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.

 

Where Have All The Planes Gone?

page: 15
20
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by chrismicha77
[Right and I guess having to geoengineer crops for aluminum resistance, is just for the heck of it.




It's for profit - there is an enourmous market out there for aluminium resistant plants, because:


Acid soils limit crop production on 30-40% of the world’s arable land and up to 70% of the world’s potentially
arable land (Haug, 1983). Although the poor fertility of acid soils is due to a combination of mineral toxicities (aluminum and manganese) and deficiencies (phosphorus, calcium, magnesium, and molybdenum), Al toxicity is the single most important factor, being a major constraint for crop production on 67% of the total acid soil
area (Eswaran et al., 1997).


- www.plantstress.com...

Here's the summary of a 1997 paper about creating aluminium resistance - www.sciencemag.org...

And a 2010 European report about breeding aluminium resistence into lucerne - www.eau.ee...

It's not just Monsanto keen on this - whoever can create an aluminium resistent staple crop will make a fortune!




posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 


Yes your right Aviation is not a great place to hide things, since it requires airports, airplanes and airspace.
How long did it take before the world knew about the U2 spy plane or the stealth bomber?
Both aircraft's, both required an airport and airspace so based on you comment these planes would have been know about as soon as they started to fly so i think it would be prudent for you to think over what you posted there because if we assume that this would be a military project or private company project then those airfields would be very hard to get photos or vids of from nearby let alone get past the gate to take a look inside and i know your answer will be as its always been
There is no spraying program going on anywhere in the world period.
In which case the same reply i gave to phage i can then direct at you



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by djcarlosa
reply to post by firepilot
 


Yes your right Aviation is not a great place to hide things, since it requires airports, airplanes and airspace.
How long did it take before the world knew about the U2 spy plane or the stealth bomber?
Both aircraft's, both required an airport and airspace so based on you comment these planes would have been know about as soon as they started to fly so i think it would be prudent for you to think over what you posted there because if we assume that this would be a military project or private company project then those airfields would be very hard to get photos or vids of from nearby let alone get past the gate to take a look inside and i know your answer will be as its always been
There is no spraying program going on anywhere in the world period.
In which case the same reply i gave to phage i can then direct at you


People knew about the B-2 before it ever flew. It was actually rolled out publicly, before it ever did taxi tests.

The U-2 was not exactly all that secret either. It was tested at Area 51 for about a year, and deployed operationally. At that point it was not secret, but its missions were.

And no, its not hard to photograph aircraft landing or taking off from military bases. Many bases are located next to cities, and many military airfields can be overflown too as long as you are above the upper limit of their control tower.

If what you were saying was true, there would be very few photos of military aircraft. But apparently there are hundreds of thousands of them, all over the internet.

However, NONE of any such chemtrail plane. Even after 12+ years of the chemtrail conspiracy.


edit on 26-6-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 


really as i understand it the U2 entered service in 1956 and it wasn't public knowage until 1960 when the Russians managed to bring one down and it was they that exposed it to the world just ahead of the east-west summit had that not of happened then the government would have kept it a secret a lot longer it was denied even after the Russians provided proof

quote:A U2 pilot by the name of Francis Gary Powers was shot down over the Soviet Union on May 1, 1960. President Eisenhower first denied it was a spy plane. But as the facts of the matter emerged it was clear that this was something the American people had been kept in the dark about for years. It was not only important in the history of the cold war because it scuttled an important summit conference that was about to begin, but it was one of the first instances where the American people knew they had been lied to by their own government.
link:www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...

as for the f117 stealth bomber that was also kept a secret
quote:The Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk is a single-seat, twin-engine stealth ground-attack aircraft formerly operated by the United States Air Force (USAF). The F-117A's first flight was in 1981, and it achieved initial operating capability status in October 1983.[1] The F-117A was "acknowledged" and revealed to the world in November 1988.
link:en.wikipedia.org...
so a 5 year gap there so how can you say that these were not kept a secret until it could no longer be kept a secret some times i wonder if you think about what you are posting after all this alone goes to prove that a government won't admit until they can deny it no longer .

edit on 26-6-2011 by djcarlosa because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-6-2011 by djcarlosa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by djcarlosa
reply to post by firepilot
 


really as i understand it the U2 entered service in 1956 and it wasn't public knowage until 1960 when the Russians managed to bring one down and it was they that exposed it to the world just ahead of the east-west summit had that not of happened then the government would have kept it a secret a lot longer it was denied even after the Russians provided proof


i don't know about the U-2, but that would be 5 years in a time without the internet, without every man and his dog having a camera, with very limited public access to video (by today's standards), and a project of only 86 aircraft built total, that operated in miniscule numbers out of covered hangers on bases with cold-war security levels.

Other secret programmes such as the A-12, SR-71, etc, similarly had short lives of total secrecy - eg Johnson announced the SR 71 in 1964, a couple of months before the 1st protype was delivered!

Not sure about the A-12 - it only had 4 years of operational life and with only 15 built and looking much like an SR-71 everyone probably thought them the same thing at the time.

re teh F-117 -


so a 5 year gap there so how can you say that these were not kept a secret until it could no longer be kept a secret


If you go to the link about the "revelation" in 1988 you'll see the Carter administration actually announced the stealth programme in 1978! There had been numerous reports in those 10 years - the announcement of the F-117 was merely official confirmation of what had been seen and documented.

If chemtrails were like this we would already know the chemicals being used, the bases they weer flying out of, who has designed the systems, where they had been built, etc - as long ago as the late 1980's - 10 years before the supposed start of the programme!!

See Cracks in the black dyke - leaks and revelations in the stealth programme started long before the aircraft actually flew!

So if het government can't keep such a small number of aircraft secret how do you think it's doing so for a massively larger number these days, for 2-3 times as long, and with all the operations being visible to the public every day??




edit on 26-6-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


But as you say to me here on a regular basis without proof it dose not exists and that would have been the same back when these aircraft's where secret and we would probably been having the same argument's about that as we do about this debate.
i say :i've seen one in the sky flying about.
you say:where's your proof have you pics vid's etc
I post pic or vid
you rip it apart with comments that its just such and such an aircraft and i don't know what i'm seeing or not seeing.
Perhaps my post to phage and fire should go for you to



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by djcarlosa
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


But as you say to me here on a regular basis without proof it dose not exists and that would have been the same back when these aircraft's where secret and we would probably been having the same argument's about that as we do about this debate.



but there was lot of verifiable evidence (or potentially verifiable) about these things around - did you read the article? there were lots of leaks from all sorts of sources.



i say :i've seen one in the sky flying about.
you say:where's your proof have you pics vid's etc


I ask "one what?" You provide a picture of a white line in the sky & say it is a chemtrail - I say it looks like a contrail and ask how do you know it is anything else, you say the time it's been up there, I say well contrails can last for hours...

Please have a look at the article and see how much better the evidence was for the F-117 than that!


I post pic or vid you rip it apart with comments that its just such and such an aircraft and i don't know what i'm seeing or not seeing.


I don't doubt what you are seeing - white lines in the sky, spreading out - yep - we see that too.

I doubt your conclusion that it has to be part of some nefarious programme to spray us with something - the evidence does not support that.

Again I strongly urge you to go read the article on cracks in hte black programmes to see how much evidence - REAL evidence - was available for the F-117.


Perhaps my post to phage and fire should go for you to


Hey by all means please put me on a US Govt federal payroll - the US$ has dropped a bit lately, but it's still worth more than the local version!
edit on 26-6-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


then you have misread the post i gave to phage go back and read it again and you will see that what you have taken it to mean is not what it is meant to mean if you are as smart as you claim you are you will see the true meaning of what i wrote.
as for proof there are many possible bits of evidence to back up what i believe as there was when these plane where secret but they would be treated as our evidence is treated so again that shows what i mean.
if you don't get the true meaning of that post let me know and when i log on again i will explain it to you.

edit on 26-6-2011 by djcarlosa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Perhaps you can just post a link to it?


As for the quality of the evidence - yuo really havent' looked at that article - the evidence there is nothing at all like the evidence usually proffered by chemtrail believers.

Sorry to burst your bubble that all "we" do is argue - but if you had something like what was being reported for stealth 10 years before the 117 was announced then i would be very interested.

Here's an extract:


In June 1975, the Defense Daily carried a report that a small stealth fighter was being developed for the Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory. In an article on the genesis of the advanced tactical fighter (ATF) published in January 1976, Aviation Week & Space Technology reported that a high priority was being given to the incorporation of stealth technology into the fighter designs. The article further stated that Lockheed and Northrop (which went on to develop the F-117A and B-2 stealth aircraft) were being given funding for design studies on the inclusion of stealth characteristics in the ATF because of their experience with low-observable technologies in their stealth fighter programs already in progress at the time. In August 1976 Aviation Week & Space Technology carried a brief story that the development contract for the stealth fighter demonstrator had been won by Lockheed. The 1977-78 edition of Jane's All the World's. Aircraft marked the debut of the stealth fighter in that famous work. A one paragraph entry under the Lockheed Corporation mentioned that a "small" stealth fighter was being built and was expected to fly in 1977.
(I've removed the foot note references for ease of reading)

Here's the link again: Cracks in the black dyke

In addition you have the secretary of defence confirming some leaks as early as 1980, the President talking about it - indeed accusations that he leaked the info in order to take credit!!

etc., etc.

Do you really think chemtrail evidence comes close to approaching that quality??!!


edit on 26-6-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   
And on further checking, the U-2 was bought into public focus by the Gary Pwers incident - but that was not when the public was first able to know about it - U-2 emergency landing at civil airport, 1959 - you can imagine what it would be like if anything like that happened today!


Some sites around the web reckon that maybe 1/2 the UFO sightings in het US during the late 50's may have been U-2's - eg this one conspiracy101.com... sources the idea to the CIA (see note 5)
edit on 26-6-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by SubPop79
It's so sad that not even Chemtrailers know that atmospheric humidity, temperature, and pressure affects the visibility of contrails and chemtrails. On a very dry day, you won't see many because the gases will spread out very quickly from lack of condensation.

On the other hand, I've seen planes flying at relatively the same altitude, and one will have a contrail / chemtrail and the other won't. Could someone explain that to me?
edit on 23-6-2011 by SubPop79 because: (no reason given)


Yes

One is spraying an aluminum barium soup
and the other is not

www.geoengineeringwatch.org...

edit on 26-6-2011 by Newts because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Newts
 


Which is which?

That site is a disinfo site that spreads false information right from its banner - it has already been identified here on ATS - www.abovetopsecret.com...

and here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If "chemtrails" were coming from nozzles they wouldn't shift around with perspective as the ones on GEW do!
edit on 26-6-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   
I thought I would drop by to say that this is really good reading material. Keep up the good work everybody.

I am not here to debunk anything today. I just like to read the soap opera chemmy debate, and this thread has really kept me interested.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Newts
 


Which is which?

That site is a disinfo site that spreads false information right from its banner - it has already been identified here on ATS - www.abovetopsecret.com...

and here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If "chemtrails" were coming from nozzles they wouldn't shift around with perspective as the ones on GEW do!
edit on 26-6-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)


The site is a vault of links
each link is dis info?

Ok if you say so

Are United States patents dis info?

www.geoengineeringwatch.org...



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   

reply to post by Newts
 


The site is a vault of links
each link is dis info?


no I'm sure there is some accurate info on there, jsut to confuse things.


Ok if you say so


I didn't - so what's your point??


Patents aren't disinfo - saying thy are proof of something is.

Patents are nothing more than protecting IDEAS - they are not production records, aircraft modification approvals, fitment records, or proof of use in any way shape or form.

In fact offering them as "evidence" that something is actually happening is SOOOOOO lame, that you ahve to wonder if these guys are trying to deliberately discredit teh chemtrail movement by doing so!

You didn't say which is spraying the barium stuff and which is not??
edit on 26-6-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


You know when you say we have not provided proof of the chemtrail theory i have to laugh if this was a court case would we have a chance well lets see.
so what do we need to take a case to court.
1.eye witnesses to the said crime
2.can we prove that they had the means to commit the said crime
3.can we prove motive
Ok lets look at each point shall we do we have eye witnesses
Well yes we have many who have seen a change in the trail's planes leave in the sky's and many pics of the said trail's also noted is the way the trail's are placed in the sky and the increase in air traffic an an area that didn't have before.
point 2 can we prove they have the means to commit the said crime
well yes we can we have proof of patient's filed that relate to a chemtrail's program the chemicals are available and papers on experiment's carried out in this field of scientific research funded by governments around the world.
funding is also readily available black ops budgets amount to trillions of dollars/pounds.
So they have the tec [airplanes and the means to spray from them]and the funds.
point 3 can we prove a motive
yes we can if its for geoengineering or to stop radiation getting through the big holes in the ozone layer both would be considered to the benefit of all man kind.
In these 2 cases it is wildly reported that both of these issues could destroy the human race if action is not taken now and if they waited until the public would agree to such a program [which lets face it could take anywhere up to 10 years] It would be to late thats one hell of a motive.

so to me we have enough proof that if it was a court case we would have a good chance of winning.

also with my post to phage i was not saying that he worked for a government agency i just pointed out that the only way you can say there is not a program implemented in any country around the world is if you have the highest level of security clearance for every country around the globe with out it your claims cannot be proven.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by djcarlosa
 

Eyewitnesses are not required to take a case to court. Eyewitness testimony is the least reliable evidence.

Eyewitness identification and description is regarded as a very unreliable form of evidence and causes more miscarriages of justice than any other method of proof. Although the perception of the general public is that eyewitness testimony is the best kind of proof, the courts have long recognized the weakness of it. Criminal justice practitioners aptly recognize the carelessness and superficiality of observers, the variety of powers of graphic description, and the different forces with which peculiarities of form or color of expression strike different people. This makes recognition or identification one of the least reliable facets of a criminal trial, even in cases where there are multiple eyewitnesses to the same criminal episode.

grendelreport.posterous.com...

But you also need evidence that a crime has occurred. A body for instance, missing property, evidence of forced entry. Something like that. The only evidence you're talking about is clouds. You probably have a motive to rob a bank. You've seen movies about robbing banks so you know how to do it. But unless there is a robbed bank, you're not going to court.
edit on 6/27/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by djcarlosa
 

And then there's the historical evidence that persistent contrails have been around for a long time.

From 1919:

The second German sighting occurred on May 9, 1919, when a pilot flying over Berlin at about 26,000 feet noticed the generation of a cloud stream that extended for about forty miles behind his plane. This stream eventually spread out to form a cloud layer that was about 3,000 feet thick. The pilot saw a similar phenomenon two days later.
www.accessmylibrary.com...

From 1940:

A few months later I witnessed the Battle of Britain taking place over my head in the July, August and September 1940. Being in SE London we had a grandstand view of the titanic struggle going on day aftr day with the intricate patterns of the contrails the most evident witness to the dog fights taking place.
www.bbc.co.uk... Short contrails do not produce intricate patterns.

1944:

So an airplane at great heights leaves behind it, stretching for endless miles, a visible "wake" composed of ice particles so tiny that they do not fall as snow but remain suspended in the air.
Source

From 1947:

Photo taken by Jerry Cole, combat aerialphotographer in the 390th Bomb Group at Framlingham Air Base in England. He is looking for a print from the original negative he shot around January 1944 or before. It shows contrails of P-47's crossing each other in the background and a B-17 in the foreground.


scoutbird.tripod.com...


From 1968:

Daily, for example, hundreds of jet planes crisscross the nation or great parts of it, often leaving fluffy contrails of water vapor, manmade clouds, as a signature of their passage.

Some contrails soon dissapate. Others turn into or are soon followed by high cirruse clouds that can and do influence the earth's heat balance with the sun.

news.google.com...,2068835&dq=contrails+cirrus&hl=en





From 1970:

The spreading out of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent conditions exist from 25,000 to 40,000ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet.

journals.ametsoc.org...


Henry Wadsworth Hinkle, hired man down on the farm with Uncle Clarence and Aunt Martha, looked skyward a few days ago and was awed by the multiplicity of "vapor trails," as he called them. That's the old name. Now they are called contrails-short for condensation trails-resulting from the condensation of heat flowing from high-flying jet engines.

Source


A 43-year-old novice sailor said today that he followed jet contrails over the Atlantic to help him navigate after his sextant was smashed six days out of Pymouth, England.
Source He didn't follow jets, he followed contrails. You can't follow a short contrail.

1972:

Then there is the matter of cloudiness. The familiar contrails often left by high-flying planes might persist for a long time under some conditions.
Source


From 1973:

Often, after several clear days, high flying jets begin leaving condensation trails in the sky. These "contrails" are the result of the condensation of water vapor that accompanies engine combustion at high altitudes.
Source


He occasionally looked out the window at the earth and noted geographical locations. "We're coming over Europe and I've never seen so many jet plane contrails in my life," he reported
Source


Shore was no naïf; he recognized the irony of many of his images. One of the cleverest is "U.S. 97, South of Klamath Falls, Oregon, July 21, 1973," which depicts a desolate spot of road where a billboard displays a snowcapped-mountain scene — against actual mountains in the distance. The billboard image seems to emerge from the land itself. Along with a cattle gate and a sky with blown-out contrails, the billboard is a tired and shabby advertisement for America itself.
www.pitch.com... Contrails have to be around for a while to be "blown-out".

Then there's this 1965 Outer Limits episode (at about 0:30).


Twilight Zone from 1985. (at 8:56 and 13:13).


edit on 6/27/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I agree that contrail's can last longer than 30 seconds in fact i don't question up to an hour as that was the timeline used in one report on contrails in cirrus clouds and i don't doubt that there is evidence of these since powered air travel was implemented.
That said the difference in the constancy of certain trails and the flight plans of the aircrafts that make them and the fact they stay in the sky for 4-8 hours for me discounts that they are normal contrail's.
So yes contrail's are fact they are a bi product of airplane's you've proved the science and i agree but there is another kind of trails that are not normal bi products of airplanes this is why i believe that spraying is being done.
Now as i posted to you before phage the only way that you can say with certain that no program of this nature has been implemented by any government worldwide is if you have the security clearance for every nation.
For a so say scientific minded person your closed mindedness and belief that no government in the world has not undertaken this [china] you no longer have the ability to learn you are right we are all wrong etc etc etc



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by djcarlosa
 


Tell me, is it unusual for a cloud to stay in the sky for 4-8 hours?

Now tell me what a contrail is made of.

Now tell me why it would be impossible for a contrail to persist.

Thanks in advance.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join