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.

 

I am slightly confused. Looking for Info

page: 9
14
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by ProudBird

The SRM concepts are being studied, this is true....but, so far as an intellectual exercise, or a computer-based modelling structure, to ascertain viability.




There you go again, where is the proof that none of this has been tested,
or carried out?


Again with the proving of negatives??

IMO resorting to argument from ignorance shows that you have no evidence yourself to prove your own case - you think you merely have to make a statement and everyone else has to disprove it!

Where is the evidence (not even "proof") that it IS??

the EVIDENCE that it is not being carried out is precisely the research papers, the experiments, the computer models - none of them reference anything being actually carried out.

The EVIDENCE for nothing being carried out is also the lack of any actual evidence that it IS happening - this is called evidence of absence - if these tests were being carried out then there is an expectation that the results would be documented, that there would be test aircraft or facilities to be seen, that there would be people actually able to give real testimony that it was happening.




posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Oh, my idea that some airlines geoengineering budget did not come from that
report. That fact came from a letter to the editor of The Financial Times.
Really?


I must have been confused when you said this:

I said that some airlines do.
I quoted from the Final Report from Aurora.



Yeah. The letter. Strange that no evidence for the claim was provided.
Strange that no followup was done on such a extraordinary claim in a lettter to the editor. Did I miss the part in the letter where he talks about airlines having a budget?


edit on 2/28/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by guavas
 


thank you for the link. its only up to the reader to determine legitimacy. if it published its published, because one name is less popular than the next, doest mean the less cant hold some truth...or more?



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





That's a bicorn.


OK, fair enough. I apologize for getting off topic.

But much of mythology is based on actual observation. No matter how misguided or misinformed it may be.

I think that ancient cultures told stories about mythical creatures based on fossil records or bones of extinct animals. They had no way to determine if the bones were from one animal or many. So they did the best interpretation of what they had at the time.

Similar to what happens with determining the difference between chemtrails and contrails. People are doing the best they can at describing what they see. People are seeing things that appear abnormal. The only way to describe it is to create a new name or label for the observation. Hence the name "chemtrail".

Persistent spreading jet contrails is a new term. A term created by climatologists and NASA scientists to describe a new phenomenon. Yes persistent contrails existed in the past. Persistent spreading jet contrails did not exist in the manner we see them today.

I do not accept the idea of increased air traffic as a valid explanation for the existence and increase in this new phenomenon.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by Phage
 


Oh, my idea that some airlines geoengineering budget did not come from that
report. That fact came from a letter to the editor of The Financial Times.

Here for instance, a larger airline that has been advising into the initiative for
over a decade, according to the owner.


Throughout the continental US, dozens of tanker and other aircraft are daily applying thousands of gallons of aerosol nano-particulates that serve several objectives, including the purported ability to reflect UV radiation. Similar operations are being conducted in Canada and parts of Europe source


Matthew Andersson, of Indigo Airlines
Founder, Aviation veteran and University of
Chicago graduate.
en.wikipedia.org...





good call. i have seen that information before, thanks for the link



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdRock69
 


Persistent spreading jet contrails is a new term.

How new?

Here's an article about it from 1970.

The spreading out of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent conditions exist from 25,000 to 40,000ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet.

journals.ametsoc.org...



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Did I miss the part in the letter where he talks about airlines having a budget?


your kidding right?

How would you forsee an airline advising into an initiative for over a
decade without a budget?



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Something I still don't understand about these "contrails" is why I can watch a plane turn off the contrail behind it at will, and even turn it back on. I've been told it has to do with atmospheric pressure (could be wrong) and the fact that different areas in the sky have different pressures, but that idea kinda deflates when you take into fact that in the same EXACT area I can watch another plane fly through with a contrail trailing behind it. I've also noticed I can tell when it's going to rain just by watching and taking into count how many planes I saw that day....but I guess tht's just coincidence.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 

Ah. So you assume that he's talking about commercial airlines.
No. You started talking about budgets and when cornered you changed the subject.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Nobama
 


but that idea kinda deflates when you take into fact that in the same EXACT area I can watch another plane fly through with a contrail trailing behind it.

Planes fly at different altitudes. At different altitudes conditions are different.


I've also noticed I can tell when it's going to rain just by watching and taking into count how many planes I saw that day....but I guess tht's just coincidence.

It is the changing weather which causes the appearance of contrails, not vice versa.

edit on 2/28/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Nobama
 


oh man fully agree. if anyone could tell me how to upload videos...i have some where i record one day the lines and them being made, and making a prediction for the weather...then next morning i recorded the sky and follow up on my predictions. i am quite accurate. the lines come so often over central indianapolis that i have recording of predictions i made of what days the lines would come, and i was right more often than not. this is the a main reason for my initial research into the topic



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by JAsay1LOVE
 


I get where you are at. I started looking into this around 2005 when I happened upon Rense. After looking into this particular conspiracy, I kept finding scientific answers to the questions I had. I was in the Air force and I worked on planes. I know a bit about aviation and more importantly the back end of it. So when I started asking the questions like who fixes the chemtrail equipment? and who loads the chemicals? and what type of planes are involved? I kept seeing that there was very little chance of a large conspiracy being hidden. there could be a very small group, but then it would be hard to have the claims of as you say, checkerboard skies being chemtrails.

I also recall asking questions about why persistent contrails existed back in 1991, which as the common theory is that this all started in 1996.

I am not saying they cannot exist, I am thinking that most of what people see is just contrails.
I must be jaded, but it irritates me to no end to have someone look at a picture of contrails and they state that they are absolutely chemtrails.

Even if they do exist, I don't see how anyone can determine the chemical composition of a cloud by sight.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


that does click with me as i have often seen planes leave a smaller, more white and full, and far less lasting trail...but many times i see them they are much lower than the bigger lines in question, which are def a lot higher up.

could you explain though, or point me in the right direction...

many times when i see the thick long lines forming, they begin as solid, more thin, lines; however, as time progresses, the lines begin to spread out, and occupy more space. the once thin checkerboard patterns enlarge to thick checkerboards, and then after a day or two, the sky is completely covered in clouds...yet these clouds look more like haze, greyish in color, and sit noticeably lower in the sky. you can see this by looking into the horizon and seeing big white clouds and sun shine above them.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude

Even if they do exist, I don't see how anyone can determine the chemical composition of a cloud by sight.


thats a big barrier in my mind, in term of relating the many theories and facts- to what i am seeing with my eyes. i dont believe there is a connection with sight and visual recognition of the chemical make up. this is why i asked to have peers enlighten me towards reality, for i had become near sighted with blinders on. i have learned a great deal of new information from this thread and its links, and am thankful to continue to learn as much as i can.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


If water vapor is invisible then please explain why the tips of an airplane can leave a water vapor trail? Water vapor is visible due to Water vapor from the engines Contacting saturated and very cold air. Btw my girlfriend is a biology teacher. So therefore you are wrong.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Enemyc0mbatant
reply to post by Phage
 


If water vapor is invisible then please explain why the tips of an airplane can leave a water vapor trail?


they don't - they leave a trail of ice or water in liquid form.

that is what cloud and contrails are - liquid or solid (ice) water. Water in it's vapour form is invisible.

Think about it for a second - the air around you contains water - but you only see it when conditions are right for it to condense out as liquid or ice - all the other water in the atmosphere is invisible.


Water vapor is visible due to Water vapor from the engines Contacting saturated and very cold air. Btw my girlfriend is a biology teacher. So therefore you are wrong.


ROFL.....



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Enemyc0mbatant
 


I'll put it even simpler for you... If you have a piece of ice on a warm day you can visibly see the steam (water vapor) rising from it.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Enemyc0mbatant
 

Water vapor is an invisible gas.


Btw my girlfriend is a biology teacher. So therefore you are wrong.

I had pizza for lunch. Therefore I am right.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Enemyc0mbatant
reply to post by Phage
 


If water vapor is invisible then please explain why the tips of an airplane can leave a water vapor trail?


they don't - they leave a trail of ice or water in liquid form.

that is what cloud and contrails are - liquid or solid (ice) water. Water in it's vapour form is invisible.

Think about it for a second - the air around you contains water - but you only see it when conditions are right for it to condense out as liquid or ice - all the other water in the atmosphere is invisible.


I'll tell you what you can be right all you want in your little fantasy world...

Water vapor is visible due to Water vapor from the engines Contacting saturated and very cold air. Btw my girlfriend is a biology teacher. So therefore you are wrong.


ROFL.....


What are you rolling about? You just said it yourself that it is visible. You see it then it quickly evaporates. I don't need a biology teacher to tell me this.
edit on 28-2-2012 by Enemyc0mbatant because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdRock69

Persistent spreading jet contrails is a new term. A term created by climatologists and NASA scientists to describe a new phenomenon. Yes persistent contrails existed in the past. Persistent spreading jet contrails did not exist in the manner we see them today.

I do not accept the idea of increased air traffic as a valid explanation for the existence and increase in this new phenomenon.


I have empirical evidence (seen with my own eyes) that persistent JET contrails were just as visible in the early 1970s as they were in the 1990s when the alleged "spraying" started,and are the same today in their behaviour as they were 40 years ago.Not only did they persist just as long in the '70s,they also spread out as much as they do today,again all see with my own eyes
.
The difference between say the 70s and now is from memory a tripling in the number of commercial airliners in service and a change from small low bypass ratio jet engines to high bypass ratio,meaning they process a lot more air and of course more water vapour so thicker contrails.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join