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