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.

 

Chemtrail Tanker Air Show For The Skeptics

page: 20
52
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 




Why are you hiding the evidence??


Look up, my feathered friend. Or...if it's too difficult to move away from the monitor, review the OP.

I look up I see cloud, sky, rain, and sometimes contrails (not today tho - too much cloud and rain
)

You specifically said you had unclassified evidence from the navy among other places:


Originally posted by luxordelphi

All open source, publicly available, not classified or de-classified, from, primarily, the Navy. The information readily, if obscurely, available to the obsessive and persistent researcher.
- www.abovetopsecret.com...

There is nothing in the OP from the navy - so what is this evidence you claim to have?
edit on 14-7-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   
I've already posted some quotes from these papers. In this post

These two links below contain enough info to understand that it is possible for a very small fleet of aircraft to accomplish these experiments. They also show a few different methods how it can be done.

For all the people who keep denying it and before you keep on asking the same old questions..... READ THE LINKS

Geoengineering Cost Analysis

Geoengineering - Aerosol Discussion



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by IpsissimusMagus
 


It has never been in doubt that it is possible for aircraft to carry out experiments.

Got any evidence that they have been doing it (not proposing or discussing), worldwide, from airliners, for the last 15 years or thereabouts??



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by IpsissimusMagus
I've already posted some quotes from these papers. In this post

These two links below contain enough info to understand that it is possible for a very small fleet of aircraft to accomplish these experiments. They also show a few different methods how it can be done.

For all the people who keep denying it and before you keep on asking the same old questions..... READ THE LINKS

Geoengineering Cost Analysis

Geoengineering - Aerosol Discussion


The cost analysis is a predictive thing, not an account of what is being spent. This shows what they think it would take in terms of materials and costs. That is proof that it has been discussed and researched, but that doesnt mean that the contrails you are seeing right now are chemtrails.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by flyswatter
 




Oh, and if you can point out these publicly available and unclassified documents that are primarily from the Navy that support your argument, I'd love to read them. As I've stated before, my job is to help babysit their computer network, so it might be a bit more interesting to me than some.


Your interests, compadre, are not mine. But since we are sharing: I enjoy tree-hugging, saving whales and lobbying for the Prebbles Meadow Jumping Mouse.


So you are incapable of producing anything that was asked for, gotcha.

It's ok, really. You aren't required to show anything. Of course, nobody here is required to think you're worth paying any more attention to, either. So go along your merry way until you can actually contribute something worth more than a used tissue or an empty tube of Preparation H.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by IpsissimusMagus
 


It has never been in doubt that it is possible for aircraft to carry out experiments.

Got any evidence that they have been doing it (not proposing or discussing), worldwide, from airliners, for the last 15 years or thereabouts??


By the number of people saying things like "NEVER" and "IMPOSSIBLE" I would say that it has been in doubt.

The evidence is everywhere. Photos, videos, eye witness accounts, tests of water samples, .....etc.

If you choose to ignore every single piece of evidence you have been given for the past two years it's obvious you're not interested in evidence at all. You can keep living in your bubble of denial if it makes you feel better.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 





The cost analysis is a predictive thing, not an account of what is being spent. This shows what they think it would take in terms of materials and costs. That is proof that it has been discussed and researched, but that doesnt mean that the contrails you are seeing right now are chemtrails.


I never said it was anything other than what it says it is. A cost analysis report.

That was in response to people saying that the amount of material needed would be too much for a plane to carry.

Like this quote below


reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Do you have any idea of the amount of liquid that would be required to produce even a very, very small cloud? The contrails you see in the air that stretch for miles would require 100x more liquid than any known aircraft can possibly carry, let alone disperse.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by IpsissimusMagus
 


Why would you test water for something so specific as contrails?

Your lot need to get a plane up there and take samples in situ.

It's the only way to prove what you believe exists, everything else is posturing.


edit on 14/7/12 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


How do you propose that someone go about doing that?

It's a lot easier said than done. What is the pilot supposed to put down as their flight plan?

"Well we're just going to fly around aimlessly until we see some other plane making a persistent contrail then we plan to go behind that plane and take samples."

I doubt that kind of flight plan will get approved.

Since it was your suggestion. How about you provide a viable way to accomplish it.

MmmmmmKay



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by IpsissimusMagus
 

Since "chemtrails" last for hours why would it be so difficult to fly through a few and take samples?

Oh, wait. It's been done. Just not by anyone who believes they are "chemtrails". Strange, all it would take is a single "chemtrail" to prove once and for all that they are "spraying". No one seems to want to make the effort.
www.patarnott.com...
www.atmos-chem-phys.net...
archive.org...
edit on 7/15/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by IpsissimusMagus
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


How do you propose that someone go about doing that?

It's a lot easier said than done. What is the pilot supposed to put down as their flight plan?

"Well we're just going to fly around aimlessly until we see some other plane making a persistent contrail then we plan to go behind that plane and take samples."

I doubt that kind of flight plan will get approved.

Since it was your suggestion. How about you provide a viable way to accomplish it.

MmmmmmKay


That is quite easy- just hire one of several planes designed for atmospheric testing available for hire- such as:

www.weathermodification.com...

www.weathermodification.com...

Literally 100s of persistent contrails have been sampled- in situ- over the last 60yrs. I am sure a plan can be devised to sample some more.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by IpsissimusMagus

The evidence is everywhere. Photos, videos, eye witness accounts, tests of water samples, .....etc.


Actually....no.

photos of persistent contrails are NOT evidence of "chemtrails".

Videos of persistent contrails are NOT evidence of "chemtrails".

eyewitness accounts of people seeing persistent contrails and believing they are "chemtrails" is NOT evidence of "chemtrails".

tests of water- which reveal normal levels of barium and aluminum- both naturally occurring and elements that would be expected to be found in water- are NOT evidence of "chemtrails"..

people misconstruing the aforementioned and believing it is evidence of "chemtrails" is NOT, in fact, evidence of "chemtrails"

Can you present ANYTHING that could be considered legitimate evidence???

Anything??



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by IpsissimusMagus

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by IpsissimusMagus
 


It has never been in doubt that it is possible for aircraft to carry out experiments.

Got any evidence that they have been doing it (not proposing or discussing), worldwide, from airliners, for the last 15 years or thereabouts??


By the number of people saying things like "NEVER" and "IMPOSSIBLE" I would say that it has been in doubt.


I think you are talking about 2 quite different things and getting them confused.

The ability to "spray stuff" from aircraft has existed since at least he 19200's - if not earlier - so that has never been in doubt.

And it is also not in doubt that "stuff" does get "sprayed" from aircraft for firefighting, agricultural spraying, pest control, cloud seeding and some other activities that are not secret and not done from airliners.

What her is no evidence whatsoever for...not 1 single verifiable piece....EVER....is the supposed chemtrailing that is some form of secret programme for spraying something unknown from airliners at high altitude.


The evidence is everywhere. Photos, videos, eye witness accounts, tests of water samples, .....etc.[/quoe]

And that evidence is exceedingly poor - all the photos, videos look exactly like contrails.

All hte ests of water show perfectly normal levels of everything - as do blood tests, and tests of soil


If you choose to ignore every single piece of evidence you have been given for the past two years it's obvious you're not interested in evidence at all. You can keep living in your bubble of denial if it makes you feel better.


I do not believe I have ignored any evidence - exactly the opposite - whenever possible I examine the evidence to see what it ACTUALLY says - and invariably, in every single case, it says "this evidence says nothing at all about the existence of chemtrails". It says "these people have tested soil and claim to have tested water", it says "these people claim to have high levels of barium in their blood but the levels are actually quite normal"

It also says that hte people saying that this evidence "proves" the existence of chemtrails have a serious problem - because clearly they are not actually evaluating their "Evidence" at all - they do not actually understand what it says!

Either that or they are being dishonest.

I put it to you that in fact it is YOU who ignores the best evidence - the evidence that all the tests show nothing unusual, that all the videos and photos show trails that look exactly like contrails.

That is REAL evidence - it is provable, repeatable and credible.

Saying otherwise gives lie to your claims to be interested in the truth.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by IpsissimusMagus
 


Among the other links already supplied, there is also this Gulfstream aircraft that is readily available to be rented fully equipped with all the appropriate testing equipment...


Requests for access to research flight hours begin with the submission of an Initial Request for Aircraft Support (Word (35kb), PDF (30kb)) to the manager of the facility. Based on information provided on this form, a DOE-empowered advisory panel recommends to DOE an award of flight hours for the proposed use. Then the user completes a more detailed Research Aircraft Deployment Document (RADD: Word (180kb), PDF (85kb)) in coordination with the RAF manager. RAF users not associated with the DOE Atmospheric Science Program will need to work with the RAF manager on an estimate of the cost of offsite aircraft logistics such as 1) landing fees, 2) hangar rental, 3) ground support facilities, and 4) labor and expenses for a PNNL flight crew of two pilots and two scientific support personnel. During the preparation of RADD, schedules are confirmed and safety and environmental compliance requirements are addressed.

The RAF does not cover the cost of engineering studies and airframe modifications needed for custom installation of project-specific equipment and instrumentation. Such costs must be budgeted separately through a contract with PNNL or Battelle. When requested, RAF staff will assist users in estimating these costs.
Link



Gulfstream-1 Research Aircraft

The G-1 is a large twin turboprop with performance characteristics of contemporary production aircraft. It is capable of measurements to altitudes approaching 30,000 feet over ranges of 1500 nautical miles, and can be operated at speeds that enable both relatively slow sampling and rapid deployment to field sites throughout the world. The aircraft is configured for versatile research applications. It accommodates a variety of external probes for aerosol, radiation, and turbulence measurements and internal sampling systems for a wide range of measurements. The G-1 has sufficient cabin volume, electrical power and payload capabilities, and flight characteristics to accommodate a variety of instrument systems and experimental equipment configurations. Internal instrumentation is mounted in removable racks to enable rapid reconfiguration as necessary. Data from most systems are acquired on a central computer that is tailored to airborne research data acquisition. In addition to acquiring the various analog and digital input signals, it can be configured to communicate with and/or control other systems onboard, and to provide time synchronization to other computers.
Link


So the next problem is finance..

Oh what's that? Michael J. Murphy spent $50,000 on a "documentary" and is spending more on another right now...

Hmmm



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Those are all great ways to take air samples. But like I said before. The flight has to be pre-scheduled and a flight plan needs to be submitted.

There is no way to coordinate all of that within the time frame of when a suspicious persistent contrail is first spotted.

You can't just call up a test plane from where ever and say OK guys be ready in 30 minutes. I want to go test this contrail.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 02:33 AM
link   
I can see spraying I don't know how you debunkers cannot see it ?
Its a shame this video has a porn film type sound track and the spray looks like a man doing the business



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by IpsissimusMagus
 

A "suspicious persistent contrail" as opposed to a normal persistent contrail.

So you have no evidence that "chemtrails" are any thing other than persistent contrails and no way of acquiring that evidence.
edit on 7/15/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I have plenty of evidence.

The fact that you all want to ignore it is your problem.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 05:45 AM
link   
reply to post by IpsissimusMagus
 


You can do it from the ground using LIDAR - same way we often study contrails today and, indeed, determine the extent of volcanic ash clouds even when they are not visible to the naked eye.

Which reminds me, has anyone ever come up with even a half-baked theory as to why so-called chemtrails should be visible from the ground, unless they are comprised of ice crystals?



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join