Why do they block the sun?

* * * * * * * * * A T T E N T I O N * * * * * * * * *

The topic of this thread is "Why do they block the sun", not other ATS members or their personalities. Please stay on topic.

Thank you.

reply to post by argentus


I do appreciate your involvement in trying to reign in to blatant personal attacks that several of the reply posters engage in.

What I do not comprehend is why these posters have not already been banned from ATS in the first place.

As we are all well aware, these posters repeatable violate the T&C policies of ATS. If it was a isolated incident, warning is fine, but when each and every time a thread on this subject is submitted the very same reply posters engage in the very same personal attacks.

Calling a fellow ATS member a MORON because they have a opposing perspective can be over looked if it was an isolated occurrence, but when it happens time and time again the response from the ATS team should become more harsh.

It does not matter what side of the argument one finds himself on, when that member has proven over time that they are more interested in “Bullying” than giving a rational reply, well my opinion is that they have volunteered to be remove.

Yours is a hard and thankless job, and I for one am glad you have taken on the effort.
Thanks for your hard work !

reply to post by brokedown

What I do not comprehend is why these posters have not already been banned from ATS in the first place.

As we are all well aware, these posters repeatable violate the T&C policies of ATS. If it was a isolated incident, warning is fine, but when each and every time a thread on this subject is submitted the very same reply posters engage in the very same personal attacks.

Yeah whatever.

Don't lump us all into "they should be banned".

Many of us in this thread were actioned in responding to the poster that said he could see with his eyes the chemical structure of contrails 7-8 km up.

And to the OP, which makes the statement that they block out the sun which is easily proven wrong.

And the poster that said the sun doesn't "move" in the sky...
again blatantly false.

reply to post by ProudBird



i wish i had computer savvy skills so i could make a graphic to explain this that is to scale. then you would see how ridiculous it is to assume that chem-cloud-light-reflection is only penetrating a small area of land on the surface of earth.

these trails (as is easily verifiable with observation) spread themselves out over time, and create chem clouds...when these clouds are spread over a city, the sun's light will HAVE to be projected through the clouds, which refracts and reflects the sunlight throughout the cloud before ever hitting the earth.

~ the distance of the Sun from the Earth is 93,000,000 miles.
~ the distance of the Clouds from the Earth is between 3 & 5 miles.

~ the distance of the clouds are 23,250,000 times closer than the sun!

considering these very simple facts, you'd have to be somewhat of an idiot to believe that there is any significant amount of light that is going around the clouds in order to reach the Earth.

considering the amount of light reflection & refraction going on only 3-5 miles above our heads, this is surely going to be able to spread this newly reflected (& wave-length modified) light all over the surface of Earth (only 3-5 miles away) over a small area of a city (~20 miles square)

the way i see it, the clouds act like a lens which produces a convex effect. the clouds reflect and spread the sunlight all over the surface.


___________

as for "ProudBird": your post history is exactly what i'd suspect from a dis-information shill. I've come across your shilly tactics before, called you out, and now you do it again. you must want to be exposed again.

a quick search of your post history clearly shows that you love posting in the chemtrail forums and on chemtrail threads, where you ignorantly dismiss and regularly attack other members because of their belief in chemtrails.

anyone can observe the show of dis-information in the post history page:

Post history: www.abovetopsecret.com...&display=posts

interestingly, i've found that while your ATS profile claims you've made 24 threads, only 5 are shown:

Thread history:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

here is where your true knowledge lies, in your threads about cars, maids, and Alec Baldwin.

then, to top it all off, there's this:

Comment from: cydonia19.5 on: 1/13/12 @ 09:26 PM
just want to know whose side you're on: ours or there's

now, shoo, fly!

reply to post by metalshredmetal

To defend PB a bit:

your post history is exactly what i'd suspect from a dis-information shill. I've come across your shilly tactics before, called you out, and now you do it again. you must want to be exposed again.

What was that Argentus posted about personal attacks?www.abovetopsecret.com...

interestingly, i've found that while your ATS profile claims you've made 24 threads, only 5 are shown:

So?
Anytime one uses the "Alert" feature, it creates a thread in the MODs forum.

As you say:

now, shoo, fly!

Originally posted by eliteosbo
it happens down in south kent uk almost daily ..back and forth all day ..the one question i have that ive never heard anyone raise is this ..surely the distances those planes (btw ive counted as many as 27 planes in the sky at the same time doing this ,its usually 5/6 or 11though) counts as an aerospace near miss ?

btw i for one do not believe for one minute they are plain contrails ,especially after reading about high altitude aerosol dispersal systems on google .but then im a cynical old f~@k.

Why don't you post your theory on an Air Traffic Control forum or aviation radio enthusiast forum? Do you even realise that there are upper air routes that are located over Kent? It is the complete ignorance of aviation that makes chemtrailers a laughing stock. A near miss. Seriously? Next you will be telling us about x's in the sky!

This guy in the UK didn't even realise that he lived under a transatlantic upper air route.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Look at all the 'near misses'

The amount of attacks this thread has gained, along with the amount of times moderators have already had to come in and stop the mud-slinging in order to get back on topic is a sure sign that this sun blocking idea is on the right track.

The dis information shills try their hardest to derail the threads that are right on track.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
Without sounding like a complete Jack hole here, I really have to question the intelligence of some here...

How can you not understand that just because there is a trail in front of the sun from your perspective does not make it so somewhere else?

So when you say that a trail is blocking the sun, you are coming off as a complete moron because it's visibly only covering a tiny percentage of the sun, to everyone else, theres nothing in front of the sun.

It's the same reason why eclipses can only be seen from certain places, the same reason why half the planet is dark while the other half is lit.

Same reason you can go and stand in the shade.

Chadwickus, that is a rediculous argument and you know it. Do I need to point out the countless threads discussing persistant contrails where your argument has been that it is quite normal for these contrails to become a blanket of contrail cirrus cloud? The argument that these trails are turning clear blue skies into completely cloudy skies is a fairly regular argument put forward in this debate and the response from yourself and most, if not all, on the contrail side of the debate is always that this is normal contrail behaviour in the right atmospheric conditions. I don't recall the OP saying these particular trails were trying to block the sun for the entire planet do you? Is your argument now that contrails cannot spread and create a blanket cover of contrail cirrus?

Obviously there are two sides to the contrail/chemtrail argument and what I have always found interesting is that there is rediculous evidence/theories/explanations put forward from both sides yet I don't recall ever seeing the contrail side ever rebut one of their own no matter how wrong their argument is. In this thread, Proudbird went down this rediculous 'angle' path first and then you ran with it in full attack mode despite the fact it doesn't fit with your previous arguments. This is why these debates never get anywhere and people on the Chemtrail side of the debate believe your side hunts in a pack.

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
topic is a sure sign that this sun blocking idea is on the right track.

The dis information shills try their hardest to derail the threads that are right on track.

Seriously? It is the utter stupidity of the theory that it ludicrous. These same people also peddle that persistent contrails didn't exist before the late 1990s. They pick up the idea from people jumping on the chemtrail bandwagon purely to make money out of very gullible people. See timeline.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Even some of the historic footage and observations are a threat to some who are on the money making trail.
Have a look at Tanker Enemies YT Channel. His attempts at discrediting historic footage are ludicrous, but the madness continues as more and more people stumble upon them. It is nothing but pure manipulated ignorance.

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
The amount of attacks this thread has gained, along with the amount of times moderators have already had to come in and stop the mud-slinging in order to get back on topic is a sure sign that this sun blocking idea is on the right track.

The dis information shills try their hardest to derail the threads that are right on track.

How does that even approach sense in your thinking?

Posting facts about contrails doesn't mean one is a shill, but informed.

The dis information shills try their hardest to derail the threads that are right on track

No it's not disinformation shills, it is people trying to provide FACTS and trying to stop this mania of "chemtrails" which is patently false and misinformed.

reply to post by tommyjo


i don't know what you're talking about, what i do know is that it has no matter to the subject of the thread.

I have made no claims that some of you people are accusing me of. all of my opinions about "chemtrails" can be found in this thread. only people purposefully attempting to discredit my opinions would attribute other people's opinions to be my own.

yet another tactic of the mis-information-dissemination.

if anyone would notice, I carefully worded my post to say PB SEEMS to be exhibiting all the signs of a disinfo shill. I did not accuse him directly. anyone who doesn't have a motive to attack me would have easily seen this.

further evidence of shill attacks would be:

completely ignoring the facts about cloud distance as opposed to sun distance, and instead arguing with my assumption that chemtrails exist.

this is exactly what derailing a thread looks like.

reply to post by metalshredmetal

if anyone would notice, I carefully worded my post to say PB SEEMS to be exhibiting all the signs of a disinfo shill. I did not accuse him directly

Where do you say "SEEMS"??

as for "ProudBird": your post history is exactly what i'd suspect from a dis-information shill. I've come across your shilly tactics before, called you out, and now you do it again. you must want to be exposed again.
a quick search of your post history clearly shows that you love posting in the chemtrail forums and on chemtrail threads, where you ignorantly dismiss and regularly attack other members because of their belief in chemtrails.
anyone can observe the show of dis-information in the post history page:

this is exactly what derailing a thread looks like.

The only statement I agree with.

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
reply to post by tommyjo

 

i don't know what you're talking about, what i do know is that it has no matter to the subject of the thread.

It has everything to do with the thread. People are stumbling across idiotic videos of 'chemtrails and 'sun blocking' on YT. Many of the die-hard supporters have comment pending and block and remove anyone that disagrees with them.

The die hard supporters of these videos are easily fooled as they harbour the assumption that persistent contrails didn't exist before the 1990s. This is what is peddled since people first stumbled on the subject of 'chemtrails'. The ignorance of aviation continues and the likes of Tanker Enemy have to produce videos in order to keep the cycle going and suck in more gullible fools who look up and see X's in the sky and shout chemtrails.

Seriously guys, when is this chemtrail bubble going to burst? When is it all going to be revealed that you were right? You will still be scratching your heads in decades to come and the ignorance of aviation will continue. Some people need this 'chemtrail bogeyman' in their life and the ignorance continues. Disinformation shills - Seriously

Its neither chem, nor contrails
Clearly they are creating dimensional rifts..I don't need science to tell me what I am seeing, clearly it looks like a new universe is being cracked open in our skys by these so called airplanes.

now, debunk that!


___
Yes, sarcasm. its contrails. "They" aren't doing anything beyond flying a airplane and the atmosphere is reacting accordingly.

..I can say with confidence that they are not blocking the sun!

They are only between you and the sun relative to the photographers position. The sun in a hundred bagillion miles away, and occupies a large part of the sky during the day.

Statistics dictate that contrails/chemtrails/clouds/birds will necessarily "block" the sun throughout the day.

A little reason goes a long way. Nuff' said

Originally posted by FissionSurplus

I have noticed out here that they chemtrail in advance of approaching weather fronts. My husband feels they do it to block the sun, but I feel it is more like geo-engineering /cloud seeding.

Straight up first hand account that these lines in the sky seem to appear before approaching weather fronts. The very same weather fronts which cause particles in the upper atmosphere to crystallize into contrails more efficiently.

It took me a while to give up my belief that there was some vast secret conspiracy going on over our heads. Doesn't it feel so good to have "proof" of a massive conspiracy so close to you?

reply to post by metalshredmetal

I carefully worded my post to say PB SEEMS to be exhibiting all the signs of a disinfo shill.

PB is saddened by the continuing victimization of innocent people by this idiotic nonsense of "chemtrails".

PB finds it tragic that so many people are being conned by the hoax, when they could be easily informed properly of the real science.

PB thinks that everyone deserves a chance to learn the truth, and to take the time, make the effort, to understand facts.

PB sees people being lied to, and it makes PB sad......

reply to post by mikellmikell


If it is just contrails, why are you even posting, oh noes someone on the internet is wrong, i must put them right syndrome, eh?
Also do you dispute that this covering is affecting the amount of sunlight reflected back into space?.
The thread is about reflective covering blocking sunlight, not, is it, isn't it chemtrails, and you completely missed the point of the thread with your knee jerk misguided and incorrect pedantry.

reply to post by The X


You were not responding to me, but when you wrote that this thread was not about "is, or isn't chemtrails", I beg to differ.

This is a sentence that is written in the Opening Post:

Chemtrails in the making.

Now, to address the "reflecting back into space" of sunlight? Here's a challenge for you (or anyone):


Find some credible research that compares the over-all average amount of naturally occurring cloud cover on the Globe, on the day-lit side to the over-all average of "artificially" produced cirrus clouds, AKA contrails.

Just a simple percentage comparison of some sort. Want to make any predictions, guesses?

Do contrails, that only exist because of high altitude airplane flights, account for 1% of the total over-all cloud coverage?

5%?

10%?

15%

How much, compared to what will occur anyway, as part of natural weather cycles and behavior?

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

I call it as I see it. I said someone from the debunk crowd would come in and ridicule and.... It turned out to be you.

When I was new into this field Mick from contrail science proved the facts to me with patience and respect and thanks to him I now know better.

I believe that source to be flawed. Maybe have another look, elsewhere.

I think skepticism is healthy, not least to filter non-stop media bs; but understanding of its meaning may not be all it once was. A true skeptic should be free of a pre-existing position; be able to entertain the possibilities the question raises; avoid entrenched positions...? Today, 'skepticism' appears to be synonymous with naysaying - an almost pathological defence of the status quo - skeptopathy? Skeptic: one who does not believe but is open to evidence to the contrary.

I think the 'open' bit might be absent here.