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.

 

Fox News Chemtrail Propaganda

page: 6
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by maceov
 


I agree 100%.

also.....

IMO using WW2 bombers as a reference for persistent contrails should be BANNED.

There are too many variables and questionable data concerning those.

Plus ....they are military planes
edit on 11-1-2012 by dplum517 because: (no reason given)


Really though, what are these variables and what is the questionable data you refer to?

I still cant figure out why you see military ownership is relevant to contrail formation either.




posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenRuled
 


I was asking for a personal opinion not facts.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Why the title of this thread: Fox News Chemtrail Propaganda?


Where in the report did they EVER say the word "Chemtrail"?

They Didn't.


I suspect the OP has no concept of the difference between cloud seeding and chemtrails, as understood in the modern phenomena.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


Yes ....variables ....such as it was a War with combat and information that we are NOT privy to.

Here is one example of an anomaly with WW2 bombers. At the 48 to 49 second mark you see 2 planes one isn't even leaving a trail and the other stops leaving its trail immediately. Ohh I'm sure I can predict your answer.

Also ....I would need to look but I have seen other WW2 bomber videos with the same anomalies ...meaning some planes in the group are not leaving trails.




posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
Here is one example of an anomaly with WW2 bombers. At the 48 to 49 second mark you see 2 planes one isn't even leaving a trail and the other stops leaving its trail immediately. Ohh I'm sure I can predict your answer.


That particular video is a good example as it basically proves it's due to atmospheric conditions.

Look at the way the trail stops and starts. You have four independent engines. It would be impossible to do that by turning the engines on and off. The simplest explanation is that they simply flew through through a pocket of air that does not support contrail formation.



If "pocket of air" sounds silly. Consider that any cloud is a "pocket of air". The conditions inside the cloud are different to the conditions outside the coud. That's why the cloud formed there. Then when there's more clouds, the gaps between the clouds are "pockets of air".

Look of the shape of the hole in the trail above. That's not something being switched off and on, it's a pocket of drier air, revealed by the contrails like a ballpoint pen reveals a grease spot on a sheet of paper.
edit on 11-1-2012 by Uncinus because: pic



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
Yes ....variables ....such as it was a War with combat and information that we are NOT privy to.

Here is one example of an anomaly with WW2 bombers. At the 48 to 49 second mark you see 2 planes one isn't even leaving a trail and the other stops leaving its trail immediately. Ohh I'm sure I can predict your answer.

Also ....I would need to look but I have seen other WW2 bomber videos with the same anomalies ...meaning some planes in the group are not leaving trails.


It sounds like you are doubting that the trails left by WWII bombers were contrails. If not contrails, then what are you suggesting those trails were?



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus & Soylent
 





That particular video is a good example as it basically proves it's due to atmospheric conditions.


Bull sh** you can prove that. Nice try though.

Yes, pockets of air exist in our atmosphere that are different....

So why then are multiple planes able to perfectly cover the sky leaving a perfect persistent trail for hundreds of miles?


Yes..... I am suggesting that it's possible the trails in WW2 might have been on purpose. The technology was certainly there to make trails come out of planes.

I am not suggesting they are trails filled with barium or aluminum though (in WW2)
edit on 11-1-2012 by dplum517 because: (no reason given)


all that picture shows me is that machines aren't perfect

edit on 11-1-2012 by dplum517 because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-1-2012 by dplum517 because: added



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by Uncinus & Soylent
 





That particular video is a good example as it basically proves it's due to atmospheric conditions.


Bull sh** you can prove that. Nice try though.


Well, hence the word "basically". I mean it's very good evidence.



Yes, pockets of air exist in our atmosphere that are different....

So why then are multiple planes able to perfectly cover the sky leaving a perfect persistent trail for hundreds of miles?


For the exact same reason that sometimes you get cloud in solid layers, and sometimes you get patchy cloud cover, or lots of small individual clouds, or rows of clouds. The atmosphere varies from day to day.

Consider any image of the sky with clouds. Now imagine the clouds are invisible. The plane comes along, and where the plane flies, the clouds become visible. That's basically what happens.



Yes..... I am suggesting that it's possible the trails in WW2 might have been on purpose. The technology was certainly there to make trails come out of planes.


Listen to the audio. They are described as contrails, and they explained that they hate them, as they act like fingers in the sky, pointing them out to the enemy.

In all the recorded history of WWII, there is no instance of a bomber deliberately leaving a trail.
edit on 11-1-2012 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   
And in case someone brings this up:



It's not actually WWII. It's from 1923. It's not a trail, it's a curtain. It's not a bomber. It's not high altitude.

Source:
www.criticalpast.com...



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   
And when those trails stretched all the way from England to Germany? That would mean that the allied air forces deliberately sprayed their own people even more than they did the Germans who they were en route to bomb, in doing so they also deliberately gave the defending German fighters an absolutely clear and unmistakeable indication of where to find them.

Does this sound at all realistic to you?

Likewise, RAF Bombers never left trails, even though THEY operated by night, which would surely be the best time, in view of the above?

Can you provide a logical and realistic explanation for that fact? I know I can


edit on 11-1-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 


When backed into a corner, and this is the result? I'd say someone doesn't really "believe" in the concept of "chemtrails", but is doing something else, here:


Yes..... I am suggesting that it's possible the trails in WW2 might have been on purpose.


So....you are flying bombers in wartime, en-route to (or trying to get back home to safety from) your target in enemy territory.

Natuarlly (sarcasm) you're going to want to call attention to yourselves as much as possible, right?





The technology was certainly there to make trails come out of planes.


"trails" that looked exactly like normal contrails?

So, what did the bombers do, leave much of their ordinance behind?? Does this make ANY sense at all? NO.

And, if you don't understand the point above ^ ^ ^ then it can be explained.....but anyone with even the most basic knowledge of weight limitations and cargo-carrying ability of airplanes can see it immediately ---- the flaw in the specious attempted "argument" there.

However, anyone who even makes this "argument" in the first place doesn't seem to be operating from the standpoint of a serious desire to discuss reasonably and logically, here.
edit on Wed 11 January 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


Well, I guess we agree to disagree.

YES it can be a tactical advantage to have a chaos of trails behind you.

How do you not get that?

The enemy knew the bombers were coming whether they had trails or not. The bombers had to lower their altitude when coming in to drop their bombs.

If you're in a fighter and trying to shoot a bomber ...... is it easier to shoot him with clear skies and no trails in your face? Or is it easier to shoot them in a mess of trails that in which you can't necessarily spot them in? Especially if they were persisting .... that means some of the trails are OLD and don't lead directly to a plane.

Soo no ....I think the trails could be an advantage .... from air and ground.

The fact that the commentator said "Contrails" means nothing ....... that word has been used so many different ways that its context can be misinterpreted.

edit on 11-1-2012 by dplum517 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 



They are plane routes. End of Story.


Well, that's progress at least. Maybe you're finally catching on.



In no way shape or form does that represent plane trails.


Oh, I misjudged. Thought the light bulb may have finally come on over the ..

Up above, you said "They are plane routes." Is that correct? Well then....therefore they represent the routes flown by "planes". Correct? Therefore, the contrails formed will tend to follow those same routes. Correct.

(Sorry, this is so obvious to everyone else, but perhaps it needs to be made as simple and basic as possible, to avoid "confusion").



Undoubtedly most of those plane routes are hours apart .....


Wrong. Minutes apart. Not "hours". Especially in the ConUS and Europe. There is a LOT of traffic. AND, what the "chemtrail" believers fail to do is realize that the airspace is three-dimensional. Airplanes are "stacked" above and below each other, and they operate on those various routes at all times of day and night, multiple, multiple flights.



....and the atmosphere would be constantly changing.


"changing" over differing periods of time......but, the atmosphere can also remain fairly stable, in comparison to other regions, for many hours at a time. Or else, we would NEVER have overcast skies, from Mother Nature.

Clouds, in other words.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
Yes..... I am suggesting that it's possible the trails in WW2 might have been on purpose. The technology was certainly there to make trails come out of planes.


You're right. The technology existed in WWII bombers to make trails, and that technology is described below...:

Fill a plane with a hydrocarbon fuel. In the plane's engines, Introduce large amounts of oxygen from the air to the hydrogen in the fuel through a chemical process known as combustion. Due to combustion, the resulting exhaust will have water vapor as its prime component. Introduce that water-vapor exhaust to the very very cold air at high altitude, and if the humidity is right, that vapor will condense out of the air and freeze into a visible line of ice crystals.

That is a known method for making trails using WWII bombers.


edit on 1/11/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 


NO, sorry......the contrails from the WW 2 bombers were a liability, not an "asset".

(You are trying to, essentially, claim that contrails would be helpful s some sort of "smokescreen" or something. Not true, at all).

Go to the library and read up in some books about the air battles of WW 2, in order to better understand the reality of the situations.

HERE, for all to read:


A few people spend a lot of time thinking about contrails. Generals, for instance. Contrails are a pain in the ass to the Pentagon. For sixty years wartime pilots have lamented that having a contrail form behind your plane is like being followed by a gigantic finger. Or by a neon sign: “Here I am. Shoot me.” During World War II allied bombers flew in fear of leaving contrails. Likewise, during the Cold War, contrails were bane to pilots on super-secret reconnaissance missions over the Soviet Union.


From here.


And, more from the above ^ ^ ^:


If the conditions are just right, a sort of critical mass is achieved. The contrail grows and grows, fattening out, sweeping upward and outward. Watch from the ground, patiently, and you’ll see a contrail transmogrify into a cirrus cloud, indistinguishable from the real thing. A cloud where there was none before.


And:


My dad says he first saw a contrail in 1947. He was walking with friends down a street in St. Louis. That was forty-four years after the Wright Brothers’ flight, twenty years after the Spirit of St. Louis touched down in Paris. My dad was eleven then.




edit on Wed 11 January 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
The fact that the commentator said "Contrails" means nothing ....... that word has been used so many different ways that its context can be misinterpreted.


He actually said:


Higher and colder. Temperature: 40 degrees, below zero. Take off a glove and you'll lose some fingers. ... until the exhaust of the engine mixing with the cold thin air condenses and streams the heavens with vapor trails. To the men in the ships they are far from beautiful, for they point like beckoning fingers at the formation. Signposts in the sky for the enemy to spot us.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by waynos
 


Well, I guess we agree to disagree.


I rather think we are going o have to..........again



YES it can be a tactical advantage to have a chaos of trails behind you.

How do you not get that?


Because its completely false. The highest survival rate of any WW2 bomber, and by a very long way, was that held by the DH Mosquito which, like the Spanish Inquisition, relied on surprise as one of its main weapons. It never ever left a trail, except for the High altitude recce versions which abhorred leaving trails and were grateful for their high speed to get them away. As a bomber it chiefly operated at low level.



If you're in a fighter and trying to shoot a bomber ...... is it easier to shoot him with clear skies and no trails in your face? Or is it easier to shoot them in a mess of trails that in which you can't necessarily spot them in? Especially if they were persisting .... that means some of the trails are OLD and don't lead directly to a plane.


If you understood anything about this topic, you would understand that it is far easier to home in on the starting point of a vast trail than it is trying to search for an aeroplane in a clear sky. I even find that is the case NOW with my camera! In fact, on Sunday afternoon my friends and I were surprised to hear an aircraft talking to control that gave his height, location and destination as virtually the same as ours. There were three of us trying to eyeball a plane that sounded uncomfortably close, a contrail then would have been fabulously useful.
.




Soo no ....I think the trails could be an advantage .... from air and ground.


That is patently rubbish, as a look at any of the pics or videos would illustrate, without the trails it would be much harder to pick out individual aircraft and you would see the raid coming much much later which would destroy your time to react (scramble time, time to gain height and formate for your attack etc)



The fact that the commentator said "Contrails" means nothing ....... that word has been used so many different ways that its context can be misinterpreted.


It's isn't used in different ways by anyone connected with aviation, because they know what it means and what one is.
edit on 11-1-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Why are we spending 15 million a year on cloud seeding is the real question?



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrno1
Why are we spending 15 million a year on cloud seeding is the real question?


Because people think it works to increase precipitation, or bust hail.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join