Implanted memories of Blue Skies

reply to post by CarlitosAmsel


I think the smog comment was directed at someone else.

Sure we can see the sky over our heads. But there's two other things you can't really argue with:

1) You've moved, and the sky varies from place to place with the climate
2) Memory is fallible.

So given that, where's the actual evidence the sky has changed? Photos? Measurements?

I am an amature photographer and can tell you that photography cannot be used to tell the difference of the color of the sky. I can use the same camera and lense and adjust a few settings to make the sky look different. Different lenses with the same settings will have a different look also. The angle of the sun will change the look. If you are near the ocean the sky will change with an onshore breeze compared to an off shore breeze. On shore breeze will carry more moisture in the air than off shore breeze ect.

I don't see it possible to compare photography over time as an accurate measurement of the color of the sky.

WHY TALK ABOUT IT IF IT DOESN'T EXIST?

Geoengineering describes activities specifically and deliberately designed to effect a change in the global climate with the aim of minimising or reversing anthropogenic (that is human caused) climate change. Geoengineering covers many techniques and technologies but splits into two broad categories: those that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere such as sequestering and locking carbon dioxide in geological formations; and those that reflect solar radiation. Techniques in this category include the injection of sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to mimic the cooling effect caused by large volcanic eruptions.

Originally posted by jaydeePNW
I am an amature photographer and can tell you that photography cannot be used to tell the difference of the color of the sky. I can use the same camera and lense and adjust a few settings to make the sky look different. Different lenses with the same settings will have a different look also. The angle of the sun will change the look. If you are near the ocean the sky will change with an onshore breeze compared to an off shore breeze. On shore breeze will carry more moisture in the air than off shore breeze ect.

I don't see it possible to compare photography over time as an accurate measurement of the color of the sky.

edit on 16-5-2011 by jaydeePNW because: spelling

I agree. But people claim it does, so I'd like to see what they are referring to. Maybe it will give a clue as to why they have this perception of bluer skies - if their memories have blue sky have been influenced by the oversaturated color in some old photos, or by an excessive focus on unrepresentative vacation photos.

Originally posted by binkbonk
WHY TALK ABOUT IT IF IT DOESN'T EXIST?

Geoengineering describes activities specifically and deliberately designed to effect a change in the global climate with the aim of minimising or reversing anthropogenic (that is human caused) climate change. Geoengineering covers many techniques and technologies but splits into two broad categories: those that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere such as sequestering and locking carbon dioxide in geological formations; and those that reflect solar radiation. Techniques in this category include the injection of sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to mimic the cooling effect caused by large volcanic eruptions.

Why talk about a manned mission to Mars if it doesn't exist?

Because it's something that might exist in the future.

IMO, the color of the sky has not changed. The point of contention is the behavior of "contrails" left behind jets. IE; persistent, lingering, spreading out, connecting with other "contrails", blanketing the sky... etc. The color of the sky is a strawman argument that you choose to focus on.

The sky was cloudless deep blue here all day yesterday. My memory aint that bad.

Originally posted by binkbonk
IMO, the color of the sky has not changed. The point of contention is the behavior of "contrails" left behind jets. IE; persistent, lingering, spreading out, connecting with other "contrails", blanketing the sky... etc. The color of the sky is a strawman argument that you choose to focus on.

I focus on the arguments people bring up. But the same memory argument also applies to the behavior of contrails. And that's something that CAN be demonstrated with photos. So I'd be happy to discuss that too.

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by binkbonk
IMO, the color of the sky has not changed. The point of contention is the behavior of "contrails" left behind jets. IE; persistent, lingering, spreading out, connecting with other "contrails", blanketing the sky... etc. The color of the sky is a strawman argument that you choose to focus on.

I focus on the arguments people bring up. But the same memory argument also applies to the behavior of contrails. And that's something that CAN be demonstrated with photos. So I'd be happy to discuss that too.

Why?

reply to post by shimmeringsilver73

30º S.
South Africa or South America then. You are dealing with two things which would lead to fewer contrails.

Upper air temperatures at lower latitudes are quite a bit higher on average than those at higher latitudes. This means that conditions are less conducive to contrail formation.
www.geography.hunter.cuny.edu...

The other factor is high altitude air traffic (or a lack thereof).
Note that the heaviest traffic seems to occur at night and, compared to North America, is very scant.


And yes, fewer contrails means clearer skies.

Originally posted by binkbonk

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by binkbonk
IMO, the color of the sky has not changed. The point of contention is the behavior of "contrails" left behind jets. IE; persistent, lingering, spreading out, connecting with other "contrails", blanketing the sky... etc. The color of the sky is a strawman argument that you choose to focus on.

I focus on the arguments people bring up. But the same memory argument also applies to the behavior of contrails. And that's something that CAN be demonstrated with photos. So I'd be happy to discuss that too.

Why?

Why what?

reply to post by Uncinus

It doesn't really matter if you can back up your claims or not. Even though you cannot provide indisputable proof to clear the chemtrails of geoengineering particulates, it doesn't matter. The government is constantly running illegal, secret programs and it is in the common citizens best interest to highly scrutinize everything they do, because they do it with our consent and our tax dollars. But it's even far beyond that. So whether you can prove that there are no geoengineering particulates in those chemtrails or not, there are still sinister government plots occurring all around the world... You want me to provide proof? If that's your request, I suggest you continue taking the Blue Pill, and go buy a bigger flat screen tv.

reply to post by Uncinus


nope i still see blue skes where im from. mabey you need to move AWAY from the big cities like LA or NYC. and mabey you need to stop thinking that everything is 'fake" and implanted. also if you think its so easty to "suggest" memories to people and they buy it you need to work out your weak mind and not be influenced by simple jedi mind tricks

Originally posted by binkbonk
reply to post by Uncinus

 

It doesn't really matter if you can back up your claims or not. Even though you cannot provide indisputable proof to clear the chemtrails of geoengineering particulates, it doesn't matter. The government is constantly running illegal, secret programs and it is in the common citizens best interest to highly scrutinize everything they do, because they do it with our consent and our tax dollars. But it's even far beyond that. So whether you can prove that there are no geoengineering particulates in those chemtrails or not, there are still sinister government plots occurring all around the world... You want me to provide proof? If that's your request, I suggest you continue taking the Blue Pill, and go buy a bigger flat screen tv.

So your proof of chemtrails is that the government does secret stuff?

You agree then that there is no evidence that the trails have changed, or the sky has changed? Because that's all I'm saying, that there's no physical evidence, and that most of the claims of the chemtrailers are false or just bad science.

reply to post by Uncinus

No I'm saying it doesn't matter that you have no proof and you cannot back up your claims. Why? Because even if you could provide proof, there are many other things going on that are bad and so our human predicament does not get any better even if you could prove what you are trying to prove.

Originally posted by Upthepunx
reply to post by Uncinus

 

nope i still see blue skes where im from. mabey you need to move AWAY from the big cities like LA or NYC. and mabey you need to stop thinking that everything is 'fake" and implanted. also if you think its so easty to "suggest" memories to people and they buy it you need to work out your weak mind and not be influenced by simple jedi mind tricks

It's been scientifically demonstrated that it's easy to suggest memories. And that memory in general is not very reliable. Where do you think the phrase "conflicting eyewitness accounts" comes from?

Originally posted by SaberTruth
Wow... not only can't we believe our lyin' eyes, we can't trust our own memories, though no implantations were done on thousands of people all over the world. Of course, deniers have excellent memories and never get false ones implanted, and they don't have lyin' eyes to worry about.

not only can we create false memories, but we can muddy up the ones we have so much that what we remember is no where near the true event.

emotion, suggestion, situation, environment, peer pressure, all of these can cause our actual memories to be mixed up or cloudy. memory is actually a very unreliable resource when it comes to trying to gather 100% FACT.

we will also, either consciously, or subconsciously word our memories different which can cause it to be understood differently. the way the person conveys the memory is very important. maybe the person wants you to think of them in a certain way, so they change the setting of the story, or make some changes or exaggerations here n there, which, in the end, makes that "memory" not a memory at all, but an invented story.

this reason alone is why physical evidence and not circumstantial/word of mouth, is needed to make a conviction.

the way the memory is heard or understood is also important when trying to separate fact from fiction. the way our brains interprate that information is almost as important as how the memory is told.

i could go on and on, but the moral of the story is, human memory is so unstable/changeable, that it can not be used to glean 100% fact, if that was true, the earth is hollow, the ufo debate would have been put to rest a long time ago (btw ufos are real) and satanic ritual abuse was invented by the CIA.

how it is conveyed and understood is of much importance

Originally posted by binkbonk
reply to post by Uncinus

 

No I'm saying it doesn't matter that you have no proof and you cannot back up your claims. Why? Because even if you could provide proof, there are many other things going on that are bad and so our human predicament does not get any better even if you could prove what you are trying to prove.

So you are saying it does not matter if you are right or wrong? Don't you care to be right?

Sounds like you are justifying lying about chemtrails, because that serves some greater good in the fight against the PTB.

reply to post by Uncinus
No, I provided proof of geoengineering programs that governments are involved in. You have not provided any proof of your claim that the chemtrails of today consist of the same particulates as the contrails of yesterday. The burden of proof is on you.

reply to post by CarlitosAmsel


THIS is a violation of the ATS T&C:

You are so right @@@1000TonBlocks@@@ these are worthless shills.

Instead of learning, the sorts who claim (without ANY evidence, of course...just like the "chem"-trail claims) such abusive accusations have nothing to substantiate it.....but, are merely lashing out in anger, as their *cherished beliefs* are being assaulted with facts, real evidence and science and reason.

The reality of science is unassailable. The fantasy of "chem"-trails is simple to expose.....