I posted this and it is not what I was trying to say.

If you watch them.. chemtrails don't fade away like contrails. They stick around and spread out to large blanketing clouds. If you watch you will see what I'm talking about. Clear blue skys will become covered by clouds that are formed by these chemtrails speading out.[3]



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by mb2591
 


Scientists would just call those "persistent contrails". So why would you call them "chemtrails"?



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


I'm not a scientist and have never heard that term.. If it makes you feel better I'll call them whatever you want. I simply said "chemtrail" so that the majority would understand what i am refering to.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join