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

page: 43
79
<< 40  41  42   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


So you don't have proof of what, exactly?




posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
So you don't have proof of what, exactly?


I've already told you a good hundred times already, so I know you already know the answer to this.

Just like I've told you several times that you have no proof that chemtrails don't exist.

Stop blatantly trolling man. Seriously any time I post here, no matter what hour of the day I get on, you're here in minutes playing these games.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Uncinus
So you don't have proof of what, exactly?


I've already told you a good hundred times already, so I know you already know the answer to this.

Just like I've told you several times that you have no proof that chemtrails don't exist.


But it's been pointed out to you several times, that the sentence above in bold, is of no use in any way.
...but you continue to repeat it, as if it somehow has substance. It does not.
Example (again)...You have no proof that "floating pink elephants" don't exist.
That statement in no way strengthens the argument that they do exist......even if we already know:

"some things float"
"pink can be created by mixing red and white"
"elephants are alive"
~~~~~~~~~~


edit on 17-6-2011 by EyeDontKnow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Just like I've told you several times that you have no proof that chemtrails don't exist.


I'm not sure WHY you keep telling me that, since:

A) I've never claimed to have proof
B) You can't prove a global absence

Nor am I even implying I have proof. In fact I very specifically say I DO NOT HAVE PROOF CHEMTRAILS DON'T EXIST. I also very specifically say that proving a global absence of chemtrails is impossible.

It's all about the evidence. And it seems all you have as evidence is some speculation based on some old wind dispersion tests, and a general distrust of government.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by EyeDontKnow
But it's been pointed out to you several times, that the sentence above in bold, is of no use in any way.


It's of no use to you, because you will continue to claim they definitely don't exist, without proof, anyway.




Originally posted by Uncinus
A) I've never claimed to have proof
B) You can't prove a global absence


But you do constantly appeal to ignorance and say that, because we don't have evidence, therefore they don't exist.

Even when you don't word it that way, it's exactly what you argue. I guess you think you really have an encyclopedic knowledge of all covert military operations.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Here we go, around the circle....again.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Hey there contrail/chemtrail folk!

Was wondering if there was a certain camera that would be able to capture evening... trails... in the sky... that are spreading?

Even with a full moon and a bright starry night my camera just shows black.
Then, of course it's worse when the spreading over takes the moon. Especially when the forecast is for a clear starry night.

So, yeah, ideas? suggestions? I used flash, no flash, the camera is just a kodak, nuttin fancy. Was simply wondering if it was possible (without spending a huge wad of dough) to capture light (as in 'not heavy') fluffy trails that eventually end up looking like a grid of that Halloween spiderweb stuff- You know, if you pull it out really thin.


Didn't wanna start a new thread as people are HORRIBLY vicious on this topic. Hoping to grab a friendly suggestion and be on my way.

Namaste



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ElizaAshdene
 


Kodak make some fairly decent cameras, do you have the opportunity to adjust the light setting and/or extend the shutter time on it? Some fairly standard cameras give you this option. If you can of course you also need to have the camera very still to avoid blurring. A tripod or even propping on a table at he desired angle may do the trick.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ElizaAshdene
 


Flash won't do anything, as the contrail is miles away. What's the exact brand of camera? Some of them have night modes.

If your camera has more settings, you need to use a wide aparture, and a slow shutter speed. But that can blur the trails. So use as fast a shutter speed as possible,and if you adjust the ISO, set that as high as possible.

Here's a photo I took at night, several seconds exposure on a low ISO, so the clouds are blurred.




posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


That is an excellent idea. I'll use the tripod next time. Going to check into the shutter speed. That may do the trick... cause it slows down the light exposure??? I'm grasping


Probably will be at least two weeks. That's about when the grid happens. I wish they'd start earlier though- then I could use the sun as a light source. And I wish they'd choose NON-clear nights. I enjoy the stars up here in the mountains.


Thanks so much for your reply! You know how it seems like everyone is a photographer? Well, I'm not.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


Excellent. I'm going to look at my camera and if I can't control the shutter speed and such I'm gonna call my mother-n-law and borrow hers.

So I don't want to slow it down too much? That's why your pic looks blurry? Even in total darkness?

I suppose I could walk 3 blocks out of town so there is little to no light pollution from street lights, etc.

I'm gonna practice on the sky before the next grid. That way- maybe- I'll be ready.


Thanks!



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ElizaAshdene
 


Yes, you want to avoid slowing the shutter speed to more than a second - but it depends on the winds aloft. The widest aperture (smallest f-number) is best, with no downside for sky photography. Larger ISO will help, but might make the picture grainy. And as noted, you need to keep the camera steady. Mine was on a tripod. An east trick is to prop the camera up and use the timer.





top topics
 
79
<< 40  41  42   >>

log in

join