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.

 

Why do they block the sun?

page: 7
21
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
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?


Blah diddly blah blahdy blah blah.

Bird? Bit like a magpie? What's to be proud about?

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, don't you think?




posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by jackmac
 



I believe that source to be flawed.


You can "believe" all you want, until the cows come home. Won't make the facts and the science any different.

Oh, and if you would note at "Contrail Science", there is comment that specifically requests that anyone who finds mistakes may bring them to the attention of the webmaster of the site.

Right here:


If you find ANY error on this site, then let me know and I will issue a correction immediately.


The above can be found on the "About" page: About




Maybe have another look, elsewhere.


Yes, good advice. Might I suggest the library also? Brick and mortar type of library.....that way, any book about clouds and meteorology and the science of contrails can be checked for its copyright, and you can rest assured that it hasn't been altered electronically on the Web.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by jackmac
 


What was your purpose, there, that contributed to this thread?

Are you going to pay attention to the issue raised? It was valid to the OP's topic, about "blocking" the Sun. What can you offer to meet the challenge??

Or, is it just your intent to trol......er, I mean, ridicule?



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by jackmac
 





Blah diddly blah blahdy blah blah. Bird? Bit like a magpie? What's to be proud about? Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, don't you think?



Wow ok.

That convinced me. "Chemtrails MUST be blocking out the sun.




posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by tommyjo

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.






It is the utter inability of those who cannot even entertain a possibility that is frightening.

These same people will not see that there is a great proliferation of 'persistent contrails', 'cirrus aviaticus', 'aircraft-induced cirrus', 'induced cirrus', what's it called again? They will not see that it is a very common sight, having your blue sky turned to off-white in a couple of hours as a direct result of aircraft passing and creating clouds - not contrails - clouds. It's really quite simple.
edit on 23-1-2012 by jackmac because: .



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by jackmac
 





I wasn't talking to you.


Yes you were "responding" to PB when he was not responding to you, but someone else.

And posted on a forum open to the world.
edit on 1/23/2012 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackmac

It is the utter inability of those who cannot even entertain a possibility that is frightening.


Who is that then?

I can certainly "entertain the possibility" that something is being sprayed at high altitude for some purpose.

But that is all it remains until the evidence is examined - a possibility.

And when I entertain the possibility I conclude that if it WERE happening then there would be some verifiable evidence - there would be aircraft systems, there would be chemicals and suppliers and people involved. There would be the ability to sample the distribution of whatever was being sprayed, and there would be levels of "something" in the atmosphere that are different from what we might expect normally.

In the absence of any of these I conclude that in fact "the possibility" is actually not happening at all.

Of course it might start tomorrow - in which case I expect all that evidence to become available at some time in the future - but its absence from 15 or more years of putative chemtrails convinces me that it hasn't been happening in the time frame claimed.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackmac
These same people will not see that there is a great proliferation of 'persistent contrails', 'cirrus aviaticus', 'aircraft-induced cirrus', 'induced cirrus', what's it called again? They will not see that it is a very common sight, having your blue sky turned to off-white in a couple of hours as a direct result of aircraft passing and creating clouds - not contrails - clouds. It's really quite simple.


Not sure what your point is?

This is well known and many people, especially scientists, are concerned about it and the implications.

ie:

news.bbc.co.uk...

www.npr.org...

However, I assume that you refuse to fly and encourage others to do likewise? After all, that is ultimately the problem. So well done



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by jackmac
 





I wasn't talking to you.


Yes you were "responding" to PB when he was not responding to you, but someone else.

And posted on a forum open to the world.
edit on 1/23/2012 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)


So you haven't got anything you want to ask?



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by jackmac
These same people will not see that there is a great proliferation of 'persistent contrails', 'cirrus aviaticus', 'aircraft-induced cirrus', 'induced cirrus', what's it called again? They will not see that it is a very common sight, having your blue sky turned to off-white in a couple of hours as a direct result of aircraft passing and creating clouds - not contrails - clouds. It's really quite simple.


Not sure what your point is?



Really - I think it's quite obvious. Which part would you like explained?
edit on 23-1-2012 by jackmac because: I



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by jackmac
 





So you haven't got anything you want to ask?

Not of you, no.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by jackmac

It is the utter inability of those who cannot even entertain a possibility that is frightening.


Who is that then?

I can certainly "entertain the possibility" that something is being sprayed at high altitude for some purpose.

But that is all it remains until the evidence is examined - a possibility.

And when I entertain the possibility I conclude that if it WERE happening then there would be some verifiable evidence - there would be aircraft systems, there would be chemicals and suppliers and people involved. There would be the ability to sample the distribution of whatever was being sprayed, and there would be levels of "something" in the atmosphere that are different from what we might expect normally.

In the absence of any of these I conclude that in fact "the possibility" is actually not happening at all.

Of course it might start tomorrow - in which case I expect all that evidence to become available at some time in the future - but its absence from 15 or more years of putative chemtrails convinces me that it hasn't been happening in the time frame claimed.



Ok. Here's a question for you:

Do you think you or I have unfettered access to any and all 'classified' projects that may be undertaken by those whose job it might be to carry them out? Clearly not. This argument about being 'impossible to cover up' because there are 'people involved'..someone would have talked etc. isn't always true to the reality of how these things work.
The Manhatten Project involved 120,000 personnel, and not one person spilled the beans. Not one. Bletchley - Enigma machine - no-one talked. There are plenty of examples of conspiracies were people never talked....why would they? They'd only be incriminating themselves in most cases. It's easy to see what someone's motivation might be in those circumstances. Bottom line: it's a fallacious argument to say: it's not possible because there are 'people involved'.

Just say there was a geo-engineering effort going down...indulge me.... and answer these three questions:

1. What form would it take?

2. Would it be controversial?

3. What might it look like?
edit on 23-1-2012 by jackmac because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-1-2012 by jackmac because: a

edit on 23-1-2012 by jackmac because: typo



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by pshea38
 


I looked in your link but there is no illustration to show why the images are posted are different.

You ask if I can show why they are normal contrails, but surely if they do not match your own definition of what a chemtrail looks like, then you would agree with me, wouldn't you?

How is asking questions trying to deceive you? I am only trying to see your viewpoint.

Your umbrage, instead, appears to be an attempt to derail my queries. I don't know if that is the intention.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by jackmac
 


Do you have ANY evidence that what you see and claim to be chemtrails cannot be normal contrails, as observed and studied for many decades?

And I mean actual evidence that exactly what you see CANNOT be a contrail even though thousands of scientist are studying it.

Does it never occur to you that you've been conned?



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackmac

Do you think you or I have unfettered access to any and all 'classified' projects that may be undertaken by those whose job it might be to carry them out? Clearly not. This argument about being 'impossible to cover up' because there are 'people involved'..someone would have talked etc. isn't always true to the reality of how these things work.
The Manhatten Project involved 120,000 personnel, and not one person spilled the beans. Not one.


uh...yes they did! Atomic spies



Bletchley - Enigma machine - no-one talked. There are plenty of examples of conspiracies were people never talked....why would they? They'd only be incriminating themselves in most cases. It's easy to see what someone's motivation might be in those circumstances. Bottom line: it's a fallacious argument to say: it's not possible because there are 'people involved'.


not at all - your putative project for spraying from airliners requires members of the public to carry it out, in full view of other members of the public, in an age of mass communications, in peace time with no restrictions on the information.

It also requires something to be sprayed into the air - which air is then available to anyone to sample - moreover you can go hire aircraft to sample trails directly if you want - as a fairly straightforward commercial transaction.

So your analogy with the Manhatten Project and Bletchly park - projects with massive enforced secrecy in wartime - including armed guards, secrecy laws, and in a society which lacked the technology of today is what is fallacious - it is you cherry picking something that you would liek to be relevant but which isn't.


Just say there was a geo-engineering effort going down...indulge me.... and answer these three questions:

1. What form would it take?


Carbon sequestration, forrestation, renewable energy, nuclear power.


2. Would it be controversial?


yes


3. What might it look like?


Surface facilities pumping liquefied CO2 into the ground. Bigger forests, wind farms, solar power, etc, and nuclear power plants.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Anim8tr
 


This is the correct question, one rarely, if ever asked.

The elements contained in the sky soup, aluminum, barium, iron, nickel etc. all do one key thing - block energy.

The effort put forth is not to change the weather, or poison us - those are cover efforts, but to block out energy from beyond earth. The elements included in the soup are designed to shield the earth from energy that is, and will, evolve the human population. In a simple, obvious way, radiation alters DNA. Those in charge look to stop this process for all of mankind.

Some will say, "then why don't 'they' cover the entire sky, every day of the year?
This is logistically not possible, nor is it needed. The energy coming in is defined by quality, quantity and location of origin. A geometric scheme to diffuse the most amount of energy with the least amount of effort and planes are sent up. Some planes are activated in flight, but very few have this capacity. The planes then dump to shield via the grid created for the incoming evolutionary energy.

Those doing the activities are told they are saving the world from global warming and the total destruction of the earth. They feel they are hero's for carrying out the top secret mission to save all of mankind from its demise while scientist from around the world look for a "cure" to the problem. This eliminates rogue actions pilots and suppliers.

One can easily track the process. Watch for waves on incoming energy, if you happen to be over one of the grid lines that distribute energy throughout the planet, then that energy should correspond to a milky white sky.




top topics



 
21
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join