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.

 

Chemtrails, Trolls, and Deer Poop.

page: 10
38
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by coyotepoet
reply to post by adeclerk
 





Correct, I can safely say that I know more about basic science, meteorology and logic than any 'chemtrailer'.


Which is why I guess that the majority percentage of your posts are on chemtrails and the others are about how birthers are wrong and water flouridation isn't bad for you. (A bit off topic but apparently skeptic=towing the line on any official story.)

That is correct, I support what the evidence supports. The evidence supports that there are only contrails, just as how both the long and short form birth certificates support that Obama was born in Hawaii, kind of like how the evidence shows that death rates are not any higher in areas with "toxic fluoridated water" compared to those without water fluoridation.

Got any other straws to grasp at? So far you have failed to bring any 'chemtrail' evidence to the table, but you have demonstrated a lack of understanding of high school level scientific topics.




posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Argyll

What do you know, no "contrails." So what's the difference then?


Different atmospheric conditions maybe?


Maybe?



Come on people, aren't you supposed to be debunking something? Don't tell me you're leaving it as an open question now. That is an awful lot of crap coming out of the back of that plane in the image above.


The "maybe" was to insinuate that there "maybe" more reasons as to why your original picture shows contrails, but your second doesn't.

Atmospheric conditions is one.

Altitude is the another.

As to me supposedly debunking something......aren't you supposed to be proving something?



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Argyll
The "maybe" was to insinuate that there "maybe" more reasons as to why your original picture shows contrails, but your second doesn't.

Atmospheric conditions is one.

Altitude is the another.

As to me supposedly debunking something......aren't you supposed to be proving something?


No more than you are.

Hypothetically, what differing conditions can cause the airplane to be spewing nothing close to the ground, but be spewing all of this garbage way up in the air?






Are you telling me that any such airplane at that same altitude is going to be spewing all of that crap? What "atmospheric conditions" induce such a thing?
edit on 29-5-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by bsbray11
Ohhh so finally we have an open question and not just definitive statements huh?


finally nothing - it's been on ATS god knows how many times - it is only news to you!


You're right, it is news to me that you are actually allowing the possibility that these are in fact chemicals being dumped.

I was under the impression that all of this stuff was automatically hogwash according to you, but apparently you don't actually have such a case.




You admit the website itself mentions 30 aircraft being used to drop chemicals, for weather modification. How in the hell is that me making it up?


Because it has nothing at all to do with chemtrails - it is a typical confusion that new chemmie faithful exhibit.

I know you're not making up the info about cloud seeding - I say you are making up the story that cloud seeding is "chemtrails".


Now you're just trying to shift definitions so that chemtrails excludes weather modification.


Read:


Citizen concern lingers over aluminum in water

Mount Shasta, Calif. —

Several Mt. Shasta area residents continue to express their concerns over what they say are toxic levels of aluminum showing up in area rain, snow and pond water samples taken in and around the City of Mt. Shasta.
Recent test results submitted to the Mt. Shasta Area Newspapers by two concerned citizens show levels of aluminum ranging from 198 ug/l (micro grams per liter) to 61,100 ug/l, with the most recent sample taken from a rain gauge within the Mt. Shasta city limits on Feb. 1, showing 1010 ug/l.
According to standards established by the California Environmental Protection agency, this number exceeds the 1000 ug/l Primary MCL maximum contaminant level) for aluminum, qualifying it as unfit for drinking.
The concerns over the apparent high levels of aluminum first surfaced last spring, as a small group of Siskiyou and Shasta county residents began expressing their alarm over what they claim is an aerial spraying program intended to control the weather or thwart global warming.
The issue, commonly referred to as “chemtrails,” is seen by many as nothing more than an internet hoax. Others, however, claim that the lingering plumes of exhaust from planes is part of a world wide program to create a heavy metal “shield” in the atmosphere.
Beginning last spring, some area residents began asserting their consternation over the long lingering clouds seen throughout the area. Proponents of the theory say that contrails, the normal water vapor emitted from jet engines, dissipate quickly, while chemtrails linger for up to half a day, often morphing into a cirrus cloud- like canopy, creating an overcast sky.


www.mtshastanews.com...


Unfortunately "chemtrails" are not universally accepted as excluding weather manipulation. They only exclude weather modification when you're backed into a corner that you have no other escape from.

Just more of the disinformation campaign.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



Temperature.

One of the bi-products of the jet fuel is moisture, at high altitudes (typically +30k feet) the moisture forms ice crystals, which form contrails, exactly the same way cirrus clouds form, they will persist as long as the atmospheric conditions prevail.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Argyll
 


So can you present any photos comparing frozen water vapor to the clouds coming out of the plane above, to show the similarities or any differences?



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 






Maybe you remember this video


Yep, I remember it but that still isn't proof that I don't watch the videos I watch, just that we disagree about what is a contrail and what is a chemtrail and since you think that everything is a contrail, that doesn't leave much room for other options.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by Argyll
 


So can you present any photos comparing frozen water vapor to the clouds coming out of the plane above, to show the similarities or any differences?


the vapour coming out of the aircraft is being expelled at hundreds of mph, so obviously the resulting cirrus clouds are not being produced "naturally"....but none the less they are just that!....cirrus clouds.

As to providing a picture, I'm not sure what you want exactly?.........just google "cirrus clouds" and you'll get a photo.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

No more than you are.

Hypothetically, what differing conditions can cause the airplane to be spewing nothing close to the ground, but be spewing all of this garbage way up in the air?






Are you telling me that any such airplane at that same altitude is going to be spewing all of that crap? What "atmospheric conditions" induce such a thing?
edit on 29-5-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)


Do you seriously not understand how the atmosphere is different at 35,000 ft than at sea level??

Science education has sure gone downhill apparently.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Here's another:



infranetlab.org...

That photo comes in direct relation to Chinese media writing about weather modification attempts in regards to the 2008 Olympics in Beijing.

That photo comes from here. It is a fire fighting aircraft.
www.istockphoto.com...
Here's more about the Air Tractor:
www.airtractor.com...
edit on 5/29/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

That photo comes from here. It is a fire fighting aircraft.
www.istockphoto.com...
Here's more about the Air Tractor:
www.airtractor.com...
edit on 5/29/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Naww, we didnt have chemtrailers yet again posting photos and not being honest about what it is, yet again. Why do chemtrailers take photos, post them, and not say what the photo was actually about...



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   
doublepost
edit on 29-5-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Argyll

Originally posted by bsbray11
So can you present any photos comparing frozen water vapor to the clouds coming out of the plane above, to show the similarities or any differences?


the vapour coming out of the aircraft is being expelled at hundreds of mph, so obviously the resulting cirrus clouds are not being produced "naturally"....but none the less they are just that!....cirrus clouds.


So you are saying contrails are cirrus clouds.... Still you are avoiding my actual question, as quoted above, of how to tell the difference between chemical dumps and contrails.


As to providing a picture, I'm not sure what you want exactly?.........just google "cirrus clouds" and you'll get a photo.


Right, I'm asking for photos of cirrus clouds.


Any other straw-men you'd like to throw out there while we're at it?



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Chemical dumps happen below 1000 feet typically, contrails form at 25,000ft + (sometimes lower if it is cold enough, but keep in mind it has to be really cold). This is not a hard concept.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
That photo comes from here. It is a fire fighting aircraft.


I realize I just asked you this in the other thread but, if you don't have any photos of the Chinese actually dumping chemicals for weather modification, how can you just look at some random photo of low-altitude formations from planes and be able to tell it's not weather modification?



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
Chemical dumps happen below 1000 feet typically, contrails form at 25,000ft + (sometimes lower if it is cold enough, but keep in mind it has to be really cold). This is not a hard concept.


You say "typically." When is this not the case, and why are you speaking from authority on this subject?



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by adeclerk
Chemical dumps happen below 1000 feet typically, contrails form at 25,000ft + (sometimes lower if it is cold enough, but keep in mind it has to be really cold). This is not a hard concept.


You say "typically." When is this not the case, and why are you speaking from authority on this subject?


Semantics, here we go. Chemical dumping always occurs below 1,000 feet off of the ground, so they may target an area.
If the elevation of the ground is 5,000 feet ASL, the chemical dumping will occur between 5,000 feet ASL and 6,000 feet ASL (no higher than 1000 feet above the ground, how else would they target an area?). Again, not a hard concept.

Have you ever seen a firefighting supertanker drop chemicals from higher than 1,000 feet above the ground? (No, because that would be really ineffective.)

Got any more straws to grasp at?



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by adeclerk
Chemical dumps happen below 1000 feet typically, contrails form at 25,000ft + (sometimes lower if it is cold enough, but keep in mind it has to be really cold). This is not a hard concept.


You say "typically." When is this not the case, and why are you speaking from authority on this subject?


Semantics, here we go. Chemical dumping always occurs below 1,000 feet off of the ground, so they may target an area.


And what's your source for that?


Have you ever seen a firefighting supertanker drop chemicals from higher than 1,000 feet above the ground? (No, because that would be really ineffective.)


I'm not talking about firefighting operations.

What were you saying about straws?
edit on 29-5-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Argyll
 

What do I want? Well, a perfect world would be nice....
Seriously, though, I would like to see a conversation on chemtrails that is like a conversation that you would have in person...that would be a good start. In other words, you speak your mind, and you let others speak their minds. You encourage others to express their opinions, not ridicule their opinion.
What I am addressing, and the point of this thread, was to point out that we are NOT getting anywhere by having a few very prolific posters dominate the discussion. I cannot fathom why they would want to, and that is something that few on EITHER side could understand.
You only learn by listening. WE can only learn by listening, so WE should encourage ALL members to express themselves.
There is no reality that is universal. NO one can say that NOTHING is being sprayed.
Period.
So, where do we go from here if you happen to believe that something is being sprayed? Do you have the answer?



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by Helmkat
 

Do you have any proof that it was made by white tailed deer, and not a bear?

So many have missed the point. The metaphor was used to illustrate a tactic that is being used against certain members, not to establish that chemtrails exist.
The point being, that a core group of members show up at ALL chemtrail threads to control the discussion. Why can't these people allow possibilities to be discussed on a topic that a great many people believe in? Why must they challenge each member that brings his/her perspective with the intention of changing their mind on what many think is a mere POSSIBILITY worth discussing?

It is okay by me that you think nothing is being sprayed. Is it okay by this core group, A, B, and C, that I think something IS being sprayed? I think not.

I happen to think there is a lot of "smoke" and we should investigate the "fire". Another metaphor. I don't think chemtrails are smoke...






The catch phrase of this site is to 'Deny ignorance", when the discussion of possibility crosses into the spread of ignorance, then it is the duty of those with knowledge to enlighten.

Group A, B and C have nothing against you believeing what you will but do not deny them the right to counter your belief with hard facts backed by science (which cannot be claimed by chemtrailers).



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join