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.

 

Excerpts From One Mans Video Diary

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
So you are just trolling by posting fake videos, when you know it's an aerodynamic contrail?


Yeah, put words in my mouth and lie about what I think, that always gets you somewhere.


Isn't trolling somewhat frowned upon?


If it is then that hasn't phased you any.

Are you going to offer any more proof that this is a fraud or are the sarcastic jokes still your best argument?




posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Are you going to offer any more proof that this is a fraud or are the sarcastic jokes still your best argument?


So the guy who shot the video explaining how it was a fraud, that's not good enough for you? He even posted on ATS explaining the whole thing.

The fact that the nozzles are flap mechanism fairings?

The trail looking exactly like an aerodynamic contrail, and not actually coming from the "nozzles"?

What more do you want?



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
So the guy who shot the video explaining how it was a fraud, that's not good enough for you? He even posted on ATS explaining the whole thing.


Damn, if he posted on ATS then it must be true. I mean it's not like disinformation agents ever get on the internet or anything.




The fact that the nozzles are flap mechanism fairings?


Are you talking about the stuff you don't think exists again?


The trail looking exactly like an aerodynamic contrail, and not actually coming from the "nozzles"?


Could be, then again maybe not. I can see it going both ways.

I'm just trying to see what kind of standard for evidence you have to have before you automatically claim something is a hoax. Apparently it doesn't take much.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by firepilot
What is your opinion of the dishonest additions that "Tanker Enemy" made to that video?


You mean labeling the sprayers on the planes and all of that?

I still haven't been shown that there was anything dishonest about it at all, unless you also think someone making jokes equates to proof of something.


You do not think there is anything dishonest about that?

Thats not shocking, I can not recall a single chemtrailer who has criticized the "Tanker Enemy" clowns for trying to mislead people.

Tanker Enemy is not making a joke, or making a point. They are just trying to mislead people. If it was an honest mistake, they would have edited their video by now.

Anyone can look at a DC-10/KC-10 photo and see those are not spray nozzles



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   


Are you talking about the stuff you don't think exists again?


Correct, those spray nozzels do not exist. Go look any ANY photo of KC-10s and DC-10s, and MD-11s for that matter too. Tell us if you find any of them that do not have those fairings.

Or, if you do think those are spray nozzles, can you explain why they were installed their as the plane came out of the factory new starting in the 1970s



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 


Re: Tanker Enemy,

bsbray11:


Nice videos, OP. I S&F'd you. I found another video I thought was pretty interesting:


Uncinus:


Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!


Well, you guys told me it was happening but I didn't believe it. Now I have seen it for myself.

I apologize to both yourself and Uncinus, FirePilot.

Bsbray11?
Others have already tried to administer the type of 'help' you are trying to apply to the sensitive and bedraggled subject of 'Chemtrails'

Please, already, with the rubber chickens.

Thanks.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Well Frater, its not just this one. Although in a matter of hours or days, you will see the KC-10 video posted yet again.

Same with the usual photos that they post. On a regular basis, we have the usual rotation of the Boeing 777 interior with water barrels for weight shift testing, the Gulfstream turboprop outfitted for air sampling with FORWARD facing air tubes, the water spray attachment on the KC-135 boom for icing tests, and the Navy E-6A doing the fuel dump. I know there are a few others that get reposted here from time to time too that I cant remember off hand.

Its like these photos are on some merry-go-round. No matter how many times they are explained to the chemtrailers, they keep reposting them over and over and over.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Oh my. You will take a website with and agendas word on the video but not the original creators commentary?

Don't believe everything you read on the internet. Or see on youtube.

How can someone have so much cognitive dissonance about their beliefs? I guess it's not too unlikely, considering the lack of evidence for 'chemtrails' doesn't really influence your opinion.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot
Its like these photos are on some merry-go-round. No matter how many times they are explained to the chemtrailers, they keep reposting them over and over and over.


If you guys are so damned sure it's an intentional effort to mislead people, then why is the best piece of evidence you have, a sarcastic joke?

All I asked is on what grounds you claim it's an intentional hoax. I know you probably believe what you say but that doesn't automatically mean you've proven anything, or that you're even trying.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
Oh my. You will take a website with and agendas word


You mean YouTube, where I found the video?



but not the original creators commentary?


No, I'm just asking you if you know the difference between commentary and proof. If you do, you haven't even tried to make the distinction here.

Maybe it is a normal contrail. But can you even prove that without having to make an argument from authority, or just straight ridicule? That's what I'm trying to see.

The insults, mockery and ridicule are extremely disproportionate to the actual evidence you guys claim to have in this forum.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by firepilot
Its like these photos are on some merry-go-round. No matter how many times they are explained to the chemtrailers, they keep reposting them over and over and over.


If you guys are so damned sure it's an intentional effort to mislead people, then why is the best piece of evidence you have, a sarcastic joke?

All I asked is on what grounds you claim it's an intentional hoax. I know you probably believe what you say but that doesn't automatically mean you've proven anything, or that you're even trying.


Some of these people know exactly what they are posting is not true. Its especially evident when they make no attempt to correct it. Does Tanker Enemy believe in chemtrails? Maybe, maybe not. But the fact that they know full well by now that their "spray nozzles" are anything but, speaks volumes.

I cant prove Alex Jones does not believe in chemtrails, but he seems more of a tag along and someone who just hopes to increase his audience by claiming to believe it. He may be an opportunist, but a smart one at that.

Will Thomas to me is the granddaddy of the chemtrail hoax, and I completely believe that he entirely made up plenty of stuff. He has redone his website, and I am trying to find the fictitious story about the KC-135s that I could tell was totally made up, because from an aviation standpoint, it was full of so many complete errors.

And here of course he has the pic of the icing attachment that was used to test icing characteristics of certain planes, and has long ago been explained, but he keeps it up on his website.
willthomasonline.net...

And here, he continued to propogate the mistake by KSLA news about the supposedly high levels of barium in rainwater. This has long ago been explained, the real numbers are in that youtube video and the reporter even admits he misread the report online.

willthomasonline.net...

I will try to find more later on, but i will have to look through his website all over again. Want to know his motivation for scaremongering on so many different topics? Oh look, lots e-books for sale! You can buy all kinds of books and dvds from him to learn more.

willthomasonline.net...



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot
Will Thomas to me is the granddaddy of the chemtrail hoax, and I completely believe that he entirely made up plenty of stuff. He has redone his website, and I am trying to find the fictitious story about the KC-135s that I could tell was totally made up, because from an aviation standpoint, it was full of so many complete errors.


This?

www.willthomasonline.net...



Dickie regularly visits Air Traffic Control at the Edmonton municipal airport to watch the chemplanes making repeated passes over the city. Blessed with good friends at work in the tower, he has watched radar-identified KC-135s "on many occasions."

On Father's Day 2002, Dickie and an excited group of 12 year-olds watched two KC-135s tracked by radar as HA (High Altitude) targets flying at 34,000 and 36,000 feet - "one to the south, and one to the north of the city."

Both USAF tankers had flown south out of Alaska. As Dickie, the kids and the controllers watched, the big jets began making patterns over Edmonton - "circuits" the controllers called it. "Petro 011" and "Petro 012" were working alone in "commanded airspace" from which all other aircraft were excluded.

And they were leaving chemtrails.

"The signature is significant," one radar operator commented, referring to a trail clearly visible on the scope extending for miles behind the KC-135. In contrast, a JAL flight on the display left no contrail.

Going outside, Dickie and several controllers scanned clear blue skies. They easily located the KC-135 leaving its characteristic white-plume "signature". Visibility was outstanding. They also clearly identified the JAL airliner at a similar flight level. It left no contrail at all.

"We see these guys up here a lot," the radar techs told Dickie. "You should have seen it when they had the big summit up in Calgary. It was exciting to watch them."

Was the U.S. Air Force spraying barium to enhance radio and radar surveillance over that G-8 gathering - or for some other purpose?

There could be no doubt about what was being left in the tankers' wake. Showing up on radar as "birdie feet" triangles, the reflective plumes also showed up as "as a concentration of dots" in the radar-visible plume. Focusing on each plane with the click of cursor, "we could see different contrails," Dickie described. Some were short and quickly vanished from the 'scopes. Other trails were thick, long and lingering - not contrails at all.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I don't need to prove anything, its a contrails coming off of a refueling(?) aircraft. Maybe they have extra tanks in there for 'chemstuff', but its unlikely since there's no spray nozzels.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Thats it. Let me dissect it for those who are not terribly knowledgable about aviation. Ever chemtrailer so far has been extremely lacking in aviation knowledge, and would be prone to believe this story, but its all false




Dickie regularly visits Air Traffic Control at the Edmonton municipal airport to watch the chemplanes making repeated passes over the city. Blessed with good friends at work in the tower, he has watched radar-identified KC-135s "on many occasions."

On Father's Day 2002, Dickie and an excited group of 12 year-olds watched two KC-135s tracked by radar as HA (High Altitude) targets flying at 34,000 and 36,000 feet - "one to the south, and one to the north of the city."

Both USAF tankers had flown south out of Alaska. As Dickie, the kids and the controllers watched, the big jets began making patterns over Edmonton - "circuits" the controllers called it. "Petro 011" and "Petro 012" were working alone in "commanded airspace" from which all other aircraft were excluded.


A tower facility does not have anything to do with high altitude traffic. Their radar is going to only show low altitude traffic and only in the vicinity of their airport. The airspace controlled the Edmonton tower,, only goes up to 4600 ft MSL, and out to 7 miles. Everything he is talking about, is handled by "Edmonton Centre" which is very possibly in an entirely different building.

No such thing as "commanded airspace" either.



"The signature is significant," one radar operator commented, referring to a trail clearly visible on the scope extending for miles behind the KC-135. In contrast, a JAL flight on the display left no contrail. Going outside, Dickie and several controllers scanned clear blue skies. They easily located the KC-135 leaving its characteristic white-plume "signature". Visibility was outstanding. They also clearly identified the JAL airliner at a similar flight level. It left no contrail at all.


Dropping some kind of powder, is not going to show up on a weather radar or air traffic control radar. First of all, something of that size will not reflect enough anyways. Ever seen a dust or sandstorm storm on radar? No, and you wont either. Second of all, air traffic radars operate from transponder returns for the most part. Even a formation of fighters will show up as one target, since only one of them will have their transponder on. Radars are engineered to show objects of a certain size, and something of a powder or sand is definitely not something that would ever show up



Going outside, Dickie and several controllers scanned clear blue skies. They easily located the KC-135 leaving its characteristic white-plume "signature". Visibility was outstanding. They also clearly identified the JAL airliner at a similar flight level. It left no contrail at all.


Yeah sure, the tower controllers are just going to all leave the tower cab and go outside while at work.



"We see these guys up here a lot," the radar techs told Dickie. "You should have seen it when they had the big summit up in Calgary. It was exciting to watch them."


Someone in Edmonton is not going to say "up in Calgary" since Calgary is SOUTH of Edmonton. You slipped up there, Mr Thomas.




There could be no doubt about what was being left in the tankers' wake. Showing up on radar as "birdie feet" triangles, the reflective plumes also showed up as "as a concentration of dots" in the radar-visible plume. Focusing on each plane with the click of cursor, "we could see different contrails," Dickie described. Some were short and quickly vanished from the 'scopes. Other trails were thick, long and lingering - not contrails at all.


Here, he is actually claiming normal contrails can show up on air traffic control radar, in addition to "chemtrails". If this was not proof he completely just wrote this fable, then there is nothing else i could say. Contrails, and clouds for that matter since they are the same, do not show up on any kind of radar.
edit on 3-6-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-6-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Interesting how when you take time to point out how the grandfather of the chemtrail hoax lied to them and totally made something up, even when they asked for evidence about it, you may as well just have crickets chirping.

I wonder if the chemtrailers even care when the people that came up with the conspiracy they so believe in, lied to them. A good parallel is when a clergy member does reprehensible acts, but the faithful still refuse to believe that person did anything wrong. Same with Ted Gunderson spouting complete claptrap, not a single chemtrailer cared that Ft Sill doesnt even have the facilities for their chemtrail planes, any none cared about "Tanker Enemy" lying to them either.

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



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
I don't need to prove anything, its a contrails coming off of a refueling(?) aircraft. Maybe they have extra tanks in there for 'chemstuff', but its unlikely since there's no spray nozzels.


You don't have to prove anything, no, but then obviously you have no proof.



How do you know that chemtrailing planes use nozzles, btw? Can you show me a picture of what they look like, or are you just making stuff up again?



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot
A good parallel is when a clergy member does reprehensible acts, but the faithful still refuse to believe that person did anything wrong.


Kind of like when I post this article, and you'll come back scrambling to down-play it and tell me how it's not really a big deal, and still not proof of chemtrails?




Millions were in germ war tests

Much of Britain was exposed to bacteria sprayed in secret trials


The Ministry of Defence turned large parts of the country into a giant laboratory to conduct a series of secret germ warfare tests on the public.

A government report just released provides for the first time a comprehensive official history of Britain's biological weapons trials between 1940 and 1979.

Many of these tests involved releasing potentially dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms over vast swaths of the population without the public being told.

While details of some secret trials have emerged in recent years, the 60-page report reveals new information about more than 100 covert experiments.

The report reveals that military personnel were briefed to tell any 'inquisitive inquirer' the trials were part of research projects into weather and air pollution.


www.guardian.co.uk...


Actions speak louder than words, so let's see who is really the religious fanatic making excuses for reprehensible behavior.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by adeclerk
I don't need to prove anything, its a contrails coming off of a refueling(?) aircraft. Maybe they have extra tanks in there for 'chemstuff', but its unlikely since there's no spray nozzels.


You don't have to prove anything, no, but then obviously you have no proof.



How do you know that chemtrailing planes use nozzles, btw? Can you show me a picture of what they look like, or are you just making stuff up again?


He wasnt making the claim, it was the Tanker Enemy clowns that labeled the flap hinge fairings as spray nozzles. Ever considered asking them why they did that, and if there was any proof that flap hinge fairings are secret spray devices? Ever considered even looking at a photo of a DC-10/KC-10/MD-11?

What are you expecting him to have proof of? He did not make the video, he did not mislable anything, he isnt claiming chemtrails



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by firepilot
A good parallel is when a clergy member does reprehensible acts, but the faithful still refuse to believe that person did anything wrong.


Kind of like when I post this article, and you'll come back scrambling to down-play it and tell me how it's not really a big deal, and still not proof of chemtrails?




Millions were in germ war tests

Much of Britain was exposed to bacteria sprayed in secret trials


The Ministry of Defence turned large parts of the country into a giant laboratory to conduct a series of secret germ warfare tests on the public.

A government report just released provides for the first time a comprehensive official history of Britain's biological weapons trials between 1940 and 1979.

Many of these tests involved releasing potentially dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms over vast swaths of the population without the public being told.

While details of some secret trials have emerged in recent years, the 60-page report reveals new information about more than 100 covert experiments.

The report reveals that military personnel were briefed to tell any 'inquisitive inquirer' the trials were part of research projects into weather and air pollution.


www.guardian.co.uk...


Actions speak louder than words, so let's see who is really the religious fanatic making excuses for reprehensible behavior.

I do not deny any of that, but what does it have to do with prominent, irregular or persistent contrails?



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot
He wasnt making the claim, it was the Tanker Enemy clowns that labeled the flap hinge fairings as spray nozzles.


You are already confused in terms of what you are responding to. Logical fallacies are so rampant in this forum that there is nothing I can do if you don't want to educate yourself.


What are you expecting him to have proof of? He did not make the video, he did not mislable anything, he isnt claiming chemtrails


He said there weren't any spray nozzles. Again, he said there weren't any spray nozzles. Let me say it a third time in an effort that it might sink in: he said there weren't any spray nozzles.


So then let's revisit my response and see if nothing clicks for you again, and it probably won't:

"How do you know that chemtrailing planes use nozzles, btw? Can you show me a picture of what they look like, or are you just making stuff up again?"


On one hand he's claiming chemtrails don't exist, on the other hand he's claiming they must use spray nozzles that look a certain way. Please don't make me repeat this until it finally makes sense to you, because if you don't even try to understand it, then you are hopeless. In other words he is making stuff up, because he is trying to force assumptions as if they are based on some kind of fact, when in reality he hypocritically doesn't even believe in what he's talking about. Any number of mechanisms could be used and his reasoning would be out the window, because he never had any actual evidence for what he was saying in the first place. He even admits he doesn't have proof. You know, the burden of proof isn't always on the person you disagree with. It's on whoever is making a positive claim. I'm not. I'm questioning you guys' "logic," which hardly exists in itself.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join