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.

 

Chemtrails - Failure of Proof (Proof of Failure)

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
reply to post by flexy123
 


I love how the same people you were talking about pounced on this thread with the same kind of "evidence" you were mocking.


gosh... that was a helpful post. Feel better about yourself now?




posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
gosh... that was a helpful post. Feel better about yourself now?

I'm sad, really. The cycle continues, the ignorance continues. Any "facts" about meteorology are "disinfo", but any nut with a camera and a website is a "source."

Instead of setting out with a premise (you're saying chemtrails are real) and looking for the evidence to support it, how about using a more scientific approach, by looking at the evidence and seeing what conclusions can be drawn. Maybe learn some source evaluation, as well, that would cut the bunk out.



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by adeclerk
 


before you lump ALL people who believe in chemtrails into one ignorant mass maybe take a look at one of my recent threads on the matter...

Chemtrails empirical data tracker - temperature comparisons

and maybe ask yourself how bits of ICE (contrails) can meander and dissipate across the sky for FOUR HOURS without melting and subtly turn into a haze. Ice doesn't really behave that way - never has.

as a side note you're wrong about "me" - I didn't believe in them for years (typical 'there's no chemical, scientific proof' kinda guy) until I watched them get laid down across the sky and dissipate all evening. THEN I started taking the subject with more than a laugh and started researching possibilities.

ETA: also, "REAL" doesn't imply all the nefarious crazy theories out there... it means there is some thing in the air that is not a contrail



edit on 15-10-2011 by Thermo Klein because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by adeclerk
 


It really is incredible the way you insult people sometimes. All snide like as if you are an 18 year old boy who "knows it all"

It is rather ironic that you insinuate "believers" have no know knowledge of meteorology and other basic science.

You do the exact same thing every time you post and refuse to accept invented technologies as evidence.... or even someones eye witness account.

Or the simple fact that there are NOT fricken grids of "Contrails" over our heads when the supposed conditions call for it.... we should be seeing a lot more "persistent spreading contrails" according to how NASA and the Air Force portray it.

Especially for those of us who have been in a geographical region where obvious testing of some sort was going on. So yes someone in different parts of the world may have not seen the same things...as others .... yet it appears it is becoming a global operation.

Don't jump and say I think they were poisoning me and testing some virus ....... No, I do not think that nor do a large portion of "believers" as you love to stereotype in almost all your posts.


edit on 16-10-2011 by dplum517 because: typo

edit on 16-10-2011 by dplum517 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by adeclerk

It really is incredible the way you insult people sometimes. All snide like as if you are an 18 year old boy who "knows it all"


It's not like it's inaccurate, you people are looking for the evidence to fit a conclusion you've made. A basic education in science would show why this is a horrible fallacy.

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by adeclerk
 

It is rather ironic that you insinuate "believers" have no know knowledge of meteorology and other basic science.

You do the exact same thing every time you post and refuse to accept invented technologies as evidence.... or even someones eye witness account.

No, no, no. You've got it all wrong. Invented technologies are evidence of invented technologies. Meteorology describe processes that cause weather. See the disconnect?


Originally posted by dplum517

Or the simple fact that there are NOT fricken grids of "Contrails" over our heads when the supposed conditions call for it.... we should be seeing a lot more "persistent spreading contrails" according to how NASA and the Air Force portray it.

No, they occur when the conditions are favorable, or not. You're forgetting another variable, engine type (size). High bypass turbofans are more apt to producing contrails.

I'm sorry that predictions based on conditions aren't always accurate, you can thank the weatherman.

Originally posted by dplum517
Especially for those of us who have been in a geographical region where obvious testing of some sort was going on. So yes someone in different parts of the world may have not seen the same things...as others .... yet it appears it is becoming a global operation.

Contrails aren't bound by culture, so of course they are global, air traffic is global!

What obvious testing of what sort?


Originally posted by dplum517
Don't jump and say I think they were poisoning me and testing some virus ....... No, I do not think that nor do a large portion of "believers" as you love to stereotype in almost all your posts.

I still take offense that you are insinuating "chemtrails" are real, poisonous or not. It's unfounded, you've got nothing.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

and maybe ask yourself how bits of ICE (contrails) can meander and dissipate across the sky for FOUR HOURS without melting and subtly turn into a haze. Ice doesn't really behave that way - never has.


Seriously? How does a cloud persist for hours, it is composed of the same thing!

You are the reason no scientists will take "chemtrails" seriously, supporters haven't even the faintest idea of how the most basic meteorology works.

The rest is erroneous, this glaring error needs to be fixed, have a read on clouds.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by adeclerk
 


You = Fail

Not even worth it.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by adeclerk
 


You = Fail

Not even worth it.

Thanks for playing, you may collect your ignorance and proof of patents at the door, have a great evening.


If you ever have any evidence of a "chemtrail" that isn't a contrail, I implore you to contact me directly.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by adeclerk
 


I agree with dplum, not worth the time, but since you claimed ME as the reason scientists don't take chemtrails seriously ....
.... (hold on a sec... gotta let that sink in....)


I believe basic meteorology does NOT teach that contrails turn into clouds which 4 hours later turn into a yellowish haze.... but, it's obvious you already know you're right and until you're able to change that attitude I won't be responding to your banter.




edit on 16-10-2011 by Thermo Klein because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

I believe basic meteorology does NOT teach that contrails turn into clouds which 4 hours later turn into a yellowish haze.... but, it's obvious you already know you're right and until you're able to change that attitude I won't be responding to your banter.


Meteorology certainly teaches that contrails turns into clouds and haze. The first time this was observed was in 1921:



And it's been observed, and studied, ever since:



And of course you can pick any modern book on clouds of the weather, and it will tell you the same thing.

If you distrust books, then you can actually work it out from basic science. It's physically impossible for a contrail NOT to persist if the air is ice-supersaturated.

edit on 17-10-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


Unicus, stop linking your crap black and white images and anecdotal stories as proof. They do NOT = PROOF that chemtrails don't exist. They don't even equal proof that persistent spreading contrails exist today.

You treat my stories with that same respect .....goes both ways.




Meteorology certainly teaches that contrails turns into clouds and haze


Since we love to get technical ..... your story did not say the word "haze"

Also, that story is just that..... a story ....of a supposed contrail that was 3 miles (not very long in the sky) and after 20 minutes mixed in with the current cirrus clouds in the area.

That story means nothing for our current argument.


edit on 17-10-2011 by dplum517 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
Also, that story is just that..... a story ....of a supposed contrail that was 3 miles (not very long in the sky) and after 20 minutes mixed in with the current cirrus clouds in the area.


Well, 3 miles isn't that long, but considering the date that story is from, it is quite impressive considering the aircraft would have taken more than a minute to go that far, compared to a modern jet doing it in 20 seconds or so. Not bad for a 1920s aircraft to get that high, either and considering that cirrus isn't that frequent at such a low (comparatively) altitude 3 miles isn't bad.

And "that story is just that..... a story" can be said of quite a lot of accounts on here too, so if you're prepared to accept a story from a for chemtrails argument as possibly true, you should accept this one as potentially true as well.



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by apex
 


I agree.

However, for the sake of argument...

Why would I do that when every single debunker in this forum blatantly refuses to do the very thing you are talking about.



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by Uncinus
 


Unicus, stop linking your crap black and white images and anecdotal stories as proof. They do NOT = PROOF that chemtrails don't exist. They don't even equal proof that persistent spreading contrails exist today.


I'm not trying to prove that chemtrails don't exist. I'm trying to show that the evidence used to support chemtrails is bunk. Not the same thing.

I link to older sources because they are evidence that the situation has always been the same. Contrails have always persisted, they have always spread.

I can link to modern books on clouds if you like, they say the same thing. Or just look at my sig.

Physics has not changed since 1921 or 1969. But there are more planes, more routes, more planes packed around the tropopause, more jets, and cooler engines, all of which means more contrails. And when the weather is right, more persistent contrails.



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by apex
 


I agree.

However, for the sake of argument...

Why would I do that when every single debunker in this forum blatantly refuses to do the very thing you are talking about.


Again, it's because we debunkers are simply saying you don't have any evidence. All your evidence has been debunked. So there's no need to find additional contrary evidence.

Plus, you can't prove a universal absence of something with one test showing it was not one one place. So it would be a meaningless test.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Hmm interesting, but crop dusters produce clouds that are very different looking than the ones produced by a jumbo jets engines. (looks more like a haze than a white cloud(which is water vapors btw)



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
There is a mountain of proof that massive spraying over cities is not happening.

People just choose to ignore it, because it's more exciting to pretend sinister powers are spraying mystery chemicals over entire communities.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by Uncinus
 


Unicus, stop linking your crap black and white images and anecdotal stories as proof. They do NOT = PROOF that chemtrails don't exist. They don't even equal proof that persistent spreading contrails exist today.

You treat my stories with that same respect .....goes both ways.




Meteorology certainly teaches that contrails turns into clouds and haze


Since we love to get technical ..... your story did not say the word "haze"

Also, that story is just that..... a story ....of a supposed contrail that was 3 miles (not very long in the sky) and after 20 minutes mixed in with the current cirrus clouds in the area.

That story means nothing for our current argument.


edit on 17-10-2011 by dplum517 because: (no reason given)


He can certainly post whatever he wants. And I understand why those images are bothersome to you chemmies, because it debunks much of the junk science used to promote chemtrails.

When you all insist that contrails from aircraft exhaust absolutely can not spread and make cirrus, yes I do see why it would be not good for the chemtrail religion, when an account of it happening in the 1920s is posted. What that does prove, is the chemtrail gospel that contrails can only last a few seconds, and that it is only recently because of chemtrails that they last longer, is sheer nonsense and junk science.

Its ironic, one of the worst people here for posting profanity, and who the mods have had to take action against hist postings multiple times, and who even got in trouble on here for calling me a Nazi for living in Idaho, tells someone else to not post an historical mention of cirrus from aircraft.

Cirrus and haze are two different things by the way. Haze tends to be much lower, and ground level pollution sources contribute more to haze than high altitude aircraft ever could. I would not guess that you could even understand how higher air barometric air pressure and low pressure, or humidity could influence "haze" either.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Haze was perhaps not the right word, as it is commonly used for lower level obscurations, but cirrus and contrails can form an optically thin homogenous layer, which I've always referred to as haze or cirrus haze, but should probably be called cirrostratus nebulosus.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
Compartmentalization runs rampant in this world, and my opinions about Big Pharma and the round table groups wanting us sick is a fact, based on what I've observed in my line of work and extensive research and plain old looking around at the reality of the situation. Cures are suppressed, and they've pretty much outright admitted it in the MSM, but what are we going to do about it? We are bugs to these monstrous corporations.
How can you say it's an "opinion" after watching this one video alone?


If "Big Pharma" is making us sick in order to get rich selling us the cures, it would be far more effective to distribute something through the water supply rather than spray things willy-nilly at cruising altitude. Consider how low crop-dusters need to fly in order to deliver appreciable amounts of pesticide.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join