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: 27
79
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by SirCoxone
You can't ask someone to prove a negative, come on you are brighter than that.


I wouldn't ask someone to prove a negative, unless they started making the assertion themselves, but you haven't done that though I don't seriously believe all planes are holograms or that that idea has even close to the same likelihood.


I say again, I believe you saw what you saw, do you assert that is proof that they are spraying chemicals at high altitude from large jets?


Again, it's proof enough to me that this was not just a sudden change in atmospheric conditions because it was all clear blue sky with similar cloud formations scattered in all directions, no wind to be seen (clouds all relatively still), etc.

I'm not going to argue that it should be proof for anyone else so for the purposes of this thread, what I say today is really irrelevant.


OK,

what if I show you a chart and a mathematical formula that will show you exactly why what happened, happened.

Full disclosure on my position here: I am a physics graduate from the University of Leeds in the UK and I am currently working in an academic research role, I do not believe in chem trails, as the definition of them is generally understood (high flying large jets spraying chemicals at high altitudes). I have looked at every piece of evidence put forwards and so far everything I have seen offered as evidence for their existence is, in my opinion, no kind of evidence at all.

In my opinion and in my eyes scientifically proveable,the plane you saw will have been either ascending or descending and as it broke through a specific figure of height (variable depending on conditions at the time) the balance of saturation vapour pressure, altitude, temperature and relative humidity (and possibly airspeed) will have altered how the contrails were formed.

I can write up the formula for you if you wish to see it, if you are good at maths it will be fairly clear to you.

I appreciate that the plane may have looked like it was cruising but at that height it is hard to see, it may have been avoiding turbulence, or avoiding or getting into a jet stream.

For me the big problem with all the chemtrail theory is that people see things and jump to the wrong conclusions because they don't understand what they are seeing. Just because something may appear a certain way doesn't make it that way. Often there are reasons things happen that you cannot undertand without having all the information correct.

You asserted earlier that you could not tell what was coming out of a plane just by looking, and in that you were correct. You later stated you saw a plane spraying. You should have listened to your earlier self.




posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by SirCoxone
I appreciate that the plane may have looked like it was cruising but at that height it is hard to see, it may have been avoiding turbulence, or avoiding or getting into a jet stream.


Or it may have been doing nothing of the sort and had just got done dumping whatever it was dumping, huh?

As a scientist why would you automatically rule out that possibility in favor of other ideas without hardly giving it the time of day?

And one thing I did not mention earlier was that there was a long trail of whatever it was dumping, and then at the very end before it stopped there was a small gap and then another small stretch of whatever it was, and then it continued on with what appeared to be a normal contrail that dissipated within seconds. So according to what you're suggesting, it must have had to have went down, then back up, then back down again. Or the alternative I guess, the pilot hadn't fully dumped whatever it was the first time he killed it, and then sputtered a little bit more out.


All the math in the world wouldn't make a difference if you had only jumped to a wrong conclusion about it descending when it wasn't. I didn't see any indication that it was, but of course, even though you weren't there, you've already offered the excuse that it was just difficult for me to see. I imagine it must have been much more difficult for you to see, from the UK, huh?



For me the big problem with all the chemtrail theory is that people see things and jump to the wrong conclusions because they don't understand what they are seeing.


That could cut both ways from everything said so far.



You asserted earlier that you could not tell what was coming out of a plane just by looking, and in that you were correct. You later stated you saw a plane spraying. You should have listened to your earlier self.


Right, I should have known you would sit around and come up with a new excuse (you've had plenty of time already anyway, huh?) but I'm still not buying it.

Pressure changes, or anything else would happen on a gradient and not in distinct thresholds like you are suggesting. If what you say is true and the plane was descending and this caused a change in the appearance of the trail, then it should have been a gradual change as the plane gradually lowered. That's not what it looked like. It was an abrupt cut-off. It was two abrupt cut-offs at the end actually like I just explained above.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by SirCoxone
I appreciate that the plane may have looked like it was cruising but at that height it is hard to see, it may have been avoiding turbulence, or avoiding or getting into a jet stream.


Or it may have been doing nothing of the sort and had just got done dumping whatever it was dumping, huh?

As a scientist why would you automatically rule out that possibility in favor of other ideas without hardly giving it the time of day?


Well, because I can prove, using maths that what happened is what would be expected to happen as a plane moved through different altitudes. If what happens is normal and expected why would I look for a different answer?

If you saw a cat on the floor, looked away then looked back and it was on top of a wall would you assume it jumped or would you look for reasons why it may have used some kind of matter transportation device?


Originally posted by bsbray11

And one thing I did not mention earlier was that there was a long trail of whatever it was dumping, and then at the very end before it stopped there was a small gap and then another small stretch of whatever it was, and then it continued on with what appeared to be a normal contrail that dissipated within seconds. So according to what you're suggesting, it must have had to have went down, then back up, then back down again. Or the alternative I guess, the pilot hadn't fully dumped whatever it was the first time he killed it, and then sputtered a little bit more out.



if what you say i correct then I would suggest he definitely was changing altitude, as the wing changed angle from ascent or descent to cruise or flaps open and close there could easily be a gap in contrail, again if he was moving into or out of a jet stream the major change in pressure and humidity could cause it, it could have been a pocket he went through( have you ever been on a plane and suddenly felt it drop?, that is what is called an air pocket, where there is a small space of air at a totally different pressure) there are loads of reasons why there could be a gap in a contrail, here read this link it is a bit simplistic but it explains it quite well contrail science. You have to understand that the air at 35,000 ft is very different to down here. It is incredibly fast moving and has waves like the ocean, it may look still and flat to you but it isn't and when a plane is flying at the speed it does it moves through these different 'zones' very quickly


Originally posted by bsbray11
All the math in the world wouldn't make a difference if you had only jumped to a wrong conclusion about it descending when it wasn't. I didn't see any indication that it was, but of course, even though you weren't there, you've already offered the excuse that it was just difficult for me to see. I imagine it must have been much more difficult for you to see, from the UK, huh?



hang on, I am not jumping to any conclusion here. You are jumping to conclusion by saying what you saw is definitely a chemical spray, when in fact there are other more likely explanations for what you saw. I am offering you a different solution to what you saw that, based on available evidence is the more likely cause, I refer you back to my cat analogy.

Originally posted by bsbray11

For me the big problem with all the chemtrail theory is that people see things and jump to the wrong conclusions because they don't understand what they are seeing.


That could cut both ways from everything said so far.



You asserted earlier that you could not tell what was coming out of a plane just by looking, and in that you were correct. You later stated you saw a plane spraying. You should have listened to your earlier self.


Right, I should have known you would sit around and come up with a new excuse (you've had plenty of time already anyway, huh?) but I'm still not buying it.

Pressure changes, or anything else would happen on a gradient and not in distinct thresholds like you are suggesting. If what you say is true and the plane was descending and this caused a change in the appearance of the trail, then it should have been a gradual change as the plane gradually lowered. That's not what it looked like. It was an abrupt cut-off. It was two abrupt cut-offs at the end actually like I just explained above.


You seem to know a lot about the physics behind formation of water vapour under pressure from air subduction at very cold temperatures. Could you tell me your background that makes you so certain of your information.

Why do you think I am coming up with excuses? what have I got to excuse? I am simply of an enquiring mind that requires hard evidence and proof before accepting something as true. If someone could show me pictures of where these chemicals are stored, how they are attached to the plane, the filling of the tanks, video or photo of contrails that could not be normal ones, or something I would happily accept they are real.

Again I refer you back to my cat analogy, your contrail was like a cat that was on the ground then on the wall. OK you didn't see it get on the wall but, as you know cats can jump on walls why would you think it did anything other than jump?


On a side note I don't appreciate your rude tone that you take. I have been nothing other than polite to you and offered an opinion, backed by evidence that is different to yours. That does not give you the right to say thing like 'you disgust me' etc. there is no need for it, debate like a reasonable adult.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 04:33 AM
link   
here is a great example. Watch this youtube video


You will see contrails appear and disappear as the planes move through different wing angles and air pockets. Look especially around the 1.36 mark, you will see two planes almost next to each other, both leaving a trail, until one moves over and stops before moving back into the air that does make a contrail. this video is packed with trails stopping, starting, getting thicker, getting thinner

Are you suggesting these planes are spraying?

hmmm.... cannot get video to work

here is a direct link

www.youtube.com...

edit on 2-6-2011 by SirCoxone because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-6-2011 by SirCoxone because: trying to get video to work



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SirCoxone
 


i regards to the clip you posted it shows me how a normal contrail would look like but nowhere in that vid do we see the trail left behind the plane over 2 mins so how can you say they are prof that contrail's last for hours in fact where we able to see the trails behind the planes perhaps from the ground i would bet we would see them disperse within a 5 min time frame so as prof that fighter jets produce contrails[non persistent]yes as prof that chemtrail's do not exist no nice try though



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirCoxone
Well, because I can prove, using maths that what happened is what would be expected to happen as a plane moved through different altitudes. If what happens is normal and expected why would I look for a different answer?


Because like I just told you, you would have to assume data that you don't actually know, and are just making up for your excuse to work (that the plane was descending, when it wasn't). You weren't even there and yet you think you know what was happening, all because you have such hard "faith."

And your math wouldn't explain it anyway, because they were sudden cut-offs, not gradual dissipations. I guess you're saying the plane suddenly teleported to a lower altitude.



if what you say i correct then I would suggest he definitely was changing altitude


Of course you would because that's your purpose here. You're still making things up based on nothing.



hang on, I am not jumping to any conclusion here. You are jumping to conclusion by saying what you saw is definitely a chemical spray


And the difference between us is that I was there and you weren't. So that automatically blows you out of the water as any authority at all to what I was looking at.


You seem to know a lot about the physics behind formation of water vapour under pressure from air subduction at very cold temperatures. Could you tell me your background that makes you so certain of your information.


Yes it's called common sense and being allergic to having smoke blown up my ass. You ever heard of that degree?




On a side note I don't appreciate your rude tone that you take.


I don't appreciate people trying to blow smoke up my ass!

You are clearly being forced to make assumptions based on nothing and even though you weren't there, you claim that must have been what I was looking at anyway. You have your opinion, and that's fine, but you know what? I still think you're wrong and have no idea what you're talking about. The rapidly-dissipating contrail behind the plane looked NOTHING like the chemtrail behind it, which spread out over a much larger area and did not dissipate. And then it abruptly cut off. I'm not the kind of person who is going to relinquish to stupidity just because you are waving an argument from authority in my face. That is the last thing I will respond to.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by djcarlosa
reply to post by SirCoxone
 


i regards to the clip you posted it shows me how a normal contrail would look like but nowhere in that vid do we see the trail left behind the plane over 2 mins so how can you say they are prof that contrail's last for hours in fact where we able to see the trails behind the planes perhaps from the ground i would bet we would see them disperse within a 5 min time frame so as prof that fighter jets produce contrails[non persistent]yes as prof that chemtrail's do not exist no nice try though


The purpose of the video was to demonstrate that it is perfectly normal for contrails to stop and start abruptly, as bsbray stated he saw. nothing more, nothing less.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

Look at this. The clouds start and stop. I wonder why that could be.



It has to do with the fact that the atmosphere is not homogenous.
edit on 6/2/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirCoxone
The purpose of the video was to demonstrate that it is perfectly normal for contrails to stop and start abruptly, as bsbray stated he saw. nothing more, nothing less.


It also shows me that you have a total misunderstanding of what I was actually looking at.

The non-contrails (chemtrails) I was seeing looking nothing like anything coming out of the jets in that video.

If you don't believe what I'm saying, that's fine with me. I'm not arguing that what I saw should be proof for anyone else, so it's a moot point anyway. But I don't understand why you're trying to convince me what I was looking at when you weren't even there, and are only showing that you have no idea what you're actually talking about.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Now you are comparing what planes leave behind directly to clouds?

Those clouds also look nothing like what I saw.


Surely you can make up better excuses than that "Phage."



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
I just saw a contrail start, stop, start again, and persist and spread this morning.



It's actually VERY RARE for a contrail not to start or stop somewhere in the visible sky. They almost never (a few times year) go from horizon to horizon.

The atmosphere is a fluid moving at 100mph. It's not even, and it has waves, up-swellings, and ripples in it. Contrails and clouds reveal those waves. See:

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 2-6-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
I just saw a contrail start, stop, start again, and persist and spread this morning.


How do you know it was a contrail?

Have you been chemically analyzing white stuff in the air with your eyeballs again?



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Uncinus
I just saw a contrail start, stop, start again, and persist and spread this morning.


How do you know it was a contrail?

Have you been chemically analyzing white stuff in the air with your eyeballs again?


Oh, sorry I forgot we were playing that game.

I saw a trail that looked EXACTLY LIKE A CONTRAIL, AND UNLIKE ANY OTHER TYPE OF TRAIL I KNOW, start, stop, start again, and persist and spread this morning.

Did your trail look anything like that?



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by bsbray11
How do you know it was a contrail?

Have you been chemically analyzing white stuff in the air with your eyeballs again?


Oh, sorry I forgot we were playing that game.


It's not a game if you can't prove that those are actually contrails. This is real talk.


Did your trail look anything like that?


No. And remember, I'm not telling you that what I saw should be proof to you.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by SirCoxone
Well, because I can prove, using maths that what happened is what would be expected to happen as a plane moved through different altitudes. If what happens is normal and expected why would I look for a different answer?


Because like I just told you, you would have to assume data that you don't actually know, and are just making up for your excuse to work (that the plane was descending, when it wasn't). You weren't even there and yet you think you know what was happening, all because you have such hard "faith."

And your math wouldn't explain it anyway, because they were sudden cut-offs, not gradual dissipations. I guess you're saying the plane suddenly teleported to a lower altitude.



no not suggesting it teleported, there are very hard and firm areas of air pressure, humidity and density up there, like the air pockets I described and plumes of hot air. Watch the video I put up, two planes flying right next to each


if what you say i correct then I would suggest he definitely was changing altitude


Originally posted by bsbray11
Of course you would because that's your purpose here. You're still making things up based on nothing.



no I am making supposition based on known data.

Originally posted by bsbray11

hang on, I am not jumping to any conclusion here. You are jumping to conclusion by saying what you saw is definitely a chemical spray


And the difference between us is that I was there and you weren't. So that automatically blows you out of the water as any authority at all to what I was looking at.


I am sorry but that counts for nothing. at 35,000ft you cannot tell if aplane is cruising, ascending or descending by eye, I am sorry but that is a simple fact of life unless you have some kind of bionic eyes.

I could be stood at the large hadron collider and watch the data print outs as they ran experiments, doesn't mean I would know what was happening in there, without being properly equiped with the technical ability to understand the data presented to me.

Originally posted by bsbray11

You seem to know a lot about the physics behind formation of water vapour under pressure from air subduction at very cold temperatures. Could you tell me your background that makes you so certain of your information.


Originally posted by bsbray11
Yes it's called common sense and being allergic to having smoke blown up my ass. You ever heard of that degree?




On a side note I don't appreciate your rude tone that you take.


I don't appreciate people trying to blow smoke up my ass!

You are clearly being forced to make assumptions based on nothing and even though you weren't there, you claim that must have been what I was looking at anyway. You have your opinion, and that's fine, but you know what? I still think you're wrong and have no idea what you're talking about. The rapidly-dissipating contrail behind the plane looked NOTHING like the chemtrail behind it, which spread out over a much larger area and did not dissipate. And then it abruptly cut off. I'm not the kind of person who is going to relinquish to stupidity just because you are waving an argument from authority in my face. That is the last thing I will respond to.


for 26 pages of this thread you argued that no one could know what was coming out of a plane at 35,000ft from visual sight only and now you claim you can because you saw it with your eyes. I am not telling you what it definitely was or was not, I am telling you that you do not know what it definitely was or was not.

You can argue until you are blue in the face about what you think you saw coming out of that plane that was around 8 miles away from you but you do not KNOW what was coming out of it. It is simply not possible.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by bsbray11
How do you know it was a contrail?

Have you been chemically analyzing white stuff in the air with your eyeballs again?


Oh, sorry I forgot we were playing that game.


It's not a game if you can't prove that those are actually contrails. This is real talk.


Did your trail look anything like that?


No. And remember, I'm not telling you that what I saw should be proof to you.


There is no proof. There is only evidence.

Prove anything about the physical world. You can't. So stop going on about proof.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirCoxone
no not suggesting it teleported, there are very hard and firm areas of air pressure, humidity and density up there, like the air pockets I described and plumes of hot air. Watch the video I put up, two planes flying right next to each


I did. It didn't look anything at all like what I saw. Of course you wouldn't know, because you weren't there. Yet somehow you believe wholeheartedly that you know better than me what I did see. I feel sorry for all the other people being churned out of whatever institution you came from, if you can't even see the blaring hole with your "scientific" baseless assumptions here.


I am sorry but that counts for nothing. at 35,000ft you cannot tell if aplane is cruising, ascending or descending by eye, I am sorry but that is a simple fact of life unless you have some kind of bionic eyes.


And again that goes both ways, and being right over my head, at any rate I had a better view of it than you would have from the UK. Want me to post a bunch of mathematical formulae to prove that for you? How about simple trigonometry or even just looking at a map?


for 26 pages of this thread you argued that no one could know what was coming out of a plane at 35,000ft from visual sight only and now you claim you can because you saw it with your eyes. I am not telling you what it definitely was or was not, I am telling you that you do not know what it definitely was or was not.


I have been weighing the evidence in my mind this whole time, and I do not agree with you in respect to what I saw over my area yesterday. I am not claiming it should be proof to you. Why do you feel like it's your personal duty to convince me of anything about what I saw?




Originally posted by Uncinus
There is no proof. There is only evidence.

Prove anything about the physical world. You can't. So stop going on about proof.


That's a gem. I'm not going to dispute it, but you've really opened a can of worms with this one. I'm bookmarking this page in case I have to ever use these words against any future arguments you make.

edit on 2-6-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
You know what, I'm done with this thread. Trying to discuss something with someone who in one breath writes

'You cannot tell me you know what is coming out of a plane at 35,000ft by looking at it with your eyes'

and then in the next breath writes

'I saw with my own eyes what was coming out of that plane at 35,000 ft so I know what it was'

is like pissing into the wind.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Uncinus
There is no proof. There is only evidence.
Prove anything about the physical world. You can't. So stop going on about proof.

That's a gem. I'm not going to dispute it, but you've really opened a can of worms with this one. I'm bookmarking this page in case I have to ever use these words against any future arguments you make.


If there's no proof, then why do you keep asking for it? Is this your roundabout way of saying "I'm a solipsist, hence your arguments are meaningless as there's no way of knowing this is not a dream"?

I'll never ask for proof. I'll always ask for evidence.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirCoxone
You know what, I'm done with this thread. Trying to discuss something with someone who in one breath writes

'You cannot tell me you know what is coming out of a plane at 35,000ft by looking at it with your eyes'

and then in the next breath writes

'I saw with my own eyes what was coming out of that plane at 35,000 ft so I know what it was'


Except you're putting words in my mouth with your 2nd sentence. I took cues from the many stark differences between the real contrail coming out of the plane, and all the crap that it had just got done dumping. There was a world of difference and absolutely nothing to suggest there were any atmospheric inconsistencies above me. I'm sure if you kept going straight up vertically there would be, but on that more or less horizontal plane along which the plane was moving, it was all the same and nowhere close to explaining the difference between the real contrail and the non-contrail.

I don't care what you want to imagine happening from sitting across the other side of an ocean. You can imagine it to have looked like whatever you want, that the weather was whatever you want, that the trails were whatever you want. And that is exactly all you have been doing.
edit on 2-6-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
79
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join