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.

 

More silly chemtrail "evidence"

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Saw this over at Uncinus's "Metabunk" and thought it worth sharing with ppl here - metabunk.org...

Basically these guys are saying a photo of a C-5 making contrails proves they are actually chemtails coming from "nozzles"on the wing - the "nozzles" being the flap track fairings.

Notice also how the 2 different perspectives of the "headling" graphic and the photos show the "chemtrails" actually shifting, and in some cases the perspective shows the "chemtrails" as coming from BETWEEN the "nozzles" and not from them at all.




posted on May, 22 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Loving the "testing procedure" too. At least it would make people think they are being proactive, and only the most hardy of the believers will actually want to pay out of their pockets to get some kind of "proof". But their way of sampling is still shoddy.
When will they learn that science does this type of testing daily all over the place and nothing has been found? It only adds another bunch of people, those who routinely test water, air and soil on a daily basis, into the paranoia. Certainly if there was anything drastic found someone would speak out about it.
Guess it all goes back to the "belief" or knowledge. Glad I stick to knowledge.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Here's the evidence:



Does anyone really think that's not coming from the engines?



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   
The "science" of "chemtrail analysis" has to be about the biggest joke out there, next to those using magnetometer readings on the HAARP website to prove HAARP causes earthquakes. The sad part is the number of flags and stars these "scientific analysis" threads garner.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Yes perspective seems to be a problem for some people - eg see the 2nd a/c photo on this page home.earthlink.net... - chemtrails coming from the "tail wings"

And this guy says the same thing from about 30 sec's in this vid:



And again here in the 5th photo down - www.relfe.com...

And another great example of chemmies not understanding what they are seeing - from allaircraftarenotinvolved.freeforums.org... comes this photo...



....with the comment

This video was taken from England. I've never seen a plane looking like that.


So here's a guy who perhaps thinks that "chemtrail" planes only have 1 wing because he doesn't understand that shadow and blurred images blown up don't give a good picture!!

(and just BTW there's another conspiracy theory about disappearing & holographic Planes - some with chemtrail links, on YT - check it out for a laugh .....or a cry .....or both!)
edit on 22-5-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
Here's the evidence:



Does anyone really think that's not coming from the engines?

There is a chemmie site that couches itself as geoengineering, that shows a C-5 and lists it as a KC-135. I posted it before on here, but wish I could remember the name. They cant even figure out what kinds of plane they are looking at, yet they expect to be taken seriously about some vast conspiracy



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 


Is it this one - www.holmestead.ca...


already debunked by Uncinus?? contrailscience.com... (so actually a 747 mistaken for a 135)


edit on 22-5-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by firepilot
 


Is it this one - www.holmestead.ca...


already debunked by Uncinus?? contrailscience.com... (so actually a 747 mistaken for a 135)


edit on 22-5-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)


No, but that one is making another chemmie mistake by using a photo of Boeing 747, but mistaking it for a KC-135 and using the wrong wingspan. Insert the correct wingspan in their little box, and you entirely get an altitude that is feasable for contrailing

Funny, all that work into a website and altitude calcuation, and they cant even use the correct aircraft. Its called "confirmation bias", they want to see a KC-135, and in their mind they do, but someone who is looking at it without bias, would see a Boeing 747 in their photo

Its like those who so want to see an ivory billed woodpecker, that when they go into the woods, they mistake a variety of different birds for that, because they so want to see it true.
edit on 22-5-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join