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.

 

China admits to dumping chemtrails for weather modification. What do they look like??

page: 16
79
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
1.We cannot have a sunny clear day EVER.

What? It's sunny all the time here in Los Angeles.



4. No emission standards are known or talked about anywhere, these planes have a free pass to use whatever fuels they like and adjust there engines however they like as well.

Wrong:
www.epa.gov...




posted on May, 30 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by bsbray11
Unfortunately neither of those things take away from the fact that no, you can't tell the chemical make-up of the trail left by a plane just by looking at it.


Straw man. Nobody ever said you could.

Reductio ad absurdum: you can't tell anything by looking at it. Your argument is meaningless.


The fact that you can't tell the make-up of what a plane leaves behind, means something in itself.

It means exactly what it says.


And since this is pretty much the whole point of the OP, it's hardly a straw-man. It's all the other irrelevant crap people are posting, that are the true straw men.


My you like to move the goalposts don't you.

You asked for photos showing the difference between cloud seeding and contrails and how people could tell that what they saw was not weather modification as described in the article. You were shown relevant photos several times and it was clearly explained to you that cloud seeding happens at lower altitudes because that is the height Cumulus clouds occur and that it is done using small planes not large jets.

Using the above information it is easy to tell the difference.

You never once acknowledged you were shown the images you requested, you changed tack and asked how people can tell what it is that is coming out of planes at high altitude. Blatant goalpost moving and sidestepping, done quite subtly I may add.

The logic comes back to this. Cloud seeding is done in clouds that are much lower than jets fly, if you want to seed clouds then you don't do it at 35,000ft. If you see high trails then those are not cloud seeding chemicals.

Simple.

You then ask how do people know it is not chemicals from high planes instead of just vapour. This question bears no relation to the first and is totally different.

Let me ask you this.

How do you know there isn't a huge alien mothership in orbit now targetting you directly with strange mind altering rays making you post on here.

Well, if you can't see it then it might be happening right? so prove to me it isn't.

Well of course the sensible answer is, unless you can come up with a sensible reason and hypothesis as to why it would be happening, you can forget about it.

no one can tell you for sure the substance coming out of a jet at 35,000ft.

No one could tell you for sure what was coming out of a firemans hose without sending it to a lab. Maybe it is a weather modifying chemical they are spraying on that burning building, prove to me it isn't.

You repetetive request for people to prove it isn't chemicals coming out of a jet at 35,000 ft is stupid, you know no one can prove it, just like you couldn't prove it wasn't coming out of a firehose.

The point is, unless you can give a sensible suggestion as to why it would be chemicals for whatever purpose, I will see no reason to think it is.
edit on 30-5-2011 by SirCoxone because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by adeclerk
Every white trail left by an airplane high in the sky is a contrail. Unless you have any evidence that shows otherwise?


That's not a logical argument. You can't make a blanket statement that everything is "x" until proven otherwise, when you never proved that everything was "x" in the first place. You have faith that they are all contrails but like I said, your eyeballs do not do chemical analyses from thousands of feet away.


Actually, if you have read any of the FIRE II and SUCCEESS experiments/studies that I have posted here and elsewhere, then you know that independent analysis show that contrails are normal combustion exhaust, and that they closely resemble cirrus clouds in content, environment and behavior.

Deny all you want, but the science has established that white trails left by jet aircraft are contrails (frozen water vapor).
Thus, the statement is both logical and factual.

deny ignorance

jw



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirCoxone
You asked for photos showing the difference between cloud seeding and contrails and how people could tell that what they saw was not weather modification as described in the article. You were shown relevant photos several times and it was clearly explained to you that cloud seeding happens at lower altitudes because that is the height Cirrus clouds occur and that it is done using small planes not large jets.


I think you mean cumulus clouds there.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by indigo25
reply to post by Goathief
 


You are referring to hairs, witness testimony, and polygraphs as evidence?

Yes, that is evidence. Note that evidence is not the same thing as proof, it's an important distinction.


If a 'chemtrailer' presented what you just listed as "evidence", they would be laughed at.

You are a "chemtrailer" yourself, let's not bandy about with you talking in the third person.

If you provided a couple of hairs as evidence of the existence of "chemtrails" I think people would be right in dismissing it as nonsense. If you hired a pilot to fly into a "chemtrail" to take samples using scientific methods, then presented it to an independent body for analysis without informing them what it was exactly, then yes - people might consider that as evidence, just as the hairs have been for the case of female Nordic aliens.


You don't think that someone who honestly believes in chemtrails would pass a polygraph?

You are entirely missing the point, it's not "chemtrailers" who are in need of taking a polygraph. A believer in god would pass a polygraph, yet that is not evidence for the existence of god. Someone who is inside on this supposed "chemtrail" conspiracy passing a polygraph would be evidence (if a little shaky) for "chemtrails".


You don't think people have collected what THEY claim to be 'evidence'?

I guess one person has, the only thing that springs to mind is the aluminium (and whatever else it was) in the soil thing which has all been thoroughly debunked... stun us and show something new that hasn't been.


You don't believe there is eye witness testimony of chemtrails?

People pointing up in the sky at contrails and going, "Chemtrails, herp!" is not witness testimony.


I won't go out on a limb here and guess that you believe TPTB are covering up these so called Nordic female aliens, because I would not assume to know your thought process.

Of course you won't, because you don't know enough about my views on the topic of female Nordic aliens. On the other hand, I knew enough about your views on "chemtrails" to make my previous educated guess. Just in case anyone has missed your postings elsewhere:


Originally posted by indigo25

I feel that the biggest proof available is the intensity of the denial by TPTB. I would think that if this 'theory' is in fact false, silly, or paranoid, that TPTB would laugh it off...not try to insult the theory or the ppl who accept it as fact.

Again with the failure to make the distinction between proof and evidence.


Originally posted by indigo25

Further more, why is it the job of 'chemies' to come up with the proof?

Are you serious?


I say that you're a government agent sent to spread lies and paranoia to those who are unaware of the science concerning contrails. You also eat sunlight to survive and kill kittens by the power of telekinesis. Prove this is not true.


In fact, I personally would refer to them as CONtrails that are adding to precipitation and humidity.

Really? So why didn't you here?


How about proving that even if there are no 'chem-trails' that the con trails are indeed not harmful?

The obvious implication is that you believe "chemtrails" exist.


I do not hold the opinion of chemicals being sprayed as some demonic plot.

Oh really?



Originally posted by indigo25

I felt the same way with the 'rupture guy'. How many people throughout history have 'predicted' the end without any fan-fare or media coverage? They have come and gone throughout the decades. Only this guy was chronicled, interviewed, humiliated, reported on day after day, hunted down by the MSM.......SO WHY NOW? Perhaps he is too close to the truth? Perhaps now is the time that TPTB are trying their best to avoid panic? Perhaps this guy is closer to the truth than we know? If not, why would this apparent 'trolling' campaign be necessary? For me, the answer is IN the intense denial.

Your self-confessed standard of proof is some imaginary "Powers that be" denying the existence of "chemtrails", I really think this exposes your standard of critical thinking quite nicely. Again, your belief in the existence of "chemtrails" is very illogical - as I said before.

I don't think there's any point in continuing until you can come to terms with the fact that as it stands, female Nordic alien rapists have more evidence going for them than the existence of "chemtrails".
edit on 30-5-2011 by Goathief because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by SirCoxone
You asked for photos showing the difference between cloud seeding and contrails and how people could tell that what they saw was not weather modification as described in the article. You were shown relevant photos several times and it was clearly explained to you that cloud seeding happens at lower altitudes because that is the height Cirrus clouds occur and that it is done using small planes not large jets.


I think you mean cumulus clouds there.


I do indeed, thanks for the correction.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by GrinchNoMore
 

So contrails would not assist in cloud seeding ??


No, contrails create cirrus clouds in otherwise clear skies, formed of ice crystals at temperatures below -20C, at altitudes above 20k feet.

Cloud seeding forces existing cumulus clouds, made of water vapor, at temperatures conducive to rain, at altitudes below 20k feet..


Funny how a contrail appears to be much more effective in generating clouds than actual "cloud seeding".


Not "funny" at all.

Ice-supersaturation in the upper troposphere has long been inferred from the observation of long-lasting aircraft contrails in otherwise clear air, but only recently has instrumentation been capable of accurately measuring ice-supersaturation from aircraft at cold temperatures. Some degree of ice-supersaturation must have been present in the clear air to maintain the contrail, but a higher ice supersaturation must be required to produce ice crystals from the ambient aerosol population.
ir.library.oregonstate.edu...

"Cloud seeding" by definition, requires the presence of "clouds" to be "seeded."


CONTRAILS, the best dam SUNBLOCK on the market....


The sun's UV rays penetrate cirrus cpuds -people tan and burn on overcast days.

deny ignorance

jw



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by GrinchNoMore
 



all we KNOW is,
1.We cannot have a sunny clear day EVER.
2. We cannot see the stars at night even one TENTH as well as 10 years ago !!!
3. Population and air traffic do NOT account for this incredible increase in identifiable "ALTERED WEATHER".
4. No emission standards are known or talked about anywhere, these planes have a free pass to use whatever fuels they like and adjust there engines however they like as well.
5. This is a serious problem, and the fact it does not get addressed by "Climate Changers" is quite mystifying to say the least.
6. This planet does not need artificial clouds and disgusting haze, why is this not being stopped ??


1. I have had clear, sunny days yesterday and today. Yesterday there were occasional contrails that generally disipated. Today there are scattered alto-cumulus, but minimal contrails (no business travel on Memorial Day)>
2. I saw beautiful views of the lunar/multi-planetary conjunctions both mornings, as well. At night I can clearly see the usual Spring constellations and stars.
3.You are imagining "altered weather" as you've described in 1 & 2, above.
4. Planes use standard aviation fuels that match their engines' design and performance requirements, same as autos and boats.
5. "Climate changers" are more interested in controlling your money than your air.
6. We can stop all commerce, that will sove your problem. You could start the process by turning off your computer.

jw
edit on 30-5-2011 by jdub297 because: sp



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



RE: The OP.

BSBray - excellent.

Thanks for pointing out the info you have done here - it's of benefit of those who have not come across the details before..

I stand with Frater210 on this one: 'Destabilize the system, by NOT FEEDING THE TROLLS'.

We The People must not stir the waters. Those who are in fact the Real Trolls (spiritually corrupt - Beelzebub's slaves) will then have to sit under their bridge in the silence, with no purpose. Let them rot.

Above The Clouds, the sun is shining.




edit on 30-5-2011 by FlyInTheOintment because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-5-2011 by FlyInTheOintment because: M'eh. Don't feed the trolls...



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Goathief
 


I will simply direct you to public law 105-85, section 1078. We obviously disagree completely on this topic. However, I respect your opinion, hope you can respect mine. We are all here to gain knowledge and that's a good thing.

We could pick apart each other's posts all day the same way we can always find a verse in the Bible that will support our desires, whatever those desires may be (good or evil) and the same could be said about this issue.

Bottom line, you either have FAITH (with no proof) that there are chemtrails or you have FAITH (with no proof) that there are not. Unless you are an all-knowing being, you are no more an authority on what goes on in the sky than I am.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by SirCoxone
 


The logic comes back to this. Cloud seeding is done in clouds that are much lower than jets fly, if you want to seed clouds then you don't do it at 35,000ft. If you see high trails then those are not cloud seeding chemicals.
Simple.
You then ask how do people know it is not chemicals from high planes instead of just vapour. This question bears no relation to the first and is totally different.
Let me ask you this.
How do you know there isn't a huge alien mothership in orbit now targetting you directly with strange mind altering rays making you post on here.
Well, if you can't see it then it might be happening right? so prove to me it isn't.
Well of course the sensible answer is, unless you can come up with a sensible reason and hypothesis as to why it would be happening, you can forget about it.


Actually, the "mother ship" explanation is the only one that makes sense, and since I believe it, and you can't disprove it, it must be true. Moreover, there are dozens of "mothership" threads and YouTube videos, so the "evidence " is overwhelming.

As for hypotheses, I specifically asked the author for just one, and he has thus far refused to offer any.

Must be the mothership.

jw
edit on 30-5-2011 by jdub297 because: sp



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
I say that you're a government agent sent to spread lies and paranoia to those who are unaware of the science concerning contrails. You also eat sunlight to survive and kill kittens by the power of telekinesis. Prove this is not true.

Sorry, you are the accuser, I am the defendant. It is up to YOU to prove the above to be true. YOU made the accusation. Anyone can accuse anyone of the above and more. In a court of law, if your claims are unproven and unfounded, I would counter-sue for slander.

I am also flattered that you think I must be some kind of "agent sent to spread lies and paranoia to those who are unaware of the science concerning contrails", although in most posts from debunkers I am referred to as illogical and lacking critical thinking skills, so which is it? All powerful and able to brainwash people, or illogical, or both?

I for one do not consider people "sheeple" and don't think for a moment that they are looking to ME for answers. I'm pretty sure they're not that gullible and I must give them credit..I truly believe they can think on their own, even in the face of such "disinformation". Silly me, I believe that people have their own minds, eyes, and ideas. I'm pretty sure I don't command that type of power, but thanks for the compliment. Maybe we should start removing all those nasty books from the libraries too, they might be spreading evil, disinformation, and paranoia. Come to think of it, I think George Orwell's writings are in my very library, OH NO!



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by indigo25
 

You mean the law that says this?

(c) Informed consent required
The Secretary of Defense may conduct a test or experiment
described in subsection (b) of this section only if informed
consent to the testing was obtained from each human subject in
advance of the testing on that subject
.

www.dod.gov...
edit on 5/30/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
I was driving to work in december and saw these trails over Del Mar, CA. They were over the coast line near the Del mar Fair Grounds. It was sunny and I was about 500-600 feet above sea level. As I drove closer to Del Mar, I hit this wall of thick fog that only reached about a mile inland from the coast. You can see the trails right about where the Wall of Fog started. I think these trail were deliberate for Fog control.





posted on May, 30 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Wow, I can't believe this is such a hard topic to understand. So lets put it easy for everyone to understand shall we.

The OP article was talking about stopping rain yet most of the discussion is on seeding. UM...off topic.

A contrail is water vapor and dissipates in less than 5 miles. Its dissipation is uniform and spreads to nothing as the water vapor is ether evaporated of spreads too far to come together as a cloud.

A chemtrail is the spraying of chemicals in the air for a specific purpose, one of which is seeding. Seeding is the spraying of chemicals into a cloud to activate rain.

Another form of chemtrail is used in large populated areas and is done on a clear day usually in a grid pattern. These are distinguished by the trail continuing for miles and miles. Its dissipation is a spreading effect like a ribbon. Instead of spreading on the wind it spreads in waves in a flat formation. Its purpose is what is speculated. These are what some people believe are used in conjunction with the HAARP system by activating magnetically the chemicals both in the air and on the ground. The chemicals on the ground are like spiderwebs everywhere and have color tints of red and blue. These are what is blamed for Morgellon's disease



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



Yes, you are half way there. This is the correct law, but of course you have cherry picked the portions that prove your point. KEEP READING to "Exceptions", which you conveniently forgot to mention here. I know the website, believe me, but thanks.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by IPILYA

A contrail is water vapor and dissipates in less than 5 miles. Its dissipation is uniform and spreads to nothing as the water vapor is ether evaporated of spreads too far to come together as a cloud.


Why do you think that? Do you have any reference to back that up?



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by indigo25
reply to post by Phage
 



Yes, you are half way there. This is the correct law, but of course you have cherry picked the portions that prove your point. KEEP READING to "Exceptions", which you conveniently forgot to mention here. I know the website, believe me, but thanks.


The Exceptions is the subsection b that is referred to.


SEC. 1078. RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF HUMAN SUBJECTS FOR 50 USC 1520a. TESTING OF CHEMICAL OR BIOLOGICAL AGENTS.

(a) PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES.—The Secretary of Defense may not conduct (directly or by contract)—
(1) any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical agent or biological agent on a civilian population; or
(2) any other testing of a chemical agent or biological agent on human subjects.

(b) EXCEPTIONS.—Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e), the
prohibition in subsection (a) does not apply to a test or experiment carried out for any of the following purposes:
(1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical, therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or research activity.
(2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection against toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents.
(3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related to riot control.

(c) INFORMED CONSENT REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Defense
may conduct a test or experiment described in subsection (b) only if informed consent to the testing was obtained from each human subject in advance of the testing on that subject.


You must be thinking of the old law that this replaced about 20 years ago.
edit on 30-5-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
never mind.
See above

edit on 5/30/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


The Bold type in my post are hyperlinks click them.



new topics

top topics



 
79
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join