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.

 

Beware of the Chemtrail minefield

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


That was an interesting discussion. Fairly classy back and forth, something not seen often here any more.

I'm not on any of these threads to convince anyone of my way of thinking, I do however relate to those that have not had the chance to form any solid ideas as to what they are seeing, something that doesn't look right to them, then reaching out for discussions with nothing more than fear or suspicion, only to be pounded into submission with insults.

I'm not going to list the years of observations, the patents, the scientific studies and proposals, I have no need really to prove anything. I have produced the motive and the technology to say that the plowing of our skies with metal oxides is in deed possible.




posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Gmoneycricket
 


Why would I? It has nothing to do with whether or not chemical trails are being deliberately sprayed from commercial aircraft.

If you are concerned with the spreading of contrails blocking out sunlight, the only difference we would have would on the amount of harm done. This is not what I was posting about.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


I agree. And neither do I deny the possibility. I only doubt, very strongly, the actuality. The only actual usage of metal oxides in the atmosphere that I have identified as really happening is cloud seeding

edit on 14-1-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by TreehouseIndustries
 


All those trails but one look like they're heading towards Wellington, the one looks like it's heading towards Christchurch.

Also, New Zealand has more flights than you think...



ok.....I dont know what more than you think is supposed to imply? I never stated a number just that it was less than other (larger) countries,

why do the planes I've seen with lingering trails never link to an active commercial flight (searched Flightradar24 and inbound outbound on all domestic scheduled flights) or abide by mapped flight paths.

example: 6 white planes fly over Christchurch within 15 - 20 mins of each other west to east (there is no flight path, military or otherwise that uses that heading) not landing or taking off leaving thick white trails that spread to cover the sky from horizon to horizon leaving the air hazy and dramatically reducing visibility.



edit on 13/1/12 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by TreehouseIndustries
reply to post by Witness2008
 

my enquiry to any doubters would be this.... I live in New Zealand, a small isolated island where there are no "just passing" flights (flights that dont land or take off somewhere in NZ)


Tehre are a few - australia - Sth America occasinoally passes over Wellington or Chch.


there are few domestic flights (by comparison to other countries, there being fewer locations to fly to and fewer people to deliver to said locations) and we have no airforce/ military to speak of (I believe we have 2 military jets, and those are just 757s used for transport/logistics) so how is it that we have widespread reports (with photos) of unmarked white planes leaving dense trails in grid or lane patterns that are not on any flight paths (either commercial or military) and do not show up on any flight tracking software that I have been able to get hold of.


got any actual examples?

I've seen Clare Swinney's page, for example, living north of Auckland, and all her complaints are about north/south flights that are likely to Auckland. She gets lots of photos from the canterbury area - again all north/shouth (moer or less) which are easily domestic.


the trails I have witnessed are the width of the city and then abruptly stop when they reach the ocean, I have satellite imagery showing mass spraying occurring over (or in such a place that the wind would carry them over in due course) the population centers of NZ (not over the countryside as its too thinly populated)


That picture is awful - how about ssomethign that actually shows some suseful information??

BTW I lived in Chch until I was 35, did an apprenticeship as an aircraft Mechanic with NAC at Chch airport.....



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by Kester
 


There is an argument that says that on the days where the conditions allow the trails to linger and spread as you have described, natural cirrus cloud would behave like that anyway and so it makes little difference.



Have you any thoughts on this?



Yes. I have a thought, a question even...

Do you subscribe to this 'argument' you cite, the one which says: '...on the days where the conditions allow the trails to linger and spread...natural cirrus cloud would behave like that anyway and so it makes little difference'

Are you saying that these 'cirrus' clouds would have formed anyway? If so please indicate exactly how you could know that. Thanks



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by jackmac
Yes. I have a thought, a question even...

Do you subscribe to this 'argument' you cite, the one which says: '...on the days where the conditions allow the trails to linger and spread...natural cirrus cloud would behave like that anyway and so it makes little difference'

Are you saying that these 'cirrus' clouds would have formed anyway? If so please indicate exactly how you could know that. Thanks


Yes, natural Cirrus will form anyway when the conditions are correct. While you could look up the atmospheric data online to find out if those conditions will occur, there are other ways too. For instance, if there is a warm weather front approaching your area, then natural cirrus is a part of that.
A warm front can in fact have hundreds of kilometers of Cirrus preceding it, usually without lower cloud present too, so you can see straight up to an otherwise clear sky. So for a rough guide on when a lot of persistent contrails will be seen (as they will occur more in those conditions, the chances of those conditions occurring and the sky being clear of contrails at a busy flight corridor is low), you need to find a good surface pressure forecast, such as provided by the Met Office:
www.metoffice.gov.uk...
Incidentally, we might get some here in the UK tomorrow, looking at that.

Edit, I have a good picture of mostly natural cirrus from the summer, but I'm about to go climbing, so maybe I'll post it later....
edit on 16-1-2012 by apex because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by Witness2008
 




The proof for me that commercial airlines do not engage in chemtrailing is...speculative explanations....are not credible as they ignore reality ...possibility ....based entirely on creating a model of operation within the airline industry that simply does not exist (eg compartmentalisation, secret squads of technicians, impossible logistics etc)


...entirely correct assertion that the technology exists and it is possible to do....

Not knowing seems a central requirement to believing, as actually knowing and understanding the science of it kills it stone dead.

....people or organisations that were responsible for things like JFK, Watergate, 9/11, The WMD lie, almost bankrupting the entire western world etc magically manage the chemtrail operation, while including separate commercial private companies with civilian employees, to perfection and with total secrecy for 15 years and counting. Not. A. Chance

edit on 14-1-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)



And a couple more questions (in order of the above quotes):

'Proof' is a very strong word. Are you sure? The 'model of operation' could be very simple, could it not?

'The technology exists...' The technology to do what?

'Knowing the science kills it stone dead' - and what science is that?

JFK, Watergate, WMD's, 9/11 etc. ...And how many of the guilty have been prosecuted for any of these crimes? JFK was 1963 - that's fifty years, nigh on - and not a squeak. 9/11, ten years and counting....
I think the point is clear - 'Impossible to cover up' - that's not a good argument. You've even illustrated it yourself. But you say with no small amount of conviction: Not A Chance - with caps and everything. Not even a tiny, weeny bitsy little chance? Not one? How can you be so sure?



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by apex

Originally posted by jackmac
Yes. I have a thought, a question even...

Do you subscribe to this 'argument' you cite, the one which says: '...on the days where the conditions allow the trails to linger and spread...natural cirrus cloud would behave like that anyway and so it makes little difference'

Are you saying that these 'cirrus' clouds would have formed anyway? If so please indicate exactly how you could know that. Thanks


Yes, natural Cirrus will form anyway when the conditions are correct. While you could look up the atmospheric data online to find out if those conditions will occur, there are other ways too. For instance, if there is a warm weather front approaching your area, then natural cirrus is a part of that.
A warm front can in fact have hundreds of kilometers of Cirrus preceding it, usually without lower cloud present too, so you can see straight up to an otherwise clear sky. So for a rough guide on when a lot of persistent contrails will be seen (as they will occur more in those conditions, the chances of those conditions occurring and the sky being clear of contrails at a busy flight corridor is low), you need to find a good surface pressure forecast, such as provided by the Met Office:
www.metoffice.gov.uk...
Incidentally, we might get some here in the UK tomorrow, looking at that.

Edit, I have a good picture of mostly natural cirrus from the summer, but I'm about to go climbing, so maybe I'll post it later....
edit on 16-1-2012 by apex because: (no reason given)


Thanks, but the answer is to the wrong question. At least it wasn't the one I asked. There appeared to be an implication that these clouds would have formed irrespective of aircraft passing. This is clealry incorrect.

You saying: 'Yes, natural Cirrus will form anyway when the conditions are correct.' is what is known as stating the bleeding obvious. The same goes for all clouds: they will form when the conditions are correct. I am familiar with Appleman, radiosonde, rhi, rh, hPa, temp, alt and satellite readings.

I'm also familiar with what natural cirrus looks like. Likewise the man-made stuff, which is very prevalent where I am. They are distinct, in the main. Do you agree there is a great proliferation of 'persistent contrails' over the past ten to fifteen years as compared to before? Are you old enough to recall?



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul


BTW I lived in Chch until I was 35, did an apprenticeship as an aircraft Mechanic with NAC at Chch airport.....


Hi Mike! Swallow a quote book? How you doing?



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos


If someone has noticed odd trails in the sky .... they have come to a place where they can see active debate by both sides...what anyone seeking answers would want of course.

However, in my personal opinion and experience, Their initial state of 'not knowing' is exactly what the Chemtrail trollers (those who repeat the same false claims over and over) .... They seem to descend like moths to a flame to try and indoctrinate the unwary.



Still, all anyone can do is read both sides of the debate with an open mind ....never say never.

edit on 13-1-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)


So, the trails are 'odd' (you concede this much); people come here for 'active debate by both sides'; 'Chemtrail trollers' are 'like moths' (the indoctrinating kind); 'read both sides of the debate with an open mind'.

I think you need to look at this again.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Their dishonesty is compounded when known fake evidence is presented, only to be debunked for the umpteenth time. I remember one person defending such an action, in all seriousness, by claiming that even if it is fake, it only illustrates the point!


When I used to get heavily involved in debunking the Apollo and 9/11 conspiracies on here some years ago, I had this exact same response from respective conspiracy theory 'promoters' (I use the word 'promoters' here deliberately). I couldn't help find it ironic that these people's main war drum theme was 'The powers that be are lying to you, don't be a blind sheep follow the truth' malarkey yet they were guilty of it themselves and admitted it. So basically they are the same type of scum that believe lying to the masses is fine as long as it helps them achieve their end goals. In fact they clearly view the majority of people with the same disdain that the people they are 'enlightening' them about do.
Their main goals being, in the case of the majority of conspiracy theory promoters at the top of the pyramid, DVD sales, website traffic to achieve revenue through targeted advertising and YouTube views... to achieve revenue through targeted advertising.
The only thing that stops me from cashing in on the stupidity and naivety of people is the fact I have morals and standards, as well as the fact I am only interested in the truth and denying ignorance. Kind of ironic that this apparently makes me a government agent, rather than simply someone who is educated...



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

When I used to get heavily involved in debunking... 9/11 conspiracies ...ironic ... the same type of scum ...
...the majority of conspiracy theory promoters
.... I am only interested in the truth and denying ignorance. Kind of ironic....






Ironic indeed.

I suggest you relearn the meaning of the words 'conspiracy' and 'theory; preferably from a dictionary rather than a GW Bush statement. Not telling you how to live, just making a suggestion.


edit on 16-1-2012 by jackmac because: .



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Wow, so many questions. I will try my best to address them for you


Originally posted by jackmac

Yes. I have a thought, a question even...

Are you saying that these 'cirrus' clouds would have formed anyway? If so please indicate exactly how you could know that. Thanks


It is an argument I have seen on here, which is why I raised it as an alternative view, but I don't completely subscribe to it as, although it is true that the conditions need to be correct, and it is also the case that something else may trigger cirrus formation naturally, it is also a known that contrails can themselves promote the creation of cirrus in the atmosphere, as has been reported since WW2. What many see as the trail 'spreading', but what is the creation of cirrus cloud from the moisture in the atmosphere, but which was triggered by the presence of the contrail in the first place. Therefore I'm not convinced you can definitively say the cirrus would have formed anyway, only that there is a reasonable probability it would. No more than that.


'Proof' is a very strong word. Are you sure? The 'model of operation' could be very simple, could it not?


By this I was saying that I consider it proven beyond reasonable doubt to me. I don't understand why you feel the model of operation would be simple? I don't see how anything that requires the complicity of the pilots, engineers, loadmasters, suppliers, purchases, ATC, flightplanners and the other myriad of people responsible for aircraft operations, spread over several continents and involving governments and lots of privately owned companies could ever be simple?


'The technology exists...' The technology to do what?


The technology to spray various substances from aircraft. I addressed this when I posted that the technology also exists to spray my house with vanilla ice cream, but it doesn't mean anyone is doing it. The statement may be a tad facetious, but the point is a valid one.


'Knowing the science kills it stone dead' - and what science is that?


For starters there is the science that proves that the central assertions that contrails cannot linger and spread out, upon which the whole chemtrail conspiracy was founded in the 1990's, is completely wrong. one can then study other aspects at ones leisure and find the holes.


....But you say with no small amount of conviction: Not A Chance - with caps and everything. Not even a tiny, weeny bitsy little chance? Not one? How can you be so sure?


Because I believe it is not credible that this level of competence could be magically conjured up, and sustained, for so long. In the modern world of instant communication and 'cash for questions' etc, do you find it credible that not one single person, whether a retired pilot or a disgruntled airline employee (and look at the disputes over changes to employment conditions, redundancies etc through the industry) has ever blown the whistle? Surely, there would have been hundreds by now?


So, the trails are 'odd' (you concede this much); people come here for 'active debate by both sides'; 'Chemtrail trollers' are 'like moths' (the indoctrinating kind); 'read both sides of the debate with an open mind'.

I think you need to look at this again.


Why? I am not conceding the trails are odd, only noting that people see them as such, which they do rightly or wrongly.

A two sided debate, if conducted honestly is a great thing.

'Chemtrail trollers', as I put it, are less than honest in their writings, in my opinion. This does not mean anyone who thinks there is something in it, You arent going to get debate if everyone believes the same thing. only those select few that repeat the same, patently false claims ad nauseum, ignoring the specific answers put to them, only to repeat exactly the same claims in another thread on another day. Their actions frustrate me and stimulated my OP. The 'contrails dont persist' line is an example of this. If a new poster says it as it is what he has been led to believe and has never seen the correct info, it is not the same thing as a long time member repeating it for the umpteenth time. Do you see what I'm getting at there? It is quite a specific bugbear for me as it actively misleads people and could prevent someone from finding genuine evidence of something happening as they are looking in the wrong place.

I said 'never say never', quite simply, because although I am as sure as I can be that nothing is being sprayed, due to a combination of the utter lack of credible evidence and that all the trails posted on here match up with contrails, it doesn't mean there never will be and it would be nice to think that people in a position to spot it if it really does begin don't miss it because they have had their heads filled with crap.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackmac

Are you saying that these 'cirrus' clouds would have formed anyway?


You saying: 'Yes, natural Cirrus will form anyway when the conditions are correct.' is what is known as stating the bleeding obvious.


The way it came across from my point of view, your previous wording suggested that was not that obvious.



I'm also familiar with what natural cirrus looks like. Likewise the man-made stuff, which is very prevalent where I am. They are distinct, in the main.


Distinct in appearance (ie, linear) and initial formation, yes, but as far as I can tell, there is no reason to believe there is anything other than expected exhaust gases in them. Nor can anyone tell with their mk1 Eyeball if anything is different, either.


Do you agree there is a great proliferation of 'persistent contrails' over the past ten to fifteen years as compared to before? Are you old enough to recall?


No, I am not old enough to recall. However, I live in close proximity to a fairly major air route (crosses the UK, typically Europe to America traffic). Some days contrails are persistent and spread all the way across the sky. Today was perfectly clear, but contrails only lasted 1 or 2 minutes. And I cannot see any correlation other than weather conditions changing to suggest why this would be the case.

Incidentally, there was also an aircraft flying in perfect circles from about 7:00 to 12:00 UTC, centered on approximately The Wash, if anyone knows what it would have been, I'd be interested to know. And no, even that 'highly suspicious' pattern left very little persistent contrails.
edit on 16-1-2012 by apex because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by apex
 


I am old enough to recall however and it is true that the level of persistant trails has increased, over several decades but more visibly in the last 15-20 years. This increase has coincided with the almost universal adoption of high bypass turbofans as the powerplant for all classes of airliner, even reaching as far down as 36 seats,

Prior to this high bypass engines were only found on widebodies, with none at all in commercial service before 1970. The single aisle class between 70-230 seats would be powered by turbojets or low bypass turbofans and between 20 and 100 passengers (yes, classes do overlap) you could find lower operating turboprops.

There, in the growth of high bypass engines, is a causal link that does not require a specualtive theory

edit on 16-1-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by TreehouseIndustries
 



why do the planes I've seen with lingering trails never link to an active commercial flight (searched Flightradar24 and inbound outbound on all domestic scheduled flights) or abide by mapped flight paths.


FlightRadar24 does not show every airplane. From their site, read this:


How Flightradar24 works

Introduction to Flightradar24
Flightradar24 shows live airplane traffic from different parts around the world. The technique to receive flight information from aircraft is called ADS-B. That means the Flightradar24 can only show information about aircraft equipped with an ADS-B transponder. Today about 60% (about 30% in USA and about 70% in Europe) of the passenger aircraft and only a small amount of military and private aircraft have an ADS-B transponder.




example: 6 white planes fly over Christchurch within 15 - 20 mins of each other west to east (there is no flight path, military or otherwise that uses that heading)



From far enough away, just about every airliners looks "white"....especially from below:




Also, while I don't have any Aeronautical Charts for New Zealand at hand, there may be some available online. What I've found, though, is a sort of layperson's information site, for plane spotters and enthusiasts:

"New Zealand Flight Vector Map..."

I see East/West routes, there..........

If you want, looks like this company provides a service to sell Aeronautical publications:

www.airways.co.nz...


And for those who play with Microsoft FS:

user.chollian.net...

New Zealand index to charts



edit on Mon 16 January 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


These sites look interesting. I will give them a gander before I make any comments as this is a very touchy subject here. Thanks for the links. Have a nice day.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by apex
Incidentally, there was also an aircraft flying in perfect circles from about 7:00 to 12:00 UTC, centered on approximately The Wash, if anyone knows what it would have been, I'd be interested to know. And no, even that 'highly suspicious' pattern left very little persistent contrails.


do you have a date and time for this - FlightRadar has a history function so it might show up?



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Do you mean The Wash in Lincolnshire? If so there are always military aircraft flying round there, Typhoons from Cottesmore are only a minute away and the Sentry AWACS from Waddington, just up the road, regularly hold station on that part of he coast, though they normally fly "racetrack" loops.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join