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.

 

A Chemtrail Challenge - FACT or BELIEF?

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by adeclerk
 


I just wonder why you are even here..
This site is for debating but what's the point with someone as closed minded as yourself?

I suggested the poster get some evidence..
Isn't that what you people say is lacking?




posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by adeclerk
 


I just wonder why you are even here..
This site is for debating but what's the point with someone as closed minded as yourself?

I suggested the poster get some evidence..
Isn't that what you people say is lacking?


I am not close minded, I've examined the evidence and realized that it all points to contrail.

You, however, are ignoring all of the evidence against 'chemtrails' in favor of a belief that is based in faith. That, by definition, is close minded. But I guess you can tell the chemical composition of a contrail from the ground right? So you know what you saw.


Why are you here if you aren't interested in denying ignorance?



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by tappy
As for the poster/s who say that they see 'chemtrails' that cover the sky then later it rains - well I say this (apologies if it isn't very technical but I hope you get my drift)... different weather and atmosphere can cause clouds to form or not form. Eg on hot sunny days, often there are no clouds. If it is going to rain, then we see clouds beforehand. So, the fact that 'chemtrails' appear before it rains doesn't mean they caused the rain, it means the weather was the correct condition for the contrails to form.

Why is that so hard to understand?


Well, you see we have a weather forcast that shows things with fancy radars and such. This forecast showed no cloud cover and forecasted blue, sunny skies. Planes come and blue sunny skies go away.

Whats hard about that to understand?

Try to keep in mind this has not always been the case. Ask any of the people that live up there and they will tell you they never saw these "chemtrails" 10-15 years ago.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Why insist on lying about what *others* say??:


According to them every square inch of planet earth is in a flight path ....



The perfect video has been posted numerous times....no DOUBT you've seen it. 24 hours of world-wide, is quite clear.

In addition, I myself have pointed out countless times the sheer size of the Earth's surface, and the fact that about 75% of it is ocean, and therefore hardly traveled over, nor affected by air traffic.

So, what's the deal, with continued statements that are demonstrably false?



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
This would be my first post on chemtrails and I'm a believer.

I spent some time at the cottage this week, wed&thur, and witnessed a scene I have seen play out over and over again for years now. On thursday afternoon two planes making X marks in the sky which spread out into cloud cover in a matter of hours. These planes have the ability to turn off the trails obviously since they will make 2-3 X's in a large portion of sky and then are gone back to the city without a trail to be seen in the sky. A blue sky forecast turns to cloud cover and rain.

Its been raining since friday night.

I simply cannot deny what I have seen with my own eyes for years now.


And what is it you have actually seen?

contrails, sollowed by rain.

What evidence do you ahve that one caused eth other? from what you have SEEN you have no evidence at all - so you choose to believe there is a causal connections.

That's fine - and, as you said, you are a beleiver.

So as long as you keep saying "I believe..." there's nothing for anyont to argue against.

AS soon as you ay "I believe because rain followed contrails" then you're going to get a bunch of people telling you why that is often the case!

However I'm going to call BS on your forecase of blue skies -

Here the MODIS pics for your area for Thursday 19th - Wanipigow Lake is at eth far left - and indeed it was a nice clear day over a big area. there are a few contrails on the south-east of the pic. rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov...

and here's the 20th - rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov... - with a rather large front coming in - and you think an "X" of contrals formed this??

I think you need to look up "weather"


I'm going out on a limb and presume that the weather comes from teh est to you - so if you go to the MODIS pics for the area jsut s-west of your pics you can see teh front coming through - rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov...



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack
 

Why insist on lying about what *others* say??:

According to them every square inch of planet earth is in a flight path ....

The perfect video has been posted numerous times....no DOUBT you've seen it. 24 hours of world-wide, is quite clear.
In addition, I myself have pointed out countless times the sheer size of the Earth's surface, and the fact that about 75% of it is ocean, and therefore hardly traveled over, nor affected by air traffic.
So, what's the deal, with continued statements that are demonstrably false?


Your video doesn't truly show correct scale..
How wide are actual flight paths weed?
They do NOT cover the entire country as those pics make out..
The bands are much narrower than that so that video is actually quite deceiving..
Reminds me of the pics of space debris that would have us believe it's practically impossible to get into orbit without hitting space junk..



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by adeclerk
 


I am not close minded, I've examined the evidence and realized that it all points to contrail.

You, however, are ignoring all of the evidence against 'chemtrails' in favor of a belief that is based in faith. That, by definition, is close minded. But I guess you can tell the chemical composition of a contrail from the ground right? So you know what you saw.

Why are you here if you aren't interested in denying ignorance?


And yet oddly, I've NEVER said chemtrails exist so your theory is shot down..

You however ARE closed minded in your belief that chemtrails do NOT exist..

I've NEVER seen a UFO but I wouldn't say they don't exist....



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Where did he say that you said chemtrails exist?

You have said


Of course I want evidence before I say chemtrails exist..
But I have seen some odd contrails and will keep an open mind..

(-www.abovetopsecret.com...)

IMO that is enough to support his belief that you are looking at evidence that does not exist and considering it as being as "weighty" as bucketloads of evidence about contrails.

- what is the evidence of "odd contrails" - in what way were they "odd"?



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by adeclerk
 


I am not close minded, I've examined the evidence and realized that it all points to contrail.

You, however, are ignoring all of the evidence against 'chemtrails' in favor of a belief that is based in faith. That, by definition, is close minded. But I guess you can tell the chemical composition of a contrail from the ground right? So you know what you saw.

Why are you here if you aren't interested in denying ignorance?


And yet oddly, I've NEVER said chemtrails exist so your theory is shot down..

You however ARE closed minded in your belief that chemtrails do NOT exist..

I've NEVER seen a UFO but I wouldn't say they don't exist....

UFO's exist, and I haven't seen one either, but based on the evidence we can safely conclude that Alien Beings are not visiting the Earth.

Here is a post of yours where you suggest that contrails are something other than contrails:

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by GringoViejo
 



People point out "chemtrails" and we show the evidence that they are nothing more then contrails, and when you are not satisfied you ask for us for "proof" because you do not know the difference between "proof" and "evidence."


My apologies..
I must have missed the post that contained the evidence the trails in the video were just contrails..
Could you please tell me where that post is?



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Saturday's Dilbert seems highly appropriate - www.dilbert.com...




posted on May, 22 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Ah, but you forget the tendency, given the right conditions, that contrails spread. They spread quite far, actually. We have the unfortunate advantage of having a sky free of planes for a while, post-9/11. On 09/12/2001, there were a known number of planes in the sky over the US. There was 6 miltary planes, and they made contrails. The contrails lasted between two and 10 hours. The contrails spread to cover 7898 square miles. source
When you think about the number of planes in the sky on a normal day, factor in the spread of contrails and the video is not deceiving at all.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by stars15k
reply to post by backinblack
 


Ah, but you forget the tendency, given the right conditions, that contrails spread. They spread quite far, actually. We have the unfortunate advantage of having a sky free of planes for a while, post-9/11. On 09/12/2001, there were a known number of planes in the sky over the US. There was 6 miltary planes, and they made contrails. The contrails lasted between two and 10 hours. The contrails spread to cover 7898 square miles. source
When you think about the number of planes in the sky on a normal day, factor in the spread of contrails and the video is not deceiving at all.

Great find! Saving the PDF for future "chemtrail truthers".

Too bad I can't give you more than one star for that.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack
 

Why insist on lying about what *others* say??:

According to them every square inch of planet earth is in a flight path ....

The perfect video has been posted numerous times....no DOUBT you've seen it. 24 hours of world-wide, is quite clear.
In addition, I myself have pointed out countless times the sheer size of the Earth's surface, and the fact that about 75% of it is ocean, and therefore hardly traveled over, nor affected by air traffic.
So, what's the deal, with continued statements that are demonstrably false?


Your video doesn't truly show correct scale..
How wide are actual flight paths weed?
They do NOT cover the entire country as those pics make out..
The bands are much narrower than that so that video is actually quite deceiving..
Reminds me of the pics of space debris that would have us believe it's practically impossible to get into orbit without hitting space junk..


Airways are about 4 miles wide on average...I am sure you found that same answer when you looked it up?

And yes airways go from coast to coast. You did see this in your chemtrail research, didnt you?

skyvector.com...



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


You are not aware of the 21st century plan for airspace? It has many terms, some more vernacular, some more technically-based. Initially, one term that stuck in my mind, was "free-flight". Simply, a way to shed the old land-based VOR Airway structure, and utilize the capabilities of GPS-based Flight Management System Inertial Nav updating precision.


They do NOT cover the entire country as those pics make out..


Maybe, not in your country. But, here's something else....the places in the USA that are "gapped" are primarily in Nevada....you now, "Area 51" and the similar regions...White Sands, NM, would be another. Most US residents live in a location where they will either be directly underneath, or will have a view (you an see, in the sky, for at least a hundred miles radius)....a view of contrails from the oblique. Off in the distance, so to speak.



The bands are much narrower than that so that video is actually quite deceiving..


The "bands"? Do you have your Instrument Rating, yet (or the Aussie equivalent....I presume it's the same term). How about doing some cross-country flying? Know what it means to "go direct" to a Nav-Aid?

Even before GPS, airliners have done that for decades. Whenever there are doglegs in the Airway routing, to "shave off" some distance, shortening the leg.

In the USA the new procedures are being implemented, and are reflected in some flight plans, you can see them on www.flightaware.com...

But first, let's look at this one, as an example....it is American Airlines (AAL) 607 on 21 May, 2011

That will show you, on the map, the actual track over the ground, for that specific flight, on its route KORD - KLAX.

That is an example (that large, usually unwanted dogleg) of the historical record as the flight had to deviate off the filed flight plan, for weather avoidance. I presume WX, since the excursion is so pronounced, it is the most likely explanation.

As you see on the right, here is the filed flight plan routing:


MZV J87 IRK J96 SLN J102 ALS J110 RSK J64 PGS RIIVR2


Originally, it was NOT filed to take advantage of the new airspace waypoints (I will get to those, next) but that routing is "traditional" Airway/VOR. (The 'J87', 'J96', 'J102', etc being the Airways, and the three-letter codes the VORs).

Anyway, feel free to peruse the FlightAware site, for many examples...be sure to check out the detailed (tracklog and graph) link, (on the 'Status' line) for minute-by-minute flight following, again for your amusement and edification.


Now, back to "free-flight"....that's a bit ways off, still. Meanwhile, because there's a ways to go before can implement, they are starting the NGATS. to include the DAC plan, and HAR (Dynamic, something something, and High Altitude Restructure). See. lots of silly technical terms, typical for FAA. They also call it, NAR (Nat'l Airspace Redesign).



ALL you need to know is that certain Latitude/Longitude points are laid out in a grid, and defined with unique five-digit codes (I won't bore you with THOSE details, would take a whole thread).

Looking on High EnRoute USA Charts....like, @ skyvector.com...

The waypoints, example: K P84O (At N44 / W86). North/south along lines of longitude, spaced every 2° east/west and every 30' north/south, are many more. When laid out on the map, form a grid. These can be used in Flight Plans, now. ATC knows them, are in their computer databases, as well as (some) airlines...including some Foreign carriers that operate in the USA.

Here, found this map, in a PDF that talks about it, about half-way down: www.guardianjet.com...

(That is geared toward Business Aviation....and, they can make contrails, too....)




edit on Mon 23 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by stars15k
reply to post by backinblack
 


Ah, but you forget the tendency, given the right conditions, that contrails spread. They spread quite far, actually. We have the unfortunate advantage of having a sky free of planes for a while, post-9/11. On 09/12/2001, there were a known number of planes in the sky over the US. There was 6 miltary planes, and they made contrails. The contrails lasted between two and 10 hours. The contrails spread to cover 7898 square miles. source
When you think about the number of planes in the sky on a normal day, factor in the spread of contrails and the video is not deceiving at all.


Really??
What percentage of plane flight time even produces a contrail?
What percentage of contrails produced are persistent?

I'd say the video is very deceiving if you think EVERY plane EVERY minute produces a persistent contrail..
In fact I have stated before that I vary rarely see a persistent contrail where I live and I'm near one of the busiest flightpaths known ...



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Really??
What percentage of plane flight time even produces a contrail?
What percentage of contrails produced are persistent?

I'd say the video is very deceiving if you think EVERY plane EVERY minute produces a persistent contrail..
In fact I have stated before that I vary rarely see a persistent contrail where I live and I'm near one of the busiest flightpaths known ...


And when you researched upper air temperatures, relative humidities, Appleman Charts, and persistent contrails dating even back in the 1940s, what did you come up with in regards to contrails today for your research?

Because you did all of that, didnt you?


edit on 23-5-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-5-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


You are not aware of the 21st century plan for airspace? It has many terms, some more vernacular, some more technically-based. Initially, one term that stuck in my mind, was "free-flight". Simply, a way to shed the old land-based VOR Airway structure, and utilize the capabilities of GPS-based Flight Management System Inertial Nav updating precision.


You're quoting "free flight" as an excuse although you admit it hasn't been introduced yet?


Here in Australia planes do keep to set flight paths for the most part..
I recall you also discussing the width of flight paths often in 9/11 threads..



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 



And when you researched upper air temperatures, relative humidities, Appleman Charts, and persistent contrails dating even back in the 1940s, what did you come up with in regards to contrails today for your research?

Because you did all of that, didnt you?


Not sure what drugs you are taking to ask that..

The "Appleman Chart" has been shown to be unreliable...
Of course it's only unreliable when a contrail is produced where the chart says it shouldn't be produced..



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by firepilot
 



And when you researched upper air temperatures, relative humidities, Appleman Charts, and persistent contrails dating even back in the 1940s, what did you come up with in regards to contrails today for your research?

Because you did all of that, didnt you?


Not sure what drugs you are taking to ask that..

The "Appleman Chart" has been shown to be unreliable...
Of course it's only unreliable when a contrail is produced where the chart says it shouldn't be produced..


No, it can underestimate persistent contrails, especially since engines today are more apt to make contrails than engines back then. Your did find that out, didnt you?

And whats with the "drugs" reference. Tell us all exactly what in my message pointed to drugs and to what kind?

Was is that upper air can be really cold?
Was it that contrails were around in WW2?

Do either of those point to drug issues on my behalf? What drugs then?



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 


No, it can underestimate persistent contrails, especially since engines today are more apt to make contrails than engines back then. Your did find that out, didnt you?
And whats with the "drugs" reference.
Tell us all exactly what in my message pointed to drugs and to what kind?
Was is that upper air can be really cold?Was it that contrails were around in WW2?
Do either of those point to drug issues on my behalf? What drugs then?


The drug question was because I know perfectly well what causes contrails..
I've never said different, even with WWII and again question why you would bring up such obvious questions..

The Appleman Chart has been shown time and time again to be inaccurate..
That's a fact...

Anyways, you guys carry on staring each other for nothing posts..
I'm not interested in arguing and boosting your star count..



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join