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.

 

Some More Chemtrail/Contrail/Cloud Pics?

page: 16
84
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by bsbray11
[Are you saying now that you can tell what is a contrail or a chemtrail just by looking at the white trail behind a plane?

I thought you said chemtrails didn't exist, so how in the hell would you be able to tell the difference?


Since one doesn't exist, if there is a trail it must be the other one.


So you've proven that chemtrails don't exist?


didnt' say that - yet again you put words into my mouth.

Weren't you all angry with someone for supposedly doing that to you before, and yet now yo have repeatedly done so to me - tut tut!

Now - what I said was they don't exist - and for me is is sufficient that the balance of probabilities makes their exitence so unlikely as to be able to be safely ignored.


It's pretty hard to prove a negative. So how'd you manage it?


I established the possibilities to my own satisfaction using science, history and logic, and ignoring daft trolling like yours on the subject once I realised you had no idea what you were talking about


Now - how do you know SRM techniques will leave white trails from aircraft that resemble contrails??
edit on 31-5-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 31 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Since one doesn't exist, if there is a trail it must be the other one.


So you've proven that chemtrails don't exist?


didnt' say that - yet again you put words into my mouth.


You just said "Since one doesn't exist, if there is a trail it must be the other one."

What "one" are you claiming doesn't exist?




It's pretty hard to prove a negative. So how'd you manage it?


I established the possibilities to my own satisfaction.


Ah, that's different than proof. Sorry.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Chemtrails don't exist.

And no, it's not different than proof to me - only to you in your little "you can't prove a negative" logic-free bubble.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   
So, FP, WW and ATG,

Are these contrails purely contrails or do they contain any other substance which is not what would be expected in the normal contrail from the combustion of fuel?



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


aren't you a bit old to be playing these games? trying to trick someone into saying something they don't mean?

hold your tongue and say "I was born on a pirate ship"

that's why your opinion is a bit stinky.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Chemtrails don't exist.


I would ask how you managed to prove this negative but you already qualified it as your opinion above (exact words: "I established the possibilities to my own satisfaction."), so I guess it would be a waste of time to ask to see your proof?


And no, it's not different than proof to me - only to you in your little "you can't prove a negative" logic-free bubble.


I didn't say you couldn't prove a negative, only that it's hard to prove a negative, but it's also hard for you to read apparently.

Prove that chemtrails don't exist.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
aren't you a bit old to be playing these games? trying to trick someone into saying something they don't mean?


Are you sure you're responding to the same person? I'd love to see what you're referring to specifically.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen
So, FP, WW and ATG,

Are these contrails purely contrails or do they contain any other substance which is not what would be expected in the normal contrail from the combustion of fuel?


I think those are contrails that contain only the expected products of kerosene combuation in a gas turbine engine



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by wcitizen
So, FP, WW and ATG,

Are these contrails purely contrails or do they contain any other substance which is not what would be expected in the normal contrail from the combustion of fuel?


I think those are contrails that contain only the expected products of kerosene combuation in a gas turbine engine


Think? Then you don't know if it's a contrail or a chemtrail of some kind?

Thanks for replying, at least, ATG - the others have gone silent.


edit on 31-5-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
How's the line go? Full of fury, and terrible sound, but meaning nothing.

Both sides can huff and puff, but all houses will stand.

If only truth weren't so very subjective, if consciousness could be standardized.

We could stop having to remember people's names...



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I thought you said chemtrails didn't exist, so how in the hell would you be able to tell the difference?



Originally posted by bsbray11
The difference between a normal contrail and a chemtrail.

You don't even believe chemtrails exist, so what do they look like?




Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Uncinus
If you don't know what they look like, then how do you know I can't tell the difference?


I said you wouldn't know what they look like, not me. Though if you have to ask, neither of us would be able to tell the difference. That's my whole point. Unless you have pictures so we can compare.


that's all I have time for, but if you look back at your thread about cloud seeding, you might see a few more examples.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


Yeah, that's what I posted, and I stand behind all of that.

So are you going to explain how there are any "games" going on in there, or are you just having trouble understanding what I post?


I'll try to explain again....

Poster "A": "Here's a chemtrail!"

Poster "B": "That's not a chemtrail, that's a contrail!"

My question: How would you know the difference just by looking at them?

Especially when you claim they don't even exist, what in the hell do you think you'd be looking for?

The fact is your just claim anything is a contrail because you don't know any better, period. You can't pretend like you would know what something looks like to compare, when you claim it doesn't even exist at the same time.

edit on 31-5-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 

Does not reject the null hypothesis
The null hypothesis stands. The hypothesis is not validated.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by wcitizen
 

Does not reject the null hypothesis
The null hypothesis stands. The hypothesis is not validated.


Phage, going round in circles again? Who said anything about rejecting or disproving a hypothesis with regard to the pic? Reading comprehension problems and conclusions based on incorrect assumptions - again.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Just to toss in a question here. What is a contrail with military chaff or seeding in the trail called? Is it istill a contrail?



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 




Think? Then you don't know if it's a contrail or a chemtrail of some kind?


The hypothesis is that "chemtrails" exist. The hypothesis has not been validated by the rejection of the null or proof of the base.

The premise that "chemtrails" are indistinguishable from contrails is based on the validity of the hypothesis. The premise is moot unless the hypothesis which it is based upon is validated.
edit on 6/1/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by pagan_night
Just to toss in a question here. What is a contrail with military chaff or seeding in the trail called? Is it istill a contrail?


Its a pointless question, because neither acutally happen. Chaff is not done in large trails, its done in individual bundles and seeding goes in on altitudes far lower than where contrails occur



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by pagan_night
 


You can read this site, to learn more about chaff:

www.globalsecurity.org...


Cloud seeding, has been discussed. Firepilot is our resident authority on that, since he currently actually works in the field.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 


Thanks for answering my questions.
Here are some more questions.
Would cloud seeding be happening at levels of clouds? And Is that too high for a cannon power shot A590 to get a clear picture of the plane? If clouds were forming, what level of humidity would be needed? Is it possible to have clouds with no humidity?



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by wcitizen
 




Think? Then you don't know if it's a contrail or a chemtrail of some kind?


The hypothesis is that "chemtrails" exist. The hypothesis has not been validated by the rejection of the null or proof of the base.

The premise that "chemtrails" are indistinguishable from contrails is based on the validity of the hypothesis. The premise is moot unless the hypothesis which it is based upon is validated.
edit on 6/1/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Give it a rest, Phage. It's to do with a different point.



new topics

top topics



 
84
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join