It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Vitres DeLaver
For myself, I remember short contrails. I only started noticing long, persistent trails that spread out to form as a haze in the late 90's.
For all the contrail conspiracies, wouldn't the simplest answer be that there are more pollutants in the air now than there was before? Water vapour needs a particle to form around in order to condense and become a cloud. look it up. This from Wikipedia...
Cloud condensation nuclei or CCNs (also known as cloud seeds) are small particles (typically 0.2 µm, or 1/100 th the size of a cloud droplet ) about which cloud droplets coalesce. Water requires a non-gaseous surface to make the transition from a vapour to a liquid. In the atmosphere, this surface presents itself as tiny solid or liquid particles called CCNs.
Persistent contrails are simply the visible manifestation of air pollution. While no less important, air pollution is hardly a conspiracy.
1) "chem"trails appear to cast shadows of themselves that float in the sky next to the trail. I've never seen this effect while observing a conventional, short "con"trail.
2) After a heavy morning of "spaying" the sky turns to a white haze in the afternoon that produces giant prismatic halows around the sun along with "rainbow" clouds.
3) Some trails twist like a quarkscrew even while the source (jet) is still visible and it's not performing barrel-rolls and there's no break in the trail. I've never observed natural clouds twist like this.
Originally posted by Uncinus
Someone once noted that if you accused someone of having no sense of humor, they would react more strongly than if you called them a racist. Everyone thinks they have a good sense of humor.
The same might be said for memory. Everyone think they have a great memory, and if you question their recollection of events, even their childhood recollection, you might as well have questioned their sanity.
But research shows that memories, especially childhood memories, can very easily be created with only simple suggestions. See Scientific American September 1997, vol 277 #3 pages 70-75
The researchers told the students that the study was about how people remember shared experiences differently. In addition to actual events reported by parents, each participant was given one false event, either an overnight hospitalization for a high fever and a possible ear infection, or a birthday party with pizza and a clown that supposedly happened at about the age of five. The parents confirmed that neither of these events actually took place.
Hyman found that students fully or partially recalled 84 percent of the true events in the first interview and 88 percent in the second interview. None of the participants recalled the false event during the first interview, but 20 percent said they remembered something about the false event in the second interview. One participant who had been exposed to the emergency hospitalization story later remembered a male doctor, a female nurse and a friend from church who came to visit at the hospital.
In another study, along with true events Hyman presented different false events, such as accidentally spilling a bowl of punch on the parents of the bride at a wedding reception or having to evacuate a grocery store when the overhead sprinkler systems erroneously activated. Again, none of the participants recalled the false event during the first interview, but 18 percent remembered something about it in the second interview.
For example, during the first interview, one participant, when asked about the fictitious wedding event, stated, "I have no clue. I have never heard that one before." In the second interview, the participant said, "It was an outdoor wedding, and I think we were running around and knocked something over like the punch bowl or something and made a big mess and of course got yelled at for it. "
There are many other studies on the way that your mind can create false memories.
Given this, and the fact that the main evidence for the chemtrail theory is people supposedly remembering bluer or clearer skies, and shorter contrails (to an extent that contradicts known science), wouldn't it be reasonable to question those memories? Is it not possible that those memories might have been prompted to some degree - either by an idealizing of blue skies from happy childhood summers and family photos, or from the suggestion of contrails being shorter, a suggestion raised or reinforced by a peer group.
How much do you trust your memory?
Originally posted by CarlitosAmsel
This "false memory" game has been introduced into the public debate a couple of years ago. As I recall, it was at first used to protect sex offenders against the memory of child witnesses. It is essentially a NWO trick to detache us from ourselfs and the world to "play ball" with us, Surely, people remember one and the same event different on a subjectiv level. But if you bring five or ten or hunderd people together and you gather their memory about a certain event, the truth of the event will come forward.edit on 16-5-2011 by CarlitosAmsel because: (no reason given)
Description of Appeal to Fear
The Appeal to Fear is a fallacy with the following pattern:
Y is presented (a claim that is intended to produce fear).
Therefore claim X is true (a claim that is generally, but need not be, related to Y in some manner).
This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because creating fear in people does not constitute evidence for a claim.