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: 22
84
<< 19  20  21    23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by heartfulloftruth
 


I think what you posted is normal clouds and contrails. Research cloud seeding a bit to understand how it works. It cannot be done until clouds exist, so I doubt that anybody is making rain clouds to block your sun.

Your second pic does have some cool clouds in it.


I apologize for using the term "chemtrail". I am not a "chemtrailst" or any "ist" for that matter. I just don't like what I see. You are right, those are clouds and airplane trails but I can't say they are one kind or the other simply because these from the first image turned into the top two in the second image. Third part of the second image is not for this thread.

What happened during approximately 5 days of trailing is that each trail widened, thickened and turned grey. That is the fact. The question is intentional or unintentional? You don't have the proof either that those are regular trails that meet the air conditions that turn them into clouds or they spray something. I am willing to research each option.

One thing in this case from my observation for hours is certain is that 5 day air traffic turned sky gray, spring into winter for a week and we had snow as a surprise. I would not call that normal.

If that was just simple everyday air traffic then there is too much of it and they are creating weather with the contrails.

Anyway, I don't like what I see and do wish to understand why and how.




posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by heartfulloftruth
 

If you really want to learn why you can start here:
contrailscience.com...

But there is plenty of other solid science about contrails, how they form, and their effects on (and how they are affected by) weather and climate.

edit on 6/7/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by stars15k
 


Thank you for the link I appreciate it. I already apologized for using the word chem trail without any specific evidence. Cloud streams just happened to be on the image, they are not for this thread but do fall into category of weather manipulation (not with trails).



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by heartfulloftruth
 


I was referring more to the use of cloud seeding as something to be checked into. Once it's understood, then it is far less diabolical.

As for the clouds forming and getting grey, that only happens when there is significant moister in the air and it's going to rain. Yes, contrails can spread out and become clouds, (they are clouds to begin with) or they can just dissipate depending on the conditions. The link to the contrail site is a very good source of scientific information. All of which can be verified by other sources. Some parts of the world are just inherently more prone to rain than others. When I think of Scotland I think of green pastures and rain clouds. And wind when I am watching a golf tournament. When I think of the desert of California and Arizona, I think of dry dusty climates.

edit on 7-6-2011 by network dude because: added thought



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by heartfulloftruth
 


Are you really going to beat this dead horse again?

To reiterate, NO ONE IS DENYING CLOUD SEEDING. It has been around since the beginning of aviation.

Chemtrails, on the other hand, are a hoax that has been around since 1996.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by heartfulloftruth

Artificial Clouds for "our benefit"


From that link:


While contrails are a "natural" part of jet travel, contrail science doesn't explain the ability of aircraft to start and stop contrails at will,


Yes it does. It's not "at will", it's the natural variability in the atmosphere - waves between layers of air, and hot thermals and cold sinks - and the plane simply flying through those variations.


nor does contrail theory include the ability of jets to create dense cloud cover over thousands of square miles.


Yes it does. Ice supersaturation and wind shear.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
reply to post by heartfulloftruth
 


Are you really going to beat this dead horse again?

To reiterate, NO ONE IS DENYING CLOUD SEEDING. It has been around since the beginning of aviation.

Chemtrails, on the other hand, are a hoax that has been around since 1996.


That patent is not even for cloud seeding. It's for solar radiation management.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by heartfulloftruth
US Patent - Cloud Seeding


There is a lot of research going on into solar radiation management - do you have any information that shows that any of it is actually happening, and has been from aircraft exhaust trails for the last 13 years??


Artificial Clouds for "our benefit"


From that site:


While contrails are a "natural" part of jet travel, contrail science doesn't explain the ability of aircraft to start and stop contrails at will, nor does contrail theory include the ability of jets to create dense cloud cover over thousands of square miles


2 major pieces of disinfo and 1 begging the questions just in that little paragraph!

1/ Begging the question - the paragraph assumes that aircraft start and stop contrails "at will" - this is nonsense - aircraft "start and stop contrails" when the atmoshpheric are right and wrong for contrails.

Within normal ATC rules aircraft fly at the altitude they are allowed to fly at. Jets usually fly as high as possible because it uses a lot less gas, so they are always asking for higher altitudes when they burn of gas (ie become lighter) and so can climb higher.

It is true that they could choose to fly lower - but the cost in fuel is quite considerable, and unless there is some incentive given for doing so they are not going to waste the money - here's someone who has done some work on the costs in a blog - theblogbyjavier.wordpress.com...

2/ Contrail (and other) science does explain all of this - it explains the necessity for seperation of aircraft, the economic benefits of flying higher, and the starting and stoping of contrails due to atmospheric conditions.

3/ Contrail theory doesn't explain how contrails spread - but cloud and atmospheric theory does!! The concepts of Ice Supersaturationand nucleation are applicable, as is wind shear and also here
edit on 7-6-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-6-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: crappy spelling



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by adeclerk
reply to post by heartfulloftruth
 


Are you really going to beat this dead horse again?

To reiterate, NO ONE IS DENYING CLOUD SEEDING. It has been around since the beginning of aviation.

Chemtrails, on the other hand, are a hoax that has been around since 1996.


That patent is not even for cloud seeding. It's for solar radiation management.

Honestly I didn't even read it, given the title he gave it....why would I need to read ANOTHER patent for cloud seeding?



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by heartfulloftruth
 


Thanks for the links heartfulloftruth


Funny how the whole brigade shows up the minute you post


Almost like they were waiting to pounce.

I read some interesting information in both those links, no matter which direction you approach discussion with them, they will still try and reverse it for the sake of arguing. I say post what you feel like, as they will. We will get nowhere with this back and forth repetitiveness but sure makes a good thread LOL.

I'm looking forward to more pics when you get the chance heartfulloftruth. I have a few, but I'm going to wait until i have more before I share more of what I am seeing.

Cheers.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by heartfulloftruth
 

Funny how the whole brigade shows up the minute you post


the 1st reply was 7 minutes later, mine was 25 - how long is an "acceptable time" for you??

I've seen posts by all sides that have not been replied to for a few hours and ppl have accused others of "ignoring" them - would that be preferable?

It's the freakin' internet man - there are ppl on here around the world, in all time zones - you should be used to it by now



Almost like they were waiting to pounce.


these days it's easy to have multiple windows open and check what is new.....when the discussion is almost "live" why would you do anything else?



I read some interesting information in both those links, no matter which direction you approach discussion with them, they will still try and reverse it for the sake of arguing.


if verifiable information was posted then we could have a decent discussion about it - you would still get arguments but it could be ratinoal and actually evaluate teh science - I pointed out my reasoning - he just pointed to a couple of sites and mande no comment about what it was in them that he thought we should read.



edit on 7-6-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


Face it, 'chemies' have no where to go. It's all twisted facts and lies on their end, and I for one will not stand for it!

It's time we deny ignorance and quit with the one sided discussion, have a read on www.contrailscience.com, who knows, you might learn something.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 



It appears I am being lectured by someone who can't spell/type. Kind of Ironic


And you have the nerve to ask for a "decent discussion" as you mentioned. Kind of hard to have a civil discussion with an aggravated member who lacks vocabulary and grammar skills.

I am not here to argue with you. Nothing you have posted so far has made much sense in reference to what most of us are discussing. Until you mention something worth discussing, I will keep my responses to you limited in nature.

Have a good one bud.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


Face it, 'chemies' have no where to go. It's all twisted facts and lies on their end, and I for one will not stand for it!

It's time we deny ignorance and quit with the one sided discussion, have a read on www.contrailscience.com, who knows, you might learn something.


You are claiming to "deny ignorance", yet you are ignorant enough to label anyone who has a curiosity into the possibility of chemtrails a "chemmie". Ignorance comes in many forms, you have demonstrated a few of those. However, I'm not here to play your games and participate in this tit for tat school-yard bickering.

This thread was meant to discuss many different possibilities on all ends of the spectrum, yet it seems a certain few felt the need to stand on their soap box. Personally, I am thick skinned and can shrug it off with a sedated grin, but many of the "debunkers" have gone out of their way to ridicule and perform personal attacks on several members who were only sharing their observation opinions, nothing more. Some people are here just to chill and have a good time and share opinions and ideas with different people from all over the world.

Deny ignorance indeed...
edit on 7-6-2011 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 



It appears I am being lectured by someone who can't spell/type. Kind of Ironic


not really - just a symptom of the era - you can get lectured by anyone - lots of my posts have corrections for typing - i'm used to it and to dumbass comments that it somehow makes my points less valid.


And you have the nerve to ask for a "decent discussion" as you mentioned. Kind of hard to have a civil discussion with an aggravated member who lacks vocabulary and grammar skills.


I do ahve them I just choose not to waste my time ensuring my crappy typing reflects them as well as it might - but hey - I realise you are used to leaping to conclusions on flimsy evidence, so I forgive you


I can assure you it's much harder when one side refuses to address facts and insists that everyone has to believe their cult of anti-science based upon bad science, falsified information, say-so and fearmongering.


I am not here to argue with you.


ROFL - and you find my poor typing ironic?!!




Nothing you have posted so far has made much sense in reference to what most of us are discussing. Until you mention something worth discussing, I will keep my responses to you limited in nature.


So my explaination as to how science explains contrails expanding didn't make sense to you?


bud.


Oh bricks and glass houses - what have plants got to do with this??!!


now - did yuo actually have something to add - soe evidence perhaps? comments on my links to nucleation and contrails spreading mayhap??

go on - give us something other than a lecture on spelling...

edit on 7-6-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
[However, I'm not here to play your games and participate in this tit for tat school-yard bickering.

clearly untrue!


This thread was meant to discuss many different possibilities on all ends of the spectrum,

If you want to discuss possibilities then that is fine - but why would you be surprised and/or upset when people discuss jsut how likely those possibilities actually are as part of the discussion??



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
No matter what you post you will have a certain few members try and discredit your opinion.


I think it's more just "explaining where you were wrong", like in this post:


Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by SirCoxone
 




You do realise if you moved 10 miles down the road a trail that went in front of the sun for you would be nowhere near the sun anymore right?


Wrong...You can go 20 miles towards the direction of the sun and the chemtrails/contrails would still appear to be positioned in front of the sun. I have tested this theory myself on numerous occasions. The sun is a long ways from earth, and to think that moving 10 miles in either direction would affect the angle of the chemtrails at 35,000 feet up compared to the position of the sun is not very logical. I urge you to test this out yourself when you get the chance if you doubt me.
edit on 3-6-2011 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)


So here you were wrong. In subsequent posts people explained why this was wrong. You just ignored them.

Surely if you wanted to have a proper discussion, that would include actually admitting when you were wrong?



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


Did you even address my cloud pictures in this thread? Of course not, because there were no contrails in them!

After considering both sides, I've found one to be lacking in evidence, motive, science, and logic. It isn't the contrail side.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk


After considering both sides, I've found one to be lacking in evidence, motive, science, and logic. It isn't the contrail side.


Oh, I think they have motive. But that's it.


Originally posted by Corruption Exposed



I read some interesting information in both those links, no matter which direction you approach discussion with them, they will still try and reverse it for the sake of arguing.


Agreed. There are people in this thread who continue to claim the exitsence of chemtrails without a shred of evidence. ANd then they even have the gall to claim those who DO present evidence that contradicts their evidence-less assertions shills or 'disinfo'. It's a shame, indeed. Bu what can you do? People BELIEVE in 'chemtrails' like Christians believe in Christ. They dont need evidence. In fact, a LACK of evidence only strengthens their belief.

That was what you were talking about, right?



new topics

top topics



 
84
<< 19  20  21    23 >>

log in

join