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: 38
79
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
Do you have an example of a long thin trail on radar?


Sure.



www.watchthesky.org...


Notice the linear clouds in the examples above. These artificial clouds could only be related to jet aircraft and are not natural cloud formations.

* Operational Doppler Weather Radar CAN NOT DETECT CIRRUS CLOUDS let alone aircraft contrails. (Discussion and References).
* The radar return signal strength (Dbz levels) indicated on the left side of the images are consistent with light rainfall, yet in all of the examples the Doppler radar is operating in clear air mode, not precipitation mode. (Discussion and References)
* The set angle (4.3 deg. max) of the horizon scanning Doppler Radar is too low to detect contrails directly overhead. (Discussion)
* The upper atmosphere data that correlates to the date and time of most of the Doppler images indicate that conditions for persistent contrail formation are not present in the atmospheric profile. (Link)




I know you're going to go off on a lot more fallacy-filled ranting now, but hey, you asked for it.




posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Who is "we"?

The United States, try to keep up.


Originally posted by bsbray11
There are already individuals in the private sector working on planes capable of reaching the boundaries of outer space to replace government programs.

Okay, you got me! This must mean that there are secret government programs to do things that are still just small scale research, that are being taken over by private sector companies! What's next, another link to Evergreen aviation's site?


Originally posted by bsbray11
I haven't been keeping up with that progress but I'm sure you're familiar with what I'm talking about.

I've noticed you have a tendency to not read.


Originally posted by bsbray11
There are a lot of things going on right now.

And there's a lot of evidence of those things. But not 'chemtrails'. Interesting.


Originally posted by bsbray11
Not as stupid as saying commercial airline companies would ever have interest in doing these things before military and other interest groups.

Guess you haven't read wikipedia on 'chemstuff'? Or what all the other hoaxers are saying? Oh wait, this is coming from a guy who claims "China admits to dumping chemtrails" while linking to an article about cloud seeding that wasn't even hidden (no cloud seeding is hidden, anyway).

Your argument is really shaping up!



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
There's some similar ideas here:

climate.envsci.rutgers.edu...

Including:



Tall Tower. The tallest structure in the world today is the KTHI-TV transmission tower
in Fargo, North Dakota, at 629 m high [Smitherman, 2000]. However, as Smitherman [2000]
explains, the heights of this tower and current tall buildings are not limited by materials or
construction constraints, but only because there has been no need. Currently, an untapered
column made of aluminum that can just support its own weight could be built to a height of 15
km. One made of carbon/epoxy composite materials could be built to 114 km (Figure 3). If the
tower were tapered (with a larger base), had a fractal truss system, were stabilized with guy wires
(like the KTHI-TV tower), or included balloons for buoyancy, it could be built much higher.
We can imagine such a tower on the Equator with a hose to pump the gas to the
stratosphere. The weather on the Equator would present no strong wind issues, as tornadoes and
hurricanes cannot form there, but icing issues for the upper portion would need to be addressed.
If the gas were pushed up a hose, adiabatic expansion would cool it to temperatures colder than
the surrounding atmosphere, exacerbating icing problems. Because such a tower has never been
built, and many engineering issues would need to be considered, from the construction material
to the pumping needed, we cannot offer an estimate of the cost. However, only one tower would
be needed if the hoses were large enough to pump the required amount of gas.


Again, not suitable for secrecy

edit on 11-6-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


So you would say that only the trails that show up on radar are chemtrails? So if someone saw trails, then checked the weather radar, they could feel safe that they were not chemtrails?



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk

Originally posted by bsbray11
Who is "we"?

The United States, try to keep up.


Sorry, that's not specific enough for your question "why do they use weather balloons" to have any meaning. Every single government agency, domestic corporation and private citizen could fall under the umbrella term "the United States." Different interests have different reasons. Enough said.



Originally posted by bsbray11
There are already individuals in the private sector working on planes capable of reaching the boundaries of outer space to replace government programs.

Okay, you got me! This must mean that there are secret government programs to do things that are still just small scale research, that are being taken over by private sector companies! What's next, another link to Evergreen aviation's site?


You could save yourself the frustration if you didn't constantly make ridiculous claims in attempts to ridicule an idea that governments are already openly talking about very seriously.



Originally posted by bsbray11
There are a lot of things going on right now.

And there's a lot of evidence of those things. But not 'chemtrails'. Interesting.


That's your obviously biased opinion.


Guess you haven't read wikipedia on 'chemstuff'? Or what all the other hoaxers are saying? Oh wait, this is coming from a guy who claims "China admits to dumping chemtrails" while linking to an article about cloud seeding that wasn't even hidden (no cloud seeding is hidden, anyway).


What everyone else in the world is saying is hardly of interest to me. You are bound to hear a billion different things from a billion different people. It sounds like you're getting emotional.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
So you would say that only the trails that show up on radar are chemtrails? So if someone saw trails, then checked the weather radar, they could feel safe that they were not chemtrails?


That's not what I said. It would depend on what exactly is being dumped amongst other things. Then of course I know you always have the excuse of "chaff" to fall back on too. Don't worry, I'm keeping tabs on the sky anyway.

No effort to debunk what I posted above though, I see. You must be getting lazy and already know you're wrong and just misleading people.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Uncinus
So you would say that only the trails that show up on radar are chemtrails? So if someone saw trails, then checked the weather radar, they could feel safe that they were not chemtrails?


That's not what I said. It would depend on what exactly is being dumped amongst other things. Then of course I know you always have the excuse of "chaff" to fall back on too. Don't worry, I'm keeping tabs on the sky anyway.


So you think that some chemtrails show up on radar, but some don't? I'm just trying to get a handle on what you are claiming.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Uncinus
So you would say that only the trails that show up on radar are chemtrails? So if someone saw trails, then checked the weather radar, they could feel safe that they were not chemtrails?


That's not what I said. It would depend on what exactly is being dumped amongst other things. Then of course I know you always have the excuse of "chaff" to fall back on too. Don't worry, I'm keeping tabs on the sky anyway.


So you think that some chemtrails show up on radar, but some don't? I'm just trying to get a handle on what you are claiming.


Not that particles show up on radar anyways, but that fact baffles the chemmies and goes over their head



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
So you think that some chemtrails show up on radar, but some don't? I'm just trying to get a handle on what you are claiming.


And you're obviously not trying very hard because I just explained this in my last post.

What are you trying to do, bury the evidence I posted at the top of this page with trolling?




Originally posted by firepilot
Not that particles show up on radar anyways, but that fact baffles the chemmies and goes over their head


Then what does chaff do?
edit on 11-6-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

Chaff isn't particles. Particles wouldn't work if they're too small.


edit on 6/11/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   


Then what does chaff do?


Its for confusing radars, especially on missile systems. But what does that have to do with particles?
edit on 11-6-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Uncinus
Do you have an example of a long thin trail on radar?


Sure.




That's not a long thin trail. That's five miles wide.



Those radar images are in "clear air mode", which is basically a highly sensitive mode that tends to give results like that:

www.theweatherprediction.com...


Clear air mode can also be used to locate frontal boundaries and mesoscale frontal boundaries such as outflow boundaries, sea breeze fronts and drylines. A sharp moisture and/or temperature gradient in the troposphere sets up an interface of higher reflectivity (an example is to think of skipping rocks on water, the rock is reflective as it hits the boundary between the air and water). In a case where rapid refraction occurs, some of the energy will backscatter. Also, convergence occurs along frontal boundaries. Dust and insects tend to convergence along synoptic and mesoscale frontal boundaries. These increased regions of bugs and dust allow for a higher return on clear air mode thus allowing for the detection of these boundaries.


Given that the Arizona clouds are parallel to the Mogollon Rim, that seems a very likely cause of gradients that could cause this particular radar image. Possible mountain waves or similar.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by weedwhacker
There are countless places around the world, where "cloud seeding" occurs....there is nothing clandestine about it!


I know weedwhacker, but the US is not one of those places where it is done openly.


I notice weedwakcer already pointed out that you are wrong. But I also notice you completely ignored that response of his, so i thought i might point it out again.

Idaho practices cloud seeding. I believe W Virginia does to.


IF people who clam the lines we see in the sky are 'chemtrails' perhaps they could define them a bit more specifically. Claiming that cloud seeding is 'chemtrails' is an interesting definition that seems to contradict everybody claiming its every line in the sky.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   
please define chemtrails and offer some specific proof of their existence within the parameters of your definition.

thanks.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
Claiming that cloud seeding is 'chemtrails' is an interesting definition that seems to contradict everybody claiming its every line in the sky.


Can you show me somewhere, where people are claiming that it's "every line in the sky"?

It seems like we all have our own definitions. "Chemtrails" isn't in the dictionary, you know?



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   


Originally posted by bsbray11

I know weedwhacker, but the US is not one of those places where it is done openly.


Really??

Thats interesting, what else can you tell us about cloud seeding?



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
Claiming that cloud seeding is 'chemtrails' is an interesting definition that seems to contradict everybody claiming its every line in the sky.


Can you show me somewhere, where people are claiming that it's "every line in the sky"?

It seems like we all have our own definitions. "Chemtrails" isn't in the dictionary, you know?


Well, thats the thing, sir. None of you folks ever seem willing to clearly define WHAT they are.

I have seen page after page of claims from people that those lines in the sky are 'chemtrails'. Are you saying they arent?

Please define 'chemtrails'.

thanks



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
Well, thats the thing, sir. None of you folks ever seem willing to clearly define WHAT they are.


I've been more than willing to clarify what the term means to me, but the problem is, you folks always have your own definitions such as what you just posted about "every line in the sky."

To me it just means any form of dumping/spraying/injecting chemicals into the atmosphere that are not merely water vapor and traces of fuel.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


You are the one with the funny definition, notice how it deviates from other chemmies'?



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


To me it just means any form of dumping/spraying/injecting chemicals into the atmosphere that are not merely water vapor and traces of fuel.


I see. Well, then cloud seeding certainly fall within those parameters, as does other activity, no doubt. That definition certainly deviates from most broad claims i've seen on ATS that imply any line in the sky behind a plane is irrefutably a 'chemtrail'.



So, how come you keep avoiding your incorrect claim that cloud seeding is top secret in the States?
edit on 11-6-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
79
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join