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.

 

Geoengineering - caught in the act?

page: 17
121
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


I posted the weather data using the data from the correct time when PB pointed out my initial time mistake, in the format the website said to, which would get the plains around 30k feet, phage presented the data for other levels against what they suggested, and none of them show anything but black... no contrails conditions.

No.
What was suggested was using altitudes between 200mb and 250mb. 200mb is about 39,000 feet, not 30,000 feet. The forecast (it is not real time) data for 250mb (about 35,000 feet) shows that contrail conditions were moving into the area. Do think it impossible that the forecast may have been an hour or two off?

The weather map and satellite images show that a front was approaching and water vapor levels were increasing. Conditions were ripe for contrail formation.

www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by imalitehaus
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Op is right. You are wrong. I've been watching you lie and finagle to move threads into foreign territory as long as I've been reading ATS. I also wonder how many accounts you have here to get any stars at all. I'm sick of it.

Personal Testimonial is the backbone of civilized society. Frankly, you have no right to demand ANY "proof". I do not believe you, never liked you, and I definitely will not be back to this thread, even though the OP made an outstanding thread and deserves recognition for it.

You "doth protest too much", Bird. It's the most obvious quality you have of being disingenuous. That's all the "proof" I need. (I'm not the only one who feels this way, you know). Good bye.


This saddens me, and is all to often the case.

Trolls descend on a thread and drive of anyone who would be interesting in posting on topic.

I've gotten fairly thick skin over the years, but even I grow disgusted and don't want to post in my own threads due to trollery.

My experience was real. I documented it the best I can... especially since I wasn't setting out to capture this in the first place. I was making pictures like these:














edit on 13-3-2012 by pianopraze because: typo



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


Thank you for the welcome! I did visit the links you presented, great information.

I tend to think 'everything's connnected, somewhere' and I did a research paper on fluoride back in the late 1980's (class assignment, wanted to know what it was and why we were drinking it). Fluoride is its own interesting story, and most folks now recognize it was a byproduct of the aluminum industry, expensive to dispose of. The political / money connections when it was determined 'healthy' and forced into municipal water systems is only now being undone, city by city (Fairbanks, Alaska, is one town). One example of a fluoride incident occurred in Donora, Pennsylvania, and highlighted the destructive nature on humans and plants. What struck me was the similar plant damage portrayed in "What the World Are They Spraying?" and the aluminum connection.

That aluminum is again connected to questionable misuse does not surprise me, but it does raise questions. Why? is always the first question, and there may be several answers. I doubt "It's good for you" any more than "fluoride is good for you". The history behind that is a good comparison to current events: money, politics and power.

I appreciate your links! There is a lot of topics and thinking on this site, which renews my hope for humanity.


ek



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ekats
reply to post by pianopraze
 


Thank you for the welcome! I did visit the links you presented, great information.

I tend to think 'everything's connnected, somewhere' and I did a research paper on fluoride back in the late 1980's (class assignment, wanted to know what it was and why we were drinking it). Fluoride is its own interesting story, and most folks now recognize it was a byproduct of the aluminum industry, expensive to dispose of. The political / money connections when it was determined 'healthy' and forced into municipal water systems is only now being undone, city by city (Fairbanks, Alaska, is one town). One example of a fluoride incident occurred in Donora, Pennsylvania, and highlighted the destructive nature on humans and plants. What struck me was the similar plant damage portrayed in "What the World Are They Spraying?" and the aluminum connection.

That aluminum is again connected to questionable misuse does not surprise me, but it does raise questions. Why? is always the first question, and there may be several answers. I doubt "It's good for you" any more than "fluoride is good for you". The history behind that is a good comparison to current events: money, politics and power.

I appreciate your links! There is a lot of topics and thinking on this site, which renews my hope for humanity.


ek


Thank you for sharing. It does indeed illustrate many of the things I've been saying here.

It makes me happy to see people like you and others in this thread are looking through the spin.

We're making an influence on ATS. The discussion is changing from dismissal and contempt to, maybe there is something here after all.

There will always be deniers, but history - like your example - shows a consistent pattern of them doing things like this.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by pianopraze
reply to post by Curious and Concerned
 


I watched them spread out from the long contrails. Your suggesting this did not happen is tantamount to calling me a liar... no?

Not necessarily. I don't know you personally, so I cannot tell you if you're a liar or not. Maybe you're memories were wrong, maybe you were on drugs or hallucinating, or maybe your prior beliefs on this topic led you to misinterpret what you saw. Maybe you saw something, maybe you didn't. I don't know, and I'm not claiming that any of these 'maybes' are true. But it was you yourself in the OP who said "But look at the evidence for yourself". So I did. You have repeatedly claimed to have evidence so that is what I am looking at.



Even in phage's worst case scenario, at the time i took those photos it was all black in the direction I was shooting... no evidence for contrails. I posted the weather data using the data from the correct time when PB pointed out my initial time mistake, in the format the website said to, which would get the plains around 30k feet, phage presented the data for other levels against what they suggested, and none of them show anything but black... no contrails conditions.

You have accused me of being in denial (albeit with nothing to back it up), so now it's my turn. You're in denial. I can't understand why you continue to deny that the conditions were conducive to contrails when you have clearly taken pictures of contrails (facepalm!). You're relying on a model applet which shows conditions were conducive to contrail formation right beside where you were, then showing favourable conditions moving in soon after. From your applet source:

Because they are based on a sparse number of actual in situ (balloon sonde) data taken every 12 hours and satellite measurements, the RUC data are not a perfect representation of the various meteorological parameters, especially water vapor.

The fact that you saw contrail formation within a couple hours of the model predicting it is pretty accurate given that it only takes balloon measurements every 12 hours and only has a resolution of 40km. The observations of contrails match the model pretty well. Also, there was clearly a front moving over your area, and it it is highly likely that this would be preceded by cirrus formation, as well as contrail conducive conditions, as the model showed. You call others trolls yet continue with this "trollery" yourself. You have been downright rude to people who have pointed this out so you have no right to moan about others. Sorry to be blunt but your denial and rudeness has rendered it necessary.



look at 9:08 above the moon to the right... you can right click on the photo and open it in a new tab to see a bigger picture, I uploaded them higher resolution than will fit on the screen... you can see a short contrail from the flight on flight on the radar at the same time you can see several other newly formed long contrails over top the contrails already spreading out.

What you can see is a few contrails over (or under) cirrus formation. Remember I am only looking at the evidence, as you suggested in your OP.


All those long spreading contrails are from flights that are not on the radar... if you take the time you will see

I have seen all the evidence you presented, and there is no evidence to suggest that the vast cirrus formation was formed by a fleet of aircraft, as you have suggested. The fact that it formed prior to an approaching front is evidence that contrail and cirrus formation was a likely possibility.

Maybe there was a secret fleet of aircraft making the vast cirrus formation but you have not posted evidence of it, as you keep implying. It's a shame that you have not photographed/posted any pics for the 8 minutes that you claim there were countless planes, as you might have actually had the evidence you claim to have.

But even if they had flown, in 8 minutes an airliner cruising at 250 km/h would have travelled approximately 113 km, putting Eastbound and Southbound aircraft beyond your radar image anyway. Therefore your claim that they're not on the radar is still invalid, regardless or whether there were mass aircraft in that time or not. You see, this is looking objectively and logically at the evidence.

If you want to claim that we should believe your word, then that's fine, I don't have a problem with that. But don't claim that you have evidence for your claims when you do not. It's as simple as that.

PS. Nice pics, by the way. I can appreciate that regardless of our differences.
edit on 13/3/12 by Curious and Concerned because: proceeded/preceded wrong prefix damn it



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   
I trust that the OP is not lying when they said they watched the planes making those chemtrails.

So I also trust the picture where they made lines on it to show how many.

Caught in the act indeed.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Curious and Concerned
 


Very well put.

reply to post by SteelToe
 


AFAIK no-one as suggested the OP didn't see the trails being made, and no-one actually questioned the nubmer much either.

The questions are how does the the evidence show that they are "chemtrails", or a deliberate programme or something else nefarious.

So how do you know they are chemtrails in the first place?
edit on 13-3-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

So how do you know they are chemtrails in the first place?


How do you know they are not chemtrails?

By the data provided in the OP, contrails should not be present.

So it's actually a fair assumption that these are indeed chemtrails.

The OP showed that the conditions were not present for contrails.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by SteelToe
 


The OP showed that the conditions were not present for contrails.


The OP did not show that conditions were not present for contrails. The OP did not use valid data.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Prefrontal conditions are prime for contrail formation. The increase in atmospheric water vapor at the location and time is clear.


edit on 3/13/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteelToe
By the data provided in the OP, contrails should not be present.

No, the data didn't show that contrails were not possible. The reasons have been pointed out many times in this thread. The OP author is relying on a model being a perfect representation of the conditions even though the makers of the model have stated that this is not the case (see my post above). The model is actually fairly accurate, given the inaccuracies in the model, by predicting the start of contrail information within a few hours.

Regardless of what the model says, contrails were seen and photographed. Of course no one can say that they are 100% not "chemtrails", but there has been no evidence presented to suggest that they are. There is however, plenty of evidence that supports normal contrail formation, as well as cirrus formation ahead of the approaching front.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteelToe

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

So how do you know they are chemtrails in the first place?


How do you know they are not chemtrails?



We know that contrails exist, and these were generated, looked and otherwise behaved in a manner which is consistent with what we know about contrails.

there is nothing else known to exist that has these same characteristics.

therefore it is reasonable to conclude that they are contrails, and there is no reason to conclude that they are anything else.

the rest of your inaccuracies have been addressed already.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


This is a truly marvelous thread. Your pictures are killer and it's so easy to see in the progression how it all happens - how a crystal sky becomes filled with fake clouds.

Here's a little link I found a while back that gives some tips on verifying chemtrails. What's called a persistent contrail is a very rare occurrence and requires just perfect conditions so most of the time, when we see jets leaving trails, we could safely assume that they are chemtrails.

Chemtrails or Contrails?


We can conclude from this that there are two conditions that must exist for contrails to linger over long distances: (1)The air must be below freezing, and (2) it must be humid.


Moisture content in the atmosphere decreases as altitude increases. Air at high altitudes is called thin because it exists under much less pressure than at low altitudes. It cannot hold as much moisture. Higher altitudes are dryer than lower altitudes.


Cirrus clouds are the exception, but they have unique characteristics that set them apart from aircraft trails.


Cirrus clouds typically point in the direction of wind movement at their altitude, usually from west to east. Aircraft trails point in many directions in the same sky.


Cirrus clouds typically are thin and semi-transparent, whereas most chemtrails are thick and milky.


Cirrus clouds typically are feathery and fluffy from their inception – that’s how they start – whereas what we see today originates from aircraft as billowing plumes.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 

You left out the fact that both contrails and cirrus clouds are precursors of weather systems because of the cold moist air which precedes them at high altitudes.

edit on 3/14/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by pianopraze
 


This is a truly marvelous thread. Your pictures are killer and it's so easy to see in the progression how it all happens - how a crystal sky becomes filled with fake clouds.


This subject is much like 911 (sorry to mention - been hanging out in BTS' new thread all day)... you will have people sticking to the OS no matter how much evidence to the contrary or how unlogical the OS.

I don't see how, but the propagandist simply deny everything and people believe them.

A lie much repeated by authorities is believed by some over the clear evidence of their eyes, because the "authorities said so" even when there is clear evidence to the contrary.

I saw these planes fly over, I saw them make the spreading persistent contrails. I have proven they are not on the radar. I photographed both those making and those not making the contrails. The conditions were not present for contrails. Simple logic from the evidence shows the truth.

I even photographed the plane making short contrails AFTER i photographed the planes make the long contrails. You can see both the long and short contrails in the same photo at 9:08.

Total logic fail on the deniers part.

But you have those who through much repetition would have you believe otherwise.

AT 8-9pm EST there was no conditions for contrails. Phage even manipulated the data to different hight than NOAA said to use very clearly on that page (quote in op), and used later time periods in his loops... and its clear black in the direction I was shooting... no conditions for contrails. Yes conditions formed later... but not at the time I was shooting.

Here is phage's data, notice the times... his first one an hour after I took my last photo. His second one is 4 hours later! Yet even in the hour after, the direction I as shooting was black... no conditions for contrails

It was not until 4 hours after I took my last photo that conditions for contrails came into the area of the sky I was photographing.

PB wants to say the planes were 10 minutes delayed... yet in my 9:08 photo you can see the plane in my photo, and on the radar... just exactly where it says it should be when i immediately went in and took a screen shot of the radar. I have exact proof where that plane was visually from the photo, and on radar from the screen shot.

The long contrail making planes were not on that radar.

Total debunk fail.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 04:19 AM
link   
I would like to add a little statement made by former Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen

Here's an interesting quote where he admits that "others" are engaging in "eco-terrorism" like climate change and earthquakes devices.

DoD News Briefing: Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen

www.defense.gov...

There are some reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least.

Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops.

Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves.

So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that's why this is so important.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 




both contrails and cirrus clouds are precursors of weather systems


You know, that sounds really convenient.
Could it be that they're using the laws of nature to disguise mal intent? Hmmm?



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 


If that was the case, why not spray during heavy cloud?

...Or spray in such a way that it's invisible?

Oh that's right, gotta hide in plain sight, that's the logical thing to do of course.


edit on 14/3/12 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Afterthought
 


If that was the case, why not spray during heavy cloud?


They may be.



...Or spray in such a way that it's invisible?


They may be or this technology is in its developmental stages.



Oh that's right, gotta hide in plain sight, that's the logical thing to do of course.


Now you're catching on!



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


Here is phage's data, notice the times... his first one an hour after I took my last photo. His second one is 4 hours later! Yet even in the hour after, the direction I as shooting was black... no conditions for contrails


As has been repeatedly pointed out, the data is a computer model. It is not real time. I think a forecast model which is 3 or 4 hours off is not too bad.

The horizontal resolution has been degraded to 1° latitude x 1° longitude to facilitate the computations. Because they are based on a sparse number of actual in situ (balloon sonde) data taken every 12 hours and satellite measurements, the RUC data are not a perfect representation of the various meteorological parameters, especially water vapor.
source


This is not a computer model. This is real time. This shows the increase in water vapor at exactly the time you took your pictures. Note the light band moving into your area, the lighter the more water vapor.


edit on 3/14/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


4 to 5 hours? you got to be kidding me. you would never stand for such an argument if points were reversed. you would demand exact times. so i will also.

the whole USA has more moisture than was over the area i was shooting. the Heaver bands of moisture come in after i was done. again you show times later than i was spring in that loop. i ended at 0 1 0 0 your loop goers later.

the area of contrail formation on the dark maps is obvious on that satellite map. and it is not over the area i was shooting.



new topics

top topics



 
121
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join