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.

 

Implanted memories of Blue Skies

page: 6
24
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by binkbonk
reply to post by adeclerk
 
No you are mistaken, because I am not referring to anything like those Chemtrails in your picture. I am referring to multiple occasions when I tracked a single Chemtrail that was laid in a high altitude, started spreading out, fairly rapidly lost altitude and dispersed slowly, eventually drifting within a few hundred yards over my house. That is not normal, and I have no reason to lie. I do not have an agenda, I just think it is strange that within the last couple decades the supposed "contrails" behind jets, linger persistently, spreading out, and if there are any others in the vicinity, will join up and connect leaving a misty haze across the sky, and sometimes it is very dense. This did not happen in the 60's, 70's or 1980's, as I recall. Now, you can tell me that my memory is not valid, and then I can think to myself that your argument is built on a million tiny flea turds and you are dancing obliviously at the top.



How often does it have to be explained that airplane follow routes that go between waypoints? It isn't too strange for multiple jets to be traveling nearly the same path (they aren't though, they are at different altitudes, which you can't see from the ground). I noticed that when someone mentions they don't remember a change in contrails, you state that their memory is unreliable, although you trust your own on the same subject? Sounds like a serious case of cognitive dissonance, you are completely ignoring facts, evidence and research, yet your claims ultimately contain no evidence whatsoever to give them credibility (except that you are relying on your own perception,all the while ignoring evidence). The last sentence in your post clearly indicates who has the evidence to back up their claims, and who has run out of points to use in this debate.




posted on May, 15 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by adeclerk
 
Yes, I am relying on my own eyewitness testimony. I do not have anything other than that. This phenomena, Chemtrails did not exist in the 1960's, 70's and 80's. Chemtrails exist now, though, and I don't know why, and I don't have any other proof. That is why I am trying to figure out what they are. You are here trying to convince people that you have all the answers, and you are very defensive about it. You clearly have an agenda. And, your memory is fouled.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by binkbonk
 


Good....you know the marine layer. Well, that is what you described.

Because, if you knew anything about meteorology, and also physics, you would know that clouds don't "descend" from an altitude of many thousands of feet overhead, down to a "few yards" above your head!

Know what "terminal velocity" is? You should.....

That will lead you to a better understanding of why clouds remain aloft, and why contrails do, as well....also, why the notion of "spraying" on the people below, from heights of 30,000 feet or so, is ludicrous....



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 
I wasn't referring to the marine layer, I was referring to a chemtrail that descended from a very high altitude and kept descending until it was only a few hundred yards up in the sky. This, also was late in the afternoon, (marine layers usually burn off by the late morning), there was no marine layer present. Please do not continue to misrepresent my eyewitness testimony.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by binkbonk
reply to post by adeclerk
 
Yes, I am relying on my own eyewitness testimony. I do not have anything other than that. This phenomena, Chemtrails did not exist in the 1960's, 70's and 80's. Chemtrails exist now, though, and I don't know why, and I don't have any other proof. That is why I am trying to figure out what they are. You are here trying to convince people that you have all the answers, and you are very defensive about it. You clearly have an agenda. And, your memory is fouled.


Where specifically did I say anything about using my own memory or any of my senses as evidence?

Also, here is a picture of contrails from 1963:



You can find more photos of contrails (dating back to WWII!) here.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by binkbonk
 



Because, if you knew anything about meteorology, and also physics, you would know that clouds don't "descend" from an altitude of many thousands of feet overhead, down to a "few yards" above your head!



Exactly, that's why I noticed it and realized the inconsistency. Would you like to tell me my memory is flawed???



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by adeclerk
 
Nice pictures, I will check them out. I'm sure it's just my bad memory playing tricks on me...When something fishy (or slightly fishy, true or not) pops up, the fact that so many people are quick to suspect a sinister plot from the government should be a testimony to what a great job they are doing, and the trust that they have instilled in the American people...not.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by binkbonk

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by binkbonk
 



Because, if you knew anything about meteorology, and also physics, you would know that clouds don't "descend" from an altitude of many thousands of feet overhead, down to a "few yards" above your head!



Exactly, that's why I noticed it and realized the inconsistency. Would you like to tell me my memory is flawed???


if it was such an abnormal event that you claim you witnessed, why not take a picture?

Surely if you guys snapped a picture of one of these elusive "chemtrails" that isn't actually a contrail, it would greatly help your case.

Until then, what you claim to notice is irrelevant. either because your memory is, in fact, flawed or you have no evidence. I don't care about the accuracy of your "memories" because they themselves are not evidence of any sort. Even more so when you didn't feel it weird enough to take a picture of, like no "chemmies" do. Instead we have pictures of contrails inaccurately described as "chemtrials", and no "evidence" to support the contrary other then "memories" that are not worthy of capturing with photographs.

It's not like were hunting Bigfoot here.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by binkbonk
reply to post by weedwhacker
 
I wasn't referring to the marine layer, I was referring to a chemtrail that descended from a very high altitude and kept descending until it was only a few hundred yards up in the sky. This, also was late in the afternoon, (marine layers usually burn off by the late morning), there was no marine layer present. Please do not continue to misrepresent my eyewitness testimony.


That would be an exceptionally unusual occurrence, something unknown to science. So the fact that only you saw it, and nobody photographed it, makes it rather doubtful. Especially as it must have been visible to millions of people.

If that was a chemtrail, then why don't all chemtrails do that? What percentage of them do that? Why does nobody notice something that seems to contradict the laws of physics?



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


Apparently there are such things as "subsidence inversions" that make it possible for cloud to descend - eg see here - www.maybeck.com...

and here on wiki - Subsidence Inversion
dunno whether this is what the poster saw or not tho


edit on 15-5-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: my typing sucks

edit on 15-5-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: fix the wiki link



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by binkbonk
reply to post by adeclerk
 
Nice pictures, I will check them out. I'm sure it's just my bad memory playing tricks on me...When something fishy (or slightly fishy, true or not) pops up, the fact that so many people are quick to suspect a sinister plot from the government should be a testimony to what a great job they are doing, and the trust that they have instilled in the American people...not.




Government agencies have given explanations of the "chemtrail" myth, and of course believers don't want to listen to what the conclusions were (instead exclaiming "disinfo!" from the rooftops) and yet the same people also believe documents from the same agencies about weather modification (which have all been debunked as academic papers and frauds), claiming that they are evidence of "chemtrailing" (you can read more about it on wikipedia). Let's make up our minds.

As for your memory, we mean no personal offense to you, but is has been consistently proven that memory is unreliable. This doesn't just apply to your memory, it is true for everyone. If you want more information you can find it on Stanford's website. But I guess the folks at Stanford are wrong about your memory.

If you are still interested, I would suggest looking into the works of Elizabeth Loftus, specifically her experiments on memory.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by GringoViejo
 
You are just jumping in here? Go back and read my prior post, I explained why I didn't take pictures earlier. Actually, don't bother.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by adeclerk
 

"We"? What, are you a team?



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by binkbonk
reply to post by adeclerk
 

"We"? What, are you a team?

Thank-you for the reply, but it troubles me that you are ignoring the rest of the content of my post. I will humor you though, "we" was referring to the others who had brought up the unreliability of memory.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Uncinus
 



Given this, and the fact that the main evidence for the chemtrail theory is people supposedly remembering bluer or clearer skies


I honestly don't get when people claim that the skies aren't clear blue anymore. I see clear blue skies all the time.

Maybe it isn't the clouds...maybe it is their eyes getting older and/or used to the blueness of the sky.



No doubt.. I've seen some of the clearest skies last week than I have in a long time, of course those gave way to rain clouds over the weekend.. but absolutely crystal clear before that



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk

Originally posted by binkbonk
reply to post by adeclerk
 
Nice pictures, I will check them out. I'm sure it's just my bad memory playing tricks on me...When something fishy (or slightly fishy, true or not) pops up, the fact that so many people are quick to suspect a sinister plot from the government should be a testimony to what a great job they are doing, and the trust that they have instilled in the American people...not.




Government agencies have given explanations of the "chemtrail" myth, and of course believers don't want to listen to what the conclusions were (instead exclaiming "disinfo!" from the rooftops) and yet the same people also believe documents from the same agencies about weather modification (which have all been debunked as academic papers and frauds), claiming that they are evidence of "chemtrailing" (you can read more about it on wikipedia). Let's make up our minds.

As for your memory, we mean no personal offense to you, but is has been consistently proven that memory is unreliable. This doesn't just apply to your memory, it is true for everyone. If you want more information you can find it on Stanford's website. But I guess the folks at Stanford are wrong about your memory.

If you are still interested, I would suggest looking into the works of Elizabeth Loftus, specifically her experiments on memory.


Here here, I've noticed the same trend...



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


Yeah, to be honest, I always remembered "chemtrails" in the sky ever since I was little. They didn't just suddenly show up one year... they were always there, more or less. That's one reason why I find the chemtrail conspiracies to be kind of ridiculous.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Uncinus
 


Apparently there are such things as "subsidence inversions" that make it possible for cloud to descend - eg see here - www.maybeck.com...

and here on wiki - Subsidence Inversion
dunno whether this is what the poster saw or not tho


A subsistence inversions is not really a downward flow, it's just the mechanism for the creation of an inversion layer by the compression of a mass of air as it slowly sinks, which then warms it, so it's warmer than the air beneath it. And they don't get below 6000 feet.

If the contrail were descending from on high, it would be ice, it would evaporate WAY before it got to "a few hundred feet" above the ground. If it were powder, then it would continue all the way to the ground. I'm thinking it was either an optical illusion of a cloud moving away from the viewer, or it was a combination of overlapping clouds at various levels, maybe indeed including marine layer at the bottom.

Unfortunately, eye-witnesses are often mistaken. When someone describes something that seems to contradict known science, then additional verification is required to take it seriously.

I've heard of the "chemtrail falls to the ground" story several times, but NOBODY has every produced video or photos of it happening.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by RicoMarston

Originally posted by binkbonk
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

The design of jet engines creates contrails that persist, and spread apart to cover the whole sky? How so?


the contrails that do not "persist" behave identically to the contrails which do. you just can't see them. certain atmospheric conditions make one contrail visible while others are invisible.

how do you think clouds form? the clear blue sky is filled with water vapor; potential clouds. there is a period of time prior to a cloud's formation when it exists in an invisible state. even now, there are masses of water vapor more tightly packed than open sky, but not so tightly that it coalesces into a visible cloud.

that's right; INVISIBLE CLOUDS! what will HAARP come up with next?!

If you really want to see what the sky looks like on a "clear" day. Go out and buy a pair of those HD vision sunglasses, you will see it's not as clear as you thought.
Yes there is something going on in the sky a lot more today and it has a definite sinister plot.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by IncognitoGhostman
If you really want to see what the sky looks like on a "clear" day. Go out and buy a pair of those HD vision sunglasses, you will see it's not as clear as you thought.
Yes there is something going on in the sky a lot more today and it has a definite sinister plot.


Have you been wearing HD vision sunglasses since you were a child?

If not, then how does that help - that's like saying "look at your fingernails with a hand-held microscope - you'll see there are not as clean as you thought". But your fingernails have not actually changed.

Contrails haven changed either, once you account for the increase in air traffic. You are just noticing them more now.

The air quality has actually improved since the early 1990s.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join