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.

 

Pictures from lunch - Contrail/Chemtrail/Clouds

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by mileslong54
 


Right - so you think all the references on that wiki page constitute dribble and not facts - such as:

- www.britannica.com...
- What is a contrail and how does it form

I'd be very interested to see how you reach the conclusion that Encyclopaedia Britanica and the NOAA are dribble - go on - enlighten us all with your reasoning.




posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by mileslong54
 


So, are you saying that it is reasonably disputable that a by-product of normal jet operation can be contrails, that can persist or spread according to prevalent weather conditions? Despite the decades of recorded evidence and research?

Given that nothing that is claimed to be a chemtrail is different in any observable way to what is already known and established about the way contrails act, why do you consider it unreasonable that someone claiming it is something else should have the burden of proof placed upon them?

Science and all recorded aviation history says contrails, a relatively few theorists on the internet say chemtrails,

If one is making claims that fly in the face of accepted and proven knowledge, it is clear who needs to provide the evidence.

And do you really think that a patent is proof of more than someone had an idea? Maybe have a look at some of these before you start saying the existence of a patent equals something being made and used.

www.bpmlegal.com...



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


In answer to your 4 statements: no, no, no and no.

It's not air traffic, which is down according to reporting airports, that is causing cirrus aviaticus but rather the deliberate injection into the atmosphere at many levels of mass particles causing saturation which gives way to visible cover.

Did you not read the link I put up to rainbow halos around the moon?

I'm not into restricting air traffic anymore than I'm into restrictions for no reason. We have less air traffic, on the books, but we have a global cirrus aviaticus problem.

Contrails have never been a problem. They've always dissipated rather quickly. Solving something that's not a problem will not make this go away. Let's not be clueless but instead look at facts.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by mileslong54
 


Yes, the temperature would be the same at 35,000ft as yesterday, or very close to it. It always is, unlike at ground level where it is very different.

Now, have you considered the effect of relative humidity on whether the contrail persists or not? Once you can get to grips with that you are close to understanding why trails form, or not, why they spread and persist or not and even why there can be gaps in them.
edit on 26-1-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by mileslong54
 


Right - so you think all the references on that wiki page constitute dribble and not facts - such as:

- www.britannica.com...
- What is a contrail and how does it form

I'd be very interested to see how you reach the conclusion that Encyclopaedia Britanica and the NOAA are dribble - go on - enlighten us all with your reasoning.


Yeah posted that a contrail is water vapor already, thanks

No I said your words are dribble not Britannica (BTW-there's an extra 'n' in Britannica
) and the NOAA.

edit on 26-1-2012 by mileslong54 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
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)?


The key word here, Gaul, would be observation. Your bunk 'science' is never going to trump that. "...know when to walk away..."



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by mileslong54
 


Yes, the temperature would be the same at 35,000ft as yesterday, or very close to it. It always is, unlike at ground level where it is very different.

Now, have you considered the effect of relative humidity on whether the contrail persists or not? Once you can get to grips with that you are close to understanding why trails form, or not, why they spread and persist or not and even why there can be gaps in them.
edit on 26-1-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)


Yup 21% the last few days, with 0% of precipitation



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by mileslong54
 


Well 21% is too low for trails as the moisture in them is quickly sublimated, hence the blue sky. Where did the figure of 21% come from? RH can vary a lot in quite a small area (such as when you see puffy clouds in an otherwise blue sky, they are individual pockets of high RH).



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by mileslong54
 


So, are you saying that it is reasonably disputable that a by-product of normal jet operation can be contrails, that can persist or spread according to prevalent weather conditions? Despite the decades of recorded evidence and research?

Given that nothing that is claimed to be a chemtrail is different in any observable way to what is already known and established about the way contrails act, why do you consider it unreasonable that someone claiming it is something else should have the burden of proof placed upon them?

Science and all recorded aviation history says contrails, a relatively few theorists on the internet say chemtrails,

If one is making claims that fly in the face of accepted and proven knowledge, it is clear who needs to provide the evidence.

And do you really think that a patent is proof of more than someone had an idea? Maybe have a look at some of these before you start saying the existence of a patent equals something being made and used.

www.bpmlegal.com...


Funny because there are patents for invisible contrails, powder contrails so same thing your saying, just cause there's patent for contrails doesn't make them real? Works both ways.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by mileslong54
 


Well 21% is too low for trails as the moisture in them is quickly sublimated, hence the blue sky. Where did the figure of 21% come from? RH can vary a lot in quite a small area (such as when you see puffy clouds in an otherwise blue sky, they are individual pockets of high RH).


Where did the 21% come from
the weather channel. Oh, my bad there are weather detection devises that are patented so I guess that's not valid either.
edit on 26-1-2012 by mileslong54 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
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)?


The key word here, Gaul, would be observation. Your bunk 'science' is never going to trump that. "...know when to walk away..."


It's not "my" science - it is just science - done by hundreds or thousands or more people all around the world, and repeatable and verifiable.

You claimed to be able to tell the exactly chemical composition of any trail in the sky by sight....I think we are still waiting for you to back that up with something more than your inability to understand science!



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by mileslong54
Funny because there are patents for invisible contrails, powder contrails so same thing your saying, just cause there's patent for contrails doesn't make them real? Works both ways.


Of course the existence of patents doesn't make them real - what makes them real is that they exist and can be shown to exist.

As you say - it works both ways - so how about showing that "chemtrails" exist?



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
It's not "my" science - it is just science - done by hundreds or thousands or more people all around the world, and repeatable and verifiable.

You claimed to be able to tell the exactly chemical composition of any trail in the sky by sight....I think we are still waiting for you to back that up with something more than your inability to understand science!


Well you claim to know the exact chemical composition claiming it a contrail, you have a source of chemical composition that makes it a contrail?



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by mileslong54

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by mileslong54
 


Right - so you think all the references on that wiki page constitute dribble and not facts - such as:

- www.britannica.com...
- What is a contrail and how does it form

I'd be very interested to see how you reach the conclusion that Encyclopaedia Britanica and the NOAA are dribble - go on - enlighten us all with your reasoning.


Yeah posted that a contrail is water vapor already, thanks

No I said your words are dribble not Britannica (BTW-there's an extra 'n' in Britannica
) and the NOAA.


My word were that there are a bunch of references on the wiki page relating to the scientific study and existence of contrails.

So you say there are no such references, or that pointing them out is dribble??



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by mileslong54
Funny because there are patents for invisible contrails, powder contrails so same thing your saying, just cause there's patent for contrails doesn't make them real? Works both ways.


Of course the existence of patents doesn't make them real - what makes them real is that they exist and can be shown to exist.

As you say - it works both ways - so how about showing that "chemtrails" exist?


In the sense that there are patents for both chemtails and contrails, they both exist, but since you choose to believe what is patented is not used then, they both don't exist based on what you believe about patents.
edit on 26-1-2012 by mileslong54 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by mileslong54

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
It's not "my" science - it is just science - done by hundreds or thousands or more people all around the world, and repeatable and verifiable.

You claimed to be able to tell the exactly chemical composition of any trail in the sky by sight....I think we are still waiting for you to back that up with something more than your inability to understand science!


Well you claim to know the exact chemical composition claiming it a contrail, you have a source of chemical composition that makes it a contrail?



I have consistently maintained that if it looks like a contrail, behaves like a contrail and is generated like a contrail then it is probably a contrail.

I have seen various claims that some things that meet this criteria are made up of something else - but to date I have not sen any verifiable evidence to support such claims, so I wonder why the peole making such claims do not provide such evidence that they say they have.

If you have credible evidence that these trails are not H2O then I think you should make it public - indeed lay a complaint with various authorities about improper use of aircraft, illegal air pollution or anything else

I have never claimed to be able to determine the exact chemical makeup of any given trail - and I would be most concerned if they were shown to be anything other than the contrails that they look like.

The chemical make up of a contrail is H2O as documented by the sources that you have accepted -

www.britannica.com...
www.wrh.noaa.gov...



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mileslong54

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by mileslong54
Funny because there are patents for invisible contrails, powder contrails so same thing your saying, just cause there's patent for contrails doesn't make them real? Works both ways.


Of course the existence of patents doesn't make them real - what makes them real is that they exist and can be shown to exist.

As you say - it works both ways - so how about showing that "chemtrails" exist?


In the sense that there are patents for both chemtails and contrails, they both exist, but since you choose to believe what is patented is not used then, they both don't exist


Where did I ever say that something that is patented is not used?

I said that a patent is not evidence that something is being used.

Do you need to have that explained to you in more detail?



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
So - Miles, after all this - do you actually have any verifiable evidence that these trails are not contrails, or not??



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
The chemical make up of a contrail is H2O as documented by the sources that you have accepted -


This is correct
, now what does water do in the air, evaporate or if dense enough falls to the ground. So why is there a white lines in the air for hours when most contrails (white lines in the sky) disappear shortly after leaving the plane. All the lines are disappearing today and not lingering, same temperature. If it looks like a contrail, it should disappear and not grow and linger for hours.

If it looks like a chicken, must be a chicken
edit on 26-1-2012 by mileslong54 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by mileslong54

In the sense that there are patents for both chemtails and contrails, they both exist, but since you choose to believe what is patented is not used then, they both don't exist based on what you believe about patents


You are being obtuse. Just because the existence of a patent is not proof something exists, it is a bizarre leap to then conclude that it must be proof it does not. What kind of simplistic reasoning is at work here?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join