Pictures from lunch - Contrail/Chemtrail/Clouds

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ColAngus
 


Uh oh.......


....beautiful boat moon tonight.


Seeing it from Southern California? I saw one about a month ago from here, too....something is up!!

You know, the dude who saw a "boat moon" from Las Vegas was convinced something was wrong, that it was "upside down".

Guess your sighting proves it, now.......




posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
Seeing it from Southern California? I saw one about a month ago from here, too....something is up!!


Yes, I believe it is called..."winter."

Quite a normal sight in the northern hemisphere during this..."winter," I'll have you know.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Ah, Gaul...just couldn't resist a flame war, could you? This morning, getting onto lunch again, I feel loose; I feel confident. So confident that I'm going to take you on a Rumsfeldian excursion - just you and me - : you know that I know but you're not sure what I know or how much I know or exactly what tipped me off. I know that you know that I know. And I know that you know that I know but that you don't know how much I know.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
This is one of the cutest thread titles I have ever seen on ATS. And...expanding on it, I'm going to offer lunch on the swing shift:

uk.ask.com...


Clouds obscure the view of other objects in the sky, though varying thicknesses of cloudcover have differing effects. A very thin cirrus cloud in front of the moon might produce a rainbow-colored ring around the moon.



Stars and planets are too small or dim to take on this effect, and are instead only dimmed (often to the point of invisibility).



Thicker cloudcover obscures celestial objects entirely, making the sky black or reflecting city lights back down. Clouds are often close enough to afford some depth perception, though they are hard to see without moonlight or light pollution.


www.absoluteastronomy.com...


In 2000, Allan Rahill, a meteorologist at the Canadian Meteorological Centre (CMC), created a forecast processing step that took data from CMC's Global Element Multi-scale (GEM) forecast model and created a new forecast of cloud cover. Rahill specially designed his cloud forecast to consider the formation of cirrus clouds. The cirrus cloud modeling distinguishes Rahill's model from other cloud forecast models, as sufficient cirrus clouds to make a night unusable for astronomers is still called "clear" by civil weather forecasts.



What, oh what, does all this mean? It means that cirrus aviaticus (artificial clouds created by jet emissions) make it impossible to view the night sky BUT that forecasts still call it a clear sky. What kind of double talk is this??



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Just different usages of the word. For a meteorologist, the night sky is "clear" if you can see the moon. For astronomers, it's "clear" if you can see the moons of Jupiter.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 



.....what, does all this mean? It means that cirrus aviaticus .....(snip)..... make it impossible to view the night sky...


NO, that is NOT what your sources "say".

It is clearly written, and discussed in one of the first external source snippets..."thin high cirrus" clouds.

It is the existence of "thick" clouds that mostly obscure the sky to astronomers. But in any case, all of that is referring to night time astronomy.

How many stars and planets to astronomers wish to view at lunchtime? Since this thread is about clouds at lunch....it is usually presumed that "lunch" occurs around Noon local time, yes?



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 





How many stars and planets to astronomers wish to view at lunchtime? Since this thread is about clouds at lunch....it is usually presumed that "lunch" occurs around Noon local time, yes?


I live in a 24 hour town. Don't really know much about Vegas, do you? Cirrus aviaticus (artificial clouds created by jet emissions) are observably obscuring the lunch-time skies. And oh what a surprise (not) that you don't have anything to say about the halo around the moon. What was it caused by? Cirrus aviaticus was it? Jet emissions was it? What other 'natural' phenomena have you tried to foist off on us that was actually caused by jet emissions? I say it's a case of inconvenient links. And I'm not at all surprised that you have nothing to say about it except some drivel about lunch at noon.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


So what is it you are hiding from the world about chemtrails that is important?

Why is it that chemtrail believers never actually show this proof that supposedly exists? Why are you hiding it?



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


If you're realy that upset, start a campaign to stop people flying. Simple really


As to halos around the Moon - I'm sure you know full well they've been witnessed for thousands of years.

Not really sure where you're going with all this? Unless like me - and a lot of other people - you would like to see less air travel so we see less manmade cirrus? But at least you seem to accept that it's contrails that are the problem.
edit on 26-1-2012 by Essan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


So what is it you are hiding from the world about chemtrails that is important?

Why is it that chemtrail believers never actually show this proof that supposedly exists? Why are you hiding it?


Kind of the same for those who say chemtrails don't exist, do you have proof of what is coming out of the airplane 20,000 feet in the air and it chemical composition to prove that it's just a contrail? You can say jet fuel blah blah but it would be an assumption since you can't tell what's coming out of a plane at 20,000 plus feet away. Do you have proof that a cloud 20,000 plus feet away is made of water vapor?
edit on 26-1-2012 by mileslong54 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by mileslong54
 


Ah - the old "you can't prove it isn't true" argument from ignorance to try to shift the burden of proof.

also a classic believer tactic when faced with teh inadequacy of their evidence.

Sorry Miles - but the existence of contrails is long established - as is the existence of clouds.

If something looks like a contrail, is generated like a contrail and behaves like a contrail then it is reasonable to conclude that it is a contrail.

If you want to show that it is NOT a contrail then it is up to you to prove your case.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by mileslong54
 


Ah - the old "you can't prove it isn't true" argument from ignorance to try to shift the burden of proof.

also a classic believer tactic when faced with teh inadequacy of their evidence.

Sorry Miles - but the existence of contrails is long established - as is the existence of clouds.

If something looks like a contrail, is generated like a contrail and behaves like a contrail then it is reasonable to conclude that it is a contrail.

If you want to show that it is NOT a contrail then it is up to you to prove your case.


Yes I can play your game you are correct, it works both ways, as for the proof you lack sources that prove the chemical compound in the trail behind planes making it a contrail while demanding other have sources to prove that it's a chemtrail. Bottom line you have no more proof than anyone else making your argument just as void as the others you claim to be wrong.


Method of modifying weather
United States Patent 6,315,213 / Cordani / November 13, 2001

164.195.100.11.../netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6315213.WKU.&OS=PN/6315213&RS=PN/6 315213

A method for artificially modifying the weather by seeding rain clouds of a storm with suitable cross-linked aqueous polymer. The polymer is dispersed into the cloud and the wind of the storm agitates the mixture causing the polymer to absorb the rain. This reaction forms a gelatinous substance which precipitate to the surface below. Thus, diminishing the clouds ability to rain.



Process for absorbing ultraviolet radiation using dispersed melanin
United States Patent / 5,286,979 / Berliner / February 15, 1994
164.195.100.11.../netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5286979.WKU.&OS=PN/5286979&RS=PN/5 286979

This invention is a process for absorbing ultraviolet radiation in the atmosphere by dispersing melanin, its analogs, or derivatives into the atmosphere. By appropriate choice of melanin composition, size of melanin dispersoids, and their concentration, the melanin will absorb some quantity of ultraviolet radiation and thereby lessen its overall effect on the critters who would normally absorb such radiation.


And 4 more patents not listed. Hmmm...me tinks, why would there be a patent for this if they are only a contrail. Water Vapor is the makeup of a contrail. These
up here are CHEMICALS. You can't can't get a patent for water vapor.

Contrails (play /ˈkɒntreɪlz/; short for "condensation trails") or vapour trails are artificial clouds that are the visible trails of condensed water vapour made by the exhaust of aircraft engines. As the hot exhaust gases cool in the surrounding air they may precipitate a cloud of microscopic water droplets or, if the air is cold enough, tiny ice crystals.[1]

Water vapor = contrail
Why are there patents for spraying chemicals into the atmosphere???????

80 degrees in Southern California yesterday - see that little part about IF THE AIR IS COLD ENOUGH in the definition of contrail. 80 degree and contrails everywhere. HMMMMMMMMM.......

BTW - Is US PATENT inadequate evidence?
edit on 26-1-2012 by mileslong54 because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-1-2012 by mileslong54 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


So what is it you are hiding from the world about chemtrails that is important?

Why is it that chemtrail believers never actually show this proof that supposedly exists? Why are you hiding it?


Nothing is hidden. Everything is perfectly clear. Observers have been seeing chemtrails since the mid to late 90's. Myself...I first observed them in the early 2000's. Since then I've spoken with a lot of people who have observed them too. The people who have not researched or read on the phenomenon, come up with varied and interesting explanations to rationalize, in their own minds, these sightings. Some of these rationalizations are acceptable to the psycho(s) behind them. Some of them are not. As awareness grew, inevitably, given the internet, a 'science' was concocted to instruct and educate the great unwashed on how normal it all was and that it had always been so.

This 'science' was written by what I call short-sighted individuals because it is something that sounds good and sensible but doesn't hold up under inquiry. But the public, on the other hand, never really dreamed of a day when 'science' would be dictated by corporations and that globally, we the people, would be placed on a need to know basis and that it would be deemed that we don't need to know anything about anything in the sky.

What are the obvious effects of chemtrails? They obscure the sky. This is an effect that can't be disputed.

What are the effects of geoengineering creating cirrus aviaticus globally? Nobody really knows but drought, flood, tornados, global dimming etc. have been tossed around as potential effects. These alone are enough to make me wonder - what could possibly be so important that collateral damage on this scale would seem dwarfed?



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


So how come you can't actually proffer any verifiable evidence that chemtrails exist at all??

Or, if you have evidence, why do you not make it available, instead of all teh obviously bunk stuff that has been revealed so far (like persistence for example)?



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by mileslong54

Yes I can play your game you are correct, it works both ways, as for the proof you lack sources that prove the chemical compound in the trail behind planes making it a contrail while demanding other have sources to prove that it's a chemtrail.


Bzztt...there is a wealth of scientific evidence regarding the existence of contrails, why and how they form, and the exhaust products of jet engines - to deny this is to display a great deal of ignorance.

There are multiple resources available for you from easily accessed sites such as wikipedia - this page includes multiple links to scientific papers.

I am not at all sorry to burst your bubble, but your claim that chemtrails are being treated unfairly in regards to evidence is ignorant nonsense.

And what's more I will say that if you refuse to accept the evidence for contrails then it is deliberately ignorant nonsense.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by mileslong54
BTW - Is US PATENT inadequate evidence?


Patents are not actually evidence that whatever is patented is being used at all.

All they are is evidence that someone had an idea and wanted "protection" for the idea.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


yea again that's what I thought, more dribble less facts, kind of what I expected



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi

What are the obvious effects of chemtrails? They obscure the sky. This is an effect that can't be disputed.


What is the reason for obscuring the sky? What are they hiding? Are they obscuring the sky in Wyoming? Bolivia? The Maldives?

With social media, the internet, smartphones everywhere, what would be the point unless you obscured the entire sky all over the globe so that NO ONE could see what's up there?

You know that I know that you won't answer all of my questions. But do I know why you won't or it that only you know why you won't? I know, by the way. I know a lot. Hugs.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by mileslong54
80 degrees in Southern California yesterday - see that little part about IF THE AIR IS COLD ENOUGH in the definition of contrail. 80 degree and contrails everywhere. HMMMMMMMMM.......


80 degrees on the ground.

-40 degrees at 35,000 feet. Where the contrails are.

www.usairnet.com...



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by mileslong54
80 degrees in Southern California yesterday - see that little part about IF THE AIR IS COLD ENOUGH in the definition of contrail. 80 degree and contrails everywhere. HMMMMMMMMM.......


80 degrees on the ground.

-40 degrees at 35,000 feet. Where the contrails are.

www.usairnet.com...


Same temperature today and not a single trail in the sky, planes but not trails, same temperature as yesterday, go figure....

IN FACT here's a pic I just took of the same area of sky today....


Not a trail in the sky same temperature, same flight paths, go figure
edit on 26-1-2012 by mileslong54 because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-1-2012 by mileslong54 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join