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.

 

Its happend before, so why not now?

page: 16
23
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
All I asked is if it has happend before, why can't it be happening now? Very simple question and all you debunkers can say is there's no evidence.


Mammoths roamed the tundra before, why can't they now? All you skeptic say is there's no evidence of mammoths.



You did know science has been attempting to bring back the mammoth right?



Scientists aim to bring mammoth back to life
A team of researchers will attempt to resurrect the species using cloning technologies after obtaining tissue this summer from the carcass of a mammoth preserved in a Russian mammoth research laboratory. It has already established a technique to extract DNA from frozen cells.

Link

Maybe the Chem Corps has something new to test.




posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
 


Well, yes, that was kind of the point. Just because something is technically possible does not mean it's been done.

Possibility is not probability.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Serious question for the debunkers.

What are the exact conditions needed for contrail formation?

I have been reading up on it but you guys have been at it for some time so I want a more experienced response.

Temperature and pressure right?

So at what altitude, from low to high, are contrails most often formed?

I ask because in Canada a average winter morning in some places is -40c. Damn sure is where I live.


This is what stumps me.

Exhaust vapour trails or contrails usually occur above 8000 metres (26,000 feet), and only if the temperature there is below −40 °C (−40 °F).[3]

Wiki

The temperature can reach -40c at ground level so I'm guessing the pressure at 26,000 is needed for contrail formation?



edit on 16-6-2011 by FreeSpeaker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
 


It's not altitude, it's temperature and humidity. About -40, and 70% RH (100% RHI).

You get contrails at ground level in canada.

ETA: The "usually" in the wiki explanation is because A) that's where most planes fly, and B) in most places, like the US and Europe, where planes fly overhead, it's not cold enough below that altitude.
edit on 16-6-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)


ETA:
www.rmets.org...

On long-haul routes, commercial aircraft usually reach altitudes of 10 to 12 km, where temperatures are typically below -40°C. Planes on these routes therefore tend to leave contrails behind them. Over the British Isles, trails rarely form below about 8 km in summer, 6 km in winter. When the weather is as cold as it often is in mid-winter in Alaska, Siberia and central Canada, contrails can even form at ground level. Indeed, airfields in these regions have sometimes had to be closed when low-level clouds (ice fogs) composed of aircraft-generated ice crystals have proved persistent.



edit on 16-6-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
 


It's not altitude, it's temperature and humidity. About -40, and 70% RH (100% RHI).

You get contrails at ground level in canada.


Ah, so then theoretically, actual chemtrails need not be at high altitude. A chemtrail could be formed much lower in the atmosphere than most defintions claim?


The chemtrail conspiracy theory holds that some trails left by aircraft are actually chemical or biological agents deliberately sprayed at high altitudes for a purpose undisclosed to the general public in clandestine programs directed by government officials

Wiki

Some have accused me of muddying the waters and trying to redefine chemtrails. Maybe they do need to be redefined.

Thank you for answering.



edit on 16-6-2011 by FreeSpeaker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
 


Well, maybe you'd like to edit wikipedia.

People do claim "chemtrails" occur at low altitude. Nobody has ever produced any photographic or video evidence of this though. All the picture I've seen look like high altitude contrails



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
 


Well, maybe you'd like to edit wikipedia.

People do claim "chemtrails" occur at low altitude. Nobody has ever produced any photographic or video evidence of this though. All the picture I've seen look like high altitude contrails


Its defined that way in more places than just Wiki.

Well, no evidence that can be proven anyways. Lots of photos and video's but no samples of chemicals. I also agree the photos look like contrails but seeing as how no government will share video's or photos with us related to their BW testing, we can't say chemtrails wouldn't look like a contrail either.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
 


I think most places take their definition from Wikipedia. Wikipedia in turn is supposed to take it from a reliable source. Wiki's first reference is:

www.usatoday.com...


The theory: The white lines of condensed water vapor that jets leave in the sky, called contrails, are actually a toxic substance the government deliberately sprays on an unsuspecting populace.


Which is an even more specific form of the theory.

But I think all this talk to definitions really is not helping. Maybe we should just go with "secret stuff being sprayed from airplanes", and look at the evidence that supports that theory. Nomenclature just gets in the way if people are going to argue about precise definitions of a neologism for something that most people don't think exists.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

But I think all this talk to definitions really is not helping.


Its not my fault the defintions vary.

How are we supposed to rationally debate chemtrails when the very defintion of chemtrails varies both amoung "chemtrailers" and "debunkers" and many websites?




edit on 16-6-2011 by FreeSpeaker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Actually altitude does play a part, because the thinner the air is, the less water it can hold, before it becomes saturated.

However, since the air density at a given altitude can change with fluctuations in air pressure, you really have to know the true air pressure at that altitude, which gets plugged into the contrail prediction chart.

asd-www.larc.nasa.gov...

Its still not an exact tool because even the type of jet engine can have an effect too



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot
Actually altitude does play a part, because the thinner the air is, the less water it can hold, before it becomes saturated.

However, since the air density at a given altitude can change with fluctuations in air pressure, you really have to know the true air pressure at that altitude, which gets plugged into the contrail prediction chart.

asd-www.larc.nasa.gov...

Its still not an exact tool because even the type of jet engine can have an effect too


Forgive my not understanding but does this mean what Unicus said was inccorect?



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

How are we supposed to rationally debate chemtrails when the very defintion of chemtrails varies both amoung "chemtrailers" and "debunkers" and many websites?

Now we may be able to get somewhere. Can you tell me why the definition varies? Is it because the whole chemtrail concept is bunk made to make money, perhaps?



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

How are we supposed to rationally debate chemtrails when the very defintion of chemtrails varies both amoung "chemtrailers" and "debunkers" and many websites?

Now we may be able to get somewhere. Can you tell me why the definition varies? Is it because the whole chemtrail concept is bunk made to make money, perhaps?


Well, it varies because it does on many sites and in many opinions on both sides of the fence.


Talk about stating the obvious.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
Now we may be able to get somewhere. Can you tell me why the definition varies? Is it because the whole chemtrail concept is bunk made to make money, perhaps?


Or because there is a deliberate DoD-sponsored disinformation campaign against chemtrails, and there is poison in the well coming from all directions?




posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by adeclerk
Now we may be able to get somewhere. Can you tell me why the definition varies? Is it because the whole chemtrail concept is bunk made to make money, perhaps?


Or because there is a deliberate DoD-sponsored disinformation campaign against chemtrails, and there is poison in the well coming from all directions?


Follow the money....right back to that hoaxer Clifford Carnicorn.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

Originally posted by adeclerk

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

How are we supposed to rationally debate chemtrails when the very defintion of chemtrails varies both amoung "chemtrailers" and "debunkers" and many websites?

Now we may be able to get somewhere. Can you tell me why the definition varies? Is it because the whole chemtrail concept is bunk made to make money, perhaps?


Well, it varies because it does on many sites and in many opinions on both sides of the fence.


Talk about stating the obvious.

If it was true, why would there be differing opinions on what exactly is happening (should easily be provable)?

I can understand differing opinions on the why.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
Follow the money....right back to that hoaxer Clifford Carnicorn.


The Pentagon has many, many, many times the money flowing through its halls than any "known hoaxer" you'd like to point out will ever have. You don't follow money.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by adeclerk
Now we may be able to get somewhere. Can you tell me why the definition varies? Is it because the whole chemtrail concept is bunk made to make money, perhaps?


Or because there is a deliberate DoD-sponsored disinformation campaign against chemtrails, and there is poison in the well coming from all directions?


Follow the money....right back to that hoaxer Clifford Carnicorn.


Can you provide evidence for that accusation, please?



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by adeclerk

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by adeclerk
Now we may be able to get somewhere. Can you tell me why the definition varies? Is it because the whole chemtrail concept is bunk made to make money, perhaps?


Or because there is a deliberate DoD-sponsored disinformation campaign against chemtrails, and there is poison in the well coming from all directions?


Follow the money....right back to that hoaxer Clifford Carnicorn.


Can you provide evidence for that accusation, please?

Certainly, here is his website. Maybe buy a book or video while you're there? Or donate to the carnicorn institute, which studies chemtrails and has found nothing.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by adeclerk
Follow the money....right back to that hoaxer Clifford Carnicorn.


The Pentagon has many, many, many times the money flowing through its halls than any "known hoaxer" you'd like to point out will ever have. You don't follow money.

And you can't trace any of that money to 'chemtrails', no spray planes, no chemical purchases, no tanks, no logistics planners, no mechanics, no pilots, no programs, nothing. Interesting.




top topics



 
23
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join